Yea!!! More spying on US citizens that we haven't known about the past 5 years!
- Thread starter Inclag
- Start date
Congratulations red staters, we are now guilty until proven innocent. Thanks for f*cking it up for the rest of us.
Thats ok, I don't like my privacy anyway. Perhaps the NSA can send someone in to hold my dick when I pee too, that would be greatly appreciated.
^^^^
I'm not volunteering for that job
I'm not volunteering for that job
If you ask nicely, maybe they'll wipe your ass as well. Seems to be about all this administration is good for.Polandspring88 said:
They'd probably screw that up too and get **** all over your bollocks.Transcend said:
I was atcually going to say just that, but didnt bothering editing. HAHA.fluff said:
i'm almost ready to burn this country down and start over.
Well there is a reason the constitutions says the militias are supposed to bear arms to keep the gov't in check. Maybe it's about that time?
Close. But right now there are still too many idiots who would fight for "the flag" instead of what it REALLY stands for.Transcend said:
Sadly, even if we had militias, we've put so much into the military, the militias wouldnt stand a snowballs chance.Transcend said:
...unless some military guys grew some balls and defected, but even still...too many guns, too many drones.
You cant get gay-married in NZ, can you?Changleen said:
Pick up your landline phone and call a friend in a different state and tell him that you wish someone would assasinate Bush. Don't say that you would do it, or that you personally want to be involved, just that it's be good if it happened. Also talk about the NSA and 9/11 how it is all a big lie. Go on you pvssy, do it if you're so free. You won't be commiting any crimes.LordOpie said:
Well I guess congratulations are in order.Changleen said:
Bwaaaaaaaaaahahahha
you got owned like a mobile home, sheep ****er.Changleen said:
The fact I that wouldn't do that has nothing to do with my freedom.Changleen said:
I also wouldn't go into the black neighborhood and start yelling 'nigger'. Or the nazi neighborhood and yelling, "this jew thinks y'all bugger sheep for fun." Or a lacrosse frat party.
Only you should generally be afraid of large pissed off black men, or Nazis with tanks and guns. You shouldn't be afraid of your own government.LordOpie said:
LordOpie said:
or is for the people not against the people.....
I'd rather have a girly govenment than one that's fvcking me over.
I can only wonder what scary crap the government is doing that we don't know about.
In what way is what I said ANYTHING like those examples? The reason you won't do it is because you're afraid of your government.LordOpie said:
As has been observed many times throughout history, a government should be afraid of it's people, not vice versa.
Changleen said:
Okay...let me interject here.
The govt is only made up of people. People who want to please people to get their votes so they can keep their jobs. Sure, there may be some greed for $$$ in there, but by and large, you know, the distinction of holding the office and keeping the power is the big draw. These guys know that doing anything stupid means losing that power...they are afraid, one way or another.
There is no freaking new world order. Not enough people agree on a damned thing. There is no 9/11 conspiracy. What this equals is people doing their jobs, and maybe going a bit too far with it. It will be dealt with, and some people will lose power because of it. Nothing more.
Nobodys is going to gitmo for a bush-with-horns avatar. Chill the **** out.
Might I say, with the utmost respect, that you miss the point entirely.BurlyShirley said:
I am not concerned with the people who wield power but with the power that they wield.
Sure, corruption and stupidity and greed are problems, and we should hang for treason every congressman or executive official who acts with anything but they highest degree of candor and honesty.
HOWEVER, it is the state as an entity, the incentives it produces for people who live under it and the means that it deploys in the course of its work that cause me concern.
Changleen said:
Piss off!
Thee most abuseive govenments have tended to be those with the greatest fear of the people!
Please.... Explain then the greatest of the paranoid/fear of the people type govenments like Mao tse tung's, Stain's and Hitlers then?
Those wankers had a fear of the people and used the postion of power to cursh all dissent as they were scared of the people!
For proper govenment, neither the people nor the govenment should have fear as fear makes for some very very dreadful mistakes.
It'd be nice if I could get a reach-around every once in a while too. I mean, is that so much to ask?DaveW said:I'd rather have a girly govenment than one that's fvcking me over.
Some greed for $$$? Politicians can't get into Washington without millions or billions of dollars (depending on which position one is seeking.) Where do they get that money? It comes from private and corporate interests. Politicians aren't trying to please people, unless by "people" you mean the ones who give them their campaign contributions. That's why we see secret energy policy meetings and the like.BurlyShirley said:
We should try and keep in mind that the goal of the domestic surveillance program is not to kep tabs on the average Joe or Jane, but on the folks who are responsible or planning for attacks here in the States. I fear that some people are blinded by partisian politics and are exercising their right to free speech without really thinking of a good alternative. We shouldn't flatter ourselves by trying to believe that we are the target of a surveilance. How many more will be killed and injured, and how much more damage will be incurred to our economy before we all understand that this is for real, bad people want to kill us, and if we don't circle the wagons to some degree, they easily will......
I don't have any illusions that the NSA is listening to me and my GF's lunch plans. The point is that there are laws in place that would have allowed them to do what they needed. Just because it isn't convenient doesn't mean they can disregard the law. Just because there's no other traffic doesn't mean you can go through a red light.Bawitdaba said:
Here's a good alternative; don't break the law. Don't abridge our civil liberties. How about if Bush doesn't lie to the people that he is supposedly serving?Bawitdaba said:
What are ya worried about? If you're not doing anything wrong then no problems. After all, if you can't trust the government, who can ya trust?Old Man G Funk said:
Excellent post....DaveW said:Piss off!
Thee most abuseive govenments have tended to be those with the greatest fear of the people!
Please.... Explain then the greatest of the paranoid/fear of the people type govenments like Mao tse tung's, Stain's and Hitlers then?
Those wankers had a fear of the people and used the postion of power to cursh all dissent as they were scared of the people!
For proper govenment, neither the people nor the govenment should have fear as fear makes for some very very dreadful mistakes.
Poll: Most Americans Support NSA's Efforts
By Richard Morin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 12, 2006; 7:00 AM
A majority of Americans initially support a controversial National Security Agency program to collect information on telephone calls made in the United States in an effort to identify and investigate potential terrorist threats, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll.
The new survey found that 63 percent of Americans said they found the NSA program to be an acceptable way to investigate terrorism, including 44 percent who strongly endorsed the effort. Another 35 percent said the program was unacceptable, which included 24 percent who strongly objected to it.
A slightly larger majority--66 percent--said they would not be bothered if NSA collected records of personal calls they had made, the poll found.
Underlying those views is the belief that the need to investigate terrorism outweighs privacy concerns. According to the poll, 65 percent of those interviewed said it was more important to investigate potential terrorist threats "even if it intrudes on privacy." Three in 10--31 percent--said it was more important for the federal government not to intrude on personal privacy, even if that limits its ability to investigate possible terrorist threats.
Half--51 percent--approved of the way President Bush was handling privacy matters.
The survey results reflect initial public reaction to the NSA program. Those views that could change or deepen as more details about the effort become known over the next few days.
USA Today disclosed in its Thursday editions the existence of the massive domestic intelligence-gathering program. The effort began soon after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Since then, the agency began collecting call records on tens of millions of personal and business telephone calls made in the United States. Agency personnel reportedly analyze those records to identify suspicious calling patterns but do not listen in on or record individual telephone conversations.
Word of the program sparked immediate criticism on Capitol Hill, where Democrats and Republicans criticized the effort as a threat to privacy and called for congressional inquiries to learn more about the operation. In the survey, big majorities of Republicans and political independents said they found the program to be acceptable while Democrats were split.
President Bush made an unscheduled appearance yesterday before White House reporters to defend his administration's efforts to investigate terrorism and criticize public disclosure of secret intelligence operations. But he did not directly acknowledge the existence of the NSA records-gathering program or answer reporters' questions about it.
By a 56 percent to 42 percent margin, Americans said it was appropriate for the news media to have disclosed the existence of this secret government program.
A total of 502 randomly selected adults were interviewed Thursday night for this survey. Margin of sampling error is five percentage points for the overall results. The practical difficulties of doing a survey in a single night represents another potential source of error.
By Richard Morin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 12, 2006; 7:00 AM
A majority of Americans initially support a controversial National Security Agency program to collect information on telephone calls made in the United States in an effort to identify and investigate potential terrorist threats, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll.
The new survey found that 63 percent of Americans said they found the NSA program to be an acceptable way to investigate terrorism, including 44 percent who strongly endorsed the effort. Another 35 percent said the program was unacceptable, which included 24 percent who strongly objected to it.
A slightly larger majority--66 percent--said they would not be bothered if NSA collected records of personal calls they had made, the poll found.
Underlying those views is the belief that the need to investigate terrorism outweighs privacy concerns. According to the poll, 65 percent of those interviewed said it was more important to investigate potential terrorist threats "even if it intrudes on privacy." Three in 10--31 percent--said it was more important for the federal government not to intrude on personal privacy, even if that limits its ability to investigate possible terrorist threats.
Half--51 percent--approved of the way President Bush was handling privacy matters.
The survey results reflect initial public reaction to the NSA program. Those views that could change or deepen as more details about the effort become known over the next few days.
USA Today disclosed in its Thursday editions the existence of the massive domestic intelligence-gathering program. The effort began soon after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Since then, the agency began collecting call records on tens of millions of personal and business telephone calls made in the United States. Agency personnel reportedly analyze those records to identify suspicious calling patterns but do not listen in on or record individual telephone conversations.
Word of the program sparked immediate criticism on Capitol Hill, where Democrats and Republicans criticized the effort as a threat to privacy and called for congressional inquiries to learn more about the operation. In the survey, big majorities of Republicans and political independents said they found the program to be acceptable while Democrats were split.
President Bush made an unscheduled appearance yesterday before White House reporters to defend his administration's efforts to investigate terrorism and criticize public disclosure of secret intelligence operations. But he did not directly acknowledge the existence of the NSA records-gathering program or answer reporters' questions about it.
By a 56 percent to 42 percent margin, Americans said it was appropriate for the news media to have disclosed the existence of this secret government program.
A total of 502 randomly selected adults were interviewed Thursday night for this survey. Margin of sampling error is five percentage points for the overall results. The practical difficulties of doing a survey in a single night represents another potential source of error.
Baaaaaa....N8 said:
