Feinstein complains about CIA spying on Senate (1 Viewer)

[NCCommish]

I know a lot of people here are going to disagree with me, and I probably shouldn't even post this because it's just going to subject me to abuse but here goes anyhow:

Feinstein is not being a hypocrite here, because what the NSA is doing (purportedly) is far different from what the CIA is doing in this case. The CIA is listening to specific calls without warrant, a clear invasion of privacy. The NSA is collecting mass data for the purpose of running algorithms, for which they are obtaining collective warrants. As I have pointed out several times in the NSA thread, that is not, at least on paper, a violation of privacy, but a necessary tool for national security. There is no contradiction.

1. The Fourth Amendment does not make a distinction between "specific" and "mass", as you are aware.

2. The Fourth Amendment specifically prohibits both searching and seizing.

3. As you know, the NSA is doing far more than simply running algorithms against mass data.

And the NSA/CIA/IRS doesn't use private data for political purposes...

...until it does or until it's found out.

That's the issue causing a lot of objections to the snooping to appear and disappear based on what party controls the white house. Basically half the people objecting don't care if their party's in power. People objected to what Bush was doing in this regard until Obama got elected; then a lot of objectors became defenders or silent, and a lot of defenders became objectors or silent. That pattern will continue as the scope of the snooping continues to expand in the future under republicans and democrats.

The issue's way more important than party. And neither party thinks so.

I run with a lot of Democrats. I don't know one who thinks it's OK because Obama. I have found the disgust to be pretty bipartisan on the ground.

I know plenty of Democrats that are fine with it. Because Obama is using it honorably whereas Bush was using it for evil purposes in their mind.

Those guys are hypocritical jackasses then.

 

[Rayderr]

I know a lot of people here are going to disagree with me, and I probably shouldn't even post this because it's just going to subject me to abuse but here goes anyhow:

Feinstein is not being a hypocrite here, because what the NSA is doing (purportedly) is far different from what the CIA is doing in this case. The CIA is listening to specific calls without warrant, a clear invasion of privacy. The NSA is collecting mass data for the purpose of running algorithms, for which they are obtaining collective warrants. As I have pointed out several times in the NSA thread, that is not, at least on paper, a violation of privacy, but a necessary tool for national security. There is no contradiction.

1. The Fourth Amendment does not make a distinction between "specific" and "mass", as you are aware.

2. The Fourth Amendment specifically prohibits both searching and seizing.

3. As you know, the NSA is doing far more than simply running algorithms against mass data.

And the NSA/CIA/IRS doesn't use private data for political purposes...

...until it does or until it's found out.

That's the issue causing a lot of objections to the snooping to appear and disappear based on what party controls the white house. Basically half the people objecting don't care if their party's in power. People objected to what Bush was doing in this regard until Obama got elected; then a lot of objectors became defenders or silent, and a lot of defenders became objectors or silent. That pattern will continue as the scope of the snooping continues to expand in the future under republicans and democrats.

The issue's way more important than party. And neither party thinks so.

I run with a lot of Democrats. I don't know one who thinks it's OK because Obama. I have found the disgust to be pretty bipartisan on the ground.

I know plenty of Democrats that are fine with it. Because Obama is using it honorably whereas Bush was using it for evil purposes in their mind.

Those guys are hypocritical jackasses then.

That's pretty much a standard description for anyone who blindly follows a political party.

 

[NCCommish]

I know a lot of people here are going to disagree with me, and I probably shouldn't even post this because it's just going to subject me to abuse but here goes anyhow:

Feinstein is not being a hypocrite here, because what the NSA is doing (purportedly) is far different from what the CIA is doing in this case. The CIA is listening to specific calls without warrant, a clear invasion of privacy. The NSA is collecting mass data for the purpose of running algorithms, for which they are obtaining collective warrants. As I have pointed out several times in the NSA thread, that is not, at least on paper, a violation of privacy, but a necessary tool for national security. There is no contradiction.

1. The Fourth Amendment does not make a distinction between "specific" and "mass", as you are aware.

2. The Fourth Amendment specifically prohibits both searching and seizing.

3. As you know, the NSA is doing far more than simply running algorithms against mass data.

And the NSA/CIA/IRS doesn't use private data for political purposes...

...until it does or until it's found out.

That's the issue causing a lot of objections to the snooping to appear and disappear based on what party controls the white house. Basically half the people objecting don't care if their party's in power. People objected to what Bush was doing in this regard until Obama got elected; then a lot of objectors became defenders or silent, and a lot of defenders became objectors or silent. That pattern will continue as the scope of the snooping continues to expand in the future under republicans and democrats.

The issue's way more important than party. And neither party thinks so.

I run with a lot of Democrats. I don't know one who thinks it's OK because Obama. I have found the disgust to be pretty bipartisan on the ground.

I know plenty of Democrats that are fine with it. Because Obama is using it honorably whereas Bush was using it for evil purposes in their mind.

Those guys are hypocritical jackasses then.

That's pretty much a standard description for anyone who blindly follows a political party.

True

 

[GroveDiesel]

I still remember the days when Tim described himself as a libertarian.

 

[StrikeS2k]

I still remember the days when Tim described himself as a libertarian.

Not like anyone believed him, even then.

 

[timschochet]

I still remember the days when Tim described himself as a libertarian.

Free trade, woman's reproductive rights, and open immigration. These used to be the main points of the libertarian movement. They're still my main points.

 

[Sarnoff]

Now make her sign up for Obamacare and see how she reacts

 

[tom22406]

I still remember the days when Tim described himself as a libertarian.

Free trade, woman's reproductive rights, and open immigration. These used to be the main points of the libertarian movement. They're still my main points.

Just did a quick google of those 3 things and I #### you not here is the first entry

Political positions of Hillary Rodham Clinton - Wikipedia, the free .

 

[Slapdash]

I still remember the days when Tim described himself as a libertarian.

Free trade, woman's reproductive rights, and open immigration. These used to be the main points of the libertarian movement. They're still my main points.

The libertarian movement is associated with support of policies that enhance liberty, both economic and social. You may expose some views consistent with it, but you have many other views that are directly opposed to enhancing liberty. Naming supporting the [SIZE=10pt]surveillance[/SIZE] state and aggressive gun control.

 

[GroveDiesel]

I still remember the days when Tim described himself as a libertarian.

Free trade, woman's reproductive rights, and open immigration. These used to be the main points of the libertarian movement. They're still my main points.

Maybe that's your 3 big points, but the Libertarian party has always stood for way more than that.

This is from 20 years ago.

http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/libertarian.html#I11

 

[timschochet]

I still remember the days when Tim described himself as a libertarian.

Free trade, woman's reproductive rights, and open immigration. These used to be the main points of the libertarian movement. They're still my main points.

Maybe that's your 3 big points, but the Libertarian party has always stood for way more than that.This is from 20 years ago.

http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/libertarian.html#I11

That's why I quit the Libertarian Party around 20 years ago, because I could not get behind many of their positions, especially foreign policy, which I deemed to be isolationist. But for a long time after that I continued to call myself a libertarian (small l) until the term was co-opted by extremists.

 

[timschochet]

I still remember the days when Tim described himself as a libertarian.

Free trade, woman's reproductive rights, and open immigration. These used to be the main points of the libertarian movement. They're still my main points.

The libertarian movement is associated with support of policies that enhance liberty, both economic and social. You may expose some views consistent with it, but you have many other views that are directly opposed to enhancing liberty. Naming supporting the surveillance state and aggressive gun control.

I don't regard universal background checks and registration as "aggressive gun control". The fact that some people do speaks to the extremism of their views. Regarding the "surveillance" state, I changed my mind on this after 9/11, but it was never an important issue to me, because I don't have an unreasoning fear of Big Brother.

 

[timschochet]

I still remember the days when Tim described himself as a libertarian.

Free trade, woman's reproductive rights, and open immigration. These used to be the main points of the libertarian movement. They're still my main points.

Just did a quick google of those 3 things and I #### you not here is the first entry

Political positions of Hillary Rodham Clinton - Wikipedia, the free .

And I might vote for her. But I don't support some of her other positions, so we'll see.

 

[The Commish]

We need a "Tim dictionary". I'm not sure there is a word or term that you haven't hijacked and made your own definition for. You pretty much have your own language going on here.

 

[T Bell]

I still remember the days when Tim described himself as a libertarian.

Free trade, woman's reproductive rights, and open immigration. These used to be the main points of the libertarian movement. They're still my main points.

The libertarian movement is associated with support of policies that enhance liberty, both economic and social. You may expose some views consistent with it, but you have many other views that are directly opposed to enhancing liberty. Naming supporting the surveillance state and aggressive gun control.

I don't regard universal background checks and registration as "aggressive gun control". The fact that some people do speaks to the extremism of their views. Regarding the "surveillance" state, I changed my mind on this after 9/11, but it was never an important issue to me, because I don't have an unreasoning fear of Big Brother.

So there are no reasonable concerns here in your mind?

 

[Sarnoff]

There's nothing reasonable in Tim's mind.

 

[fatness]

At the CIA’s insistence, the agency had set up a “stand-alone computer system” for the committee to review 6.2 million pages of documents provided by the CIA in response to a Senate probe of the agency’s interrogation and detention programs. But CIA officials breached the committee’s network in 2010 to remove documents the agency had already turned over, including the “Panetta Review.” That review, conducted by the CIA for then-director Leon Panetta, found “significant CIA wrongdoing,” Feinstein said, and corroborated the still-classified Senate report while contradicting the agency’s statements disputing the report.

The 2010 conflict was resolved, the senator said Tuesday, only for the CIA to break into committee computers again this year, searching a network drive “containing the committee’s own internal work product and communications.” Senate staffers had by then printed the Panetta Review and put it in the committee safe — legally, Feinstein said.

If the White House wishes to repair the damage, it would declassify without further delay the report done by Feinstein’s committee — along with the Panetta Review. If the White House won’t, Feinstein’s panel and others would be justified in holding up CIA funding and nominations and conducting public hearings.

Obama also should remove those people involved in spying on the Senate panel and in harassing Senate staffers. First out should be Robert Eatinger, the CIA’s acting general counsel. Previously, Eatinger had been a lawyer in the unit that conducted the interrogation program at the heart of the Senate’s probe. Eatinger, Feinstein said, filed a “crimes report” with the Justice Department suggesting that congressional staffers had stolen the Panetta Review.

The staffers, Feinstein said, “were provided access to the Panetta Review by the CIA itself. As a result, there is no legitimate reason to allege to the Justice Department that Senate staff may have committed a crime. I view the acting counsel general’s referral as a potential effort to intimidate this staff.” The president might also consider whether he wants to tolerate the imperious behavior of CIA Director John Brennan, who promptly dismissed Feinstein’s allegations Tuesday. Feinstein said that Brennan had previously told her that the CIA would continue snooping on the committee staff.

The Justice Department is investigating the CIA’s actions, but Feinstein said that the CIA had stated at one point that “the removal of the documents was ordered by the White House.” The White House denied the claim. That would be a good matter for a special prosecutor to examine.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-allegations-of-cia-spying-on-the-senate-deserve-investigation/2014/03/11/96105150-a95b-11e3-8d62-419db477a0e6_story.html

 

[timschochet]

I still remember the days when Tim described himself as a libertarian.

Free trade, woman's reproductive rights, and open immigration. These used to be the main points of the libertarian movement. They're still my main points.

The libertarian movement is associated with support of policies that enhance liberty, both economic and social. You may expose some views consistent with it, but you have many other views that are directly opposed to enhancing liberty. Naming supporting the surveillance state and aggressive gun control.

I don't regard universal background checks and registration as "aggressive gun control". The fact that some people do speaks to the extremism of their views. Regarding the "surveillance" state, I changed my mind on this after 9/11, but it was never an important issue to me, because I don't have an unreasoning fear of Big Brother.

So there are no reasonable concerns here in your mind?

Of course there are. I've stated them again and again. But Slapdash and others keep jumping to 1984. I think it's an extreme analogy. I am very concerned with government abuse of what the NSA might be up to. I am concerned with people trapped as a result of error, or corruption. I am NOT concerned with a totalitarian takeover. Kafka has always seemed far more likely to me than Orwell.

 

[[icon]]

I know a lot of people here are going to disagree with me, - Yep.

and I probably shouldn't even post this because it's just going to subject me to abuse - Exactly

but here goes anyhow:

Just.....can't.....help....himself....

 

[timschochet]

We need a "Tim dictionary". I'm not sure there is a word or term that you haven't hijacked and made your own definition for. You pretty much have your own language going on here.

Not really. The definitions have changed over time. I haven't.

In the early 1980's, I was attracted to the libertarian movement by 3 events: my reading of Ayn Rand, a lecture I attended at UC Irvine which featured Tibor Machan (a well-known libertarian thinker in the mold of Van Mises and Hayek), and an article in Reason magazine entitled "The Case for Free Trade and Open Borders", by Alan Bock, then editor the Orange County Register. These events shaped by thinking in terms of individualism and macro-capitalism.

But I had no idea back then that the Libertarian party was so isolationist (and, in particular, anti-Israel.) I had no idea that anyone who thought gun registration, or motorcycle helmets, or how large a drinking cup should be was a really big deal to be opposed because it represented tyrannical government would glom on to the libertarian movement. In other words, I had no idea that the extremists would take over. How many of these people have read Hayek, or Von Mises, or Freidman? For that matter, how many of them have even bothered to read Rand? They're nothing but more extreme conservatives, who don't like to be associated with the "establishment" Republican party so they call themselves libertarian. And so I won't, not anymore.

 

[The Commish]

We need a "Tim dictionary". I'm not sure there is a word or term that you haven't hijacked and made your own definition for. You pretty much have your own language going on here.

Not really. The definitions have changed over time. I haven't.

Thus the need for a tim specific dictionary

 

[Slapdash]

We need a "Tim dictionary". I'm not sure there is a word or term that you haven't hijacked and made your own definition for. You pretty much have your own language going on here.

Not really. The definitions have changed over time. I haven't.

In the early 1980's, I was attracted to the libertarian movement by 3 events: my reading of Ayn Rand, a lecture I attended at UC Irvine which featured Tibor Machan (a well-known libertarian thinker in the mold of Van Mises and Hayek), and an article in Reason magazine entitled "The Case for Free Trade and Open Borders", by Alan Bock, then editor the Orange County Register. These events shaped by thinking in terms of individualism and macro-capitalism.

But I had no idea back then that the Libertarian party was so isolationist (and, in particular, anti-Israel.) I had no idea that anyone who thought gun registration, or motorcycle helmets, or how large a drinking cup should be was a really big deal to be opposed because it represented tyrannical government would glom on to the libertarian movement. In other words, I had no idea that the extremists would take over. How many of these people have read Hayek, or Von Mises, or Freidman? For that matter, how many of them have even bothered to read Rand? They're nothing but more extreme conservatives, who don't like to be associated with the "establishment" Republican party so they call themselves libertarian. And so I won't, not anymore.

Here is what Alan Bock friend had to say about your hated Ron Paul:

"Ron Paul may be the candidate who breaks through. Whatever happens, his campaign has turned into the most significant pro-freedom mass movement in modern American history, perhaps in all of our history."

Or the Patriot Act :

"There is evidence, for example, that bin Laden thought the 9/11 attacks would cripple the U.S. economy and bring down the government. An argument can be made – is made tentatively in this book – that an inordinate focus on terrorism in the wake of 9/11 contributed to the financial crisis that crippled us beginning in 2008, but so far our economy at least has proven more resilient might have been expected. The same cannot be said for our institutions of justice and our respect for individual rights. The Patriot Act was passed in a flurry of panic, and the privacy of every American was compromised, with little or no impact on terrorist activities. It was recently renewed with little notice by a Congress peopled with politicians who had previously criticized it but found it acceptable now that a man with a D after his name occupies the Oval Office. Americans have become accustomed to removing their shoes and not putting shampoo in their carry-on bags and waiting in long lines to travel. Many Americans justify torture and indefinite detention without trial of people simply accused of cooperation with terrorists."

I have read plenty of Friedman and Hayek over the years. They were economists so their writing is focused on those subjects. It is also is broadly supportive of individual liberty, which you ridicule. Your repeated implication that you're taking up their mantle is silly.

 

[timschochet]

We need a "Tim dictionary". I'm not sure there is a word or term that you haven't hijacked and made your own definition for. You pretty much have your own language going on here.

Not really. The definitions have changed over time. I haven't.In the early 1980's, I was attracted to the libertarian movement by 3 events: my reading of Ayn Rand, a lecture I attended at UC Irvine which featured Tibor Machan (a well-known libertarian thinker in the mold of Van Mises and Hayek), and an article in Reason magazine entitled "The Case for Free Trade and Open Borders", by Alan Bock, then editor the Orange County Register. These events shaped by thinking in terms of individualism and macro-capitalism.

But I had no idea back then that the Libertarian party was so isolationist (and, in particular, anti-Israel.) I had no idea that anyone who thought gun registration, or motorcycle helmets, or how large a drinking cup should be was a really big deal to be opposed because it represented tyrannical government would glom on to the libertarian movement. In other words, I had no idea that the extremists would take over. How many of these people have read Hayek, or Von Mises, or Freidman? For that matter, how many of them have even bothered to read Rand? They're nothing but more extreme conservatives, who don't like to be associated with the "establishment" Republican party so they call themselves libertarian. And so I won't, not anymore.

Here is what Alan Bock friend had to say about your hated Ron Paul:

"Ron Paul may be the candidate who breaks through. Whatever happens, his campaign has turned into the most significant pro-freedom mass movement in modern American history, perhaps in all of our history."

Or the Patriot Act :

"There is evidence, for example, that bin Laden thought the 9/11 attacks would cripple the U.S. economy and bring down the government. An argument can be made is made tentatively in this book that an inordinate focus on terrorism in the wake of 9/11 contributed to the financial crisis that crippled us beginning in 2008, but so far our economy at least has proven more resilient might have been expected. The same cannot be said for our institutions of justice and our respect for individual rights. The Patriot Act was passed in a flurry of panic, and the privacy of every American was compromised, with little or no impact on terrorist activities. It was recently renewed with little notice by a Congress peopled with politicians who had previously criticized it but found it acceptable now that a man with a D after his name occupies the Oval Office. Americans have become accustomed to removing their shoes and not putting shampoo in their carry-on bags and waiting in long lines to travel. Many Americans justify torture and indefinite detention without trial of people simply accused of cooperation with terrorists."

I have read plenty of Friedman and Hayek over the years. They were economists so their writing is focused on those subjects. It is also is broadly supportive of individual liberty, which you ridicule. Your repeated implication that you're taking up their mantle is silly.

I never stated I was taking up their mantle. I stated that their ideas back then had great appeal to me. But I wasn't aware of the isolationism. I strongly disagree with Bock about Ron Paul, and I somewhat disagree with him about the Pateiot Act.

 

[tom22406]

We need a "Tim dictionary". I'm not sure there is a word or term that you haven't hijacked and made your own definition for. You pretty much have your own language going on here.

They're nothing but more extreme conservatives, who don't like to be associated with the "establishment" Republican party so they call themselves libertarian. And so I won't, not anymore.

Isn't that what the Tea Party is for?

Not sure how you can combine Libertarians and Tea Party types in the same group but you somehow have done it.

 

[Slapdash]

I still remember the days when Tim described himself as a libertarian.

Free trade, woman's reproductive rights, and open immigration. These used to be the main points of the libertarian movement. They're still my main points.

The libertarian movement is associated with support of policies that enhance liberty, both economic and social. You may expose some views consistent with it, but you have many other views that are directly opposed to enhancing liberty. Naming supporting the surveillance state and aggressive gun control.

I don't regard universal background checks and registration as "aggressive gun control". The fact that some people do speaks to the extremism of their views. Regarding the "surveillance" state, I changed my mind on this after 9/11, but it was never an important issue to me, because I don't have an unreasoning fear of Big Brother.

So there are no reasonable concerns here in your mind?

Of course there are. I've stated them again and again. But Slapdash and others keep jumping to 1984. I think it's an extreme analogy. I am very concerned with government abuse of what the NSA might be up to. I am concerned with people trapped as a result of error, or corruption. I am NOT concerned with a totalitarian takeover. Kafka has always seemed far more likely to me than Orwell.

I am not drawing analogies to 1984. I am pointing out specific government behaviors that mirror the surviellence activies in that book. The only one trying to make bull#### analogies is you. You are just muddying the waters by constantly making this exact type of posts where you confuse the issue.

 

[The_Man]

Or the Patriot Act :

"There is evidence, for example, that bin Laden thought the 9/11 attacks would cripple the U.S. economy and bring down the government. An argument can be made – is made tentatively in this book – that an inordinate focus on terrorism in the wake of 9/11 contributed to the financial crisis that crippled us beginning in 2008, but so far our economy at least has proven more resilient might have been expected. The same cannot be said for our institutions of justice and our respect for individual rights. The Patriot Act was passed in a flurry of panic, and the privacy of every American was compromised, with little or no impact on terrorist activities. It was recently renewed with little notice by a Congress peopled with politicians who had previously criticized it but found it acceptable now that a man with a D after his name occupies the Oval Office. Americans have become accustomed to removing their shoes and not putting shampoo in their carry-on bags and waiting in long lines to travel. Many Americans justify torture and indefinite detention without trial of people simply accused of cooperation with terrorists."

Pretty good, from my point of view as a liberal with slightly crazed civil libertarian tendencies. The left's abdication of its responsibility to stand up against these abuses of civil liberty, as well as the Drone Wars, is shameful. If GWB were doing this stuff, there would be marches on Washington. But then again, I'm an ideologue, not a partisan.

I would love for this thread to get back on topic. I still can't quite believe what's happening between the Senate and the CIA. It's like something from a movie. And I go back to my earlier post, that maybe getting subjected to the same kind of illegal harassment that she has approvingly seen others suffer will be enough to get Feinstein to begin reining these agencies in.

 

[timschochet]

We need a "Tim dictionary". I'm not sure there is a word or term that you haven't hijacked and made your own definition for. You pretty much have your own language going on here.

They're nothing but more extreme conservatives, who don't like to be associated with the "establishment" Republican party so they call themselves libertarian. And so I won't, not anymore.

Isn't that what the Tea Party is for?Not sure how you can combine Libertarians and Tea Party types in the same group but you somehow have done it.

There are plenty of the same people in both movements these days.

 

[tom22406]

We need a "Tim dictionary". I'm not sure there is a word or term that you haven't hijacked and made your own definition for. You pretty much have your own language going on here.

They're nothing but more extreme conservatives, who don't like to be associated with the "establishment" Republican party so they call themselves libertarian. And so I won't, not anymore.

Isn't that what the Tea Party is for?Not sure how you can combine Libertarians and Tea Party types in the same group but you somehow have done it.

There are plenty of the same people in both movements these days.

I'm not sure how that is possible since one group seems to value personal freedom and the other wants to dictate what freedoms you have.

They can stand for certain things in each group for sure but to lump them together seems wrong.

 

[Slapdash]

I would love for this thread to get back on topic. I still can't quite believe what's happening between the Senate and the CIA. It's like something from a movie. And I go back to my earlier post, that maybe getting subjected to the same kind of illegal harassment that she has approvingly seen others suffer will be enough to get Feinstein to begin reining these agencies in.

Yes, sorry for letting Tim derail another one.

 

[timschochet]

I would love for this thread to get back on topic. I still can't quite believe what's happening between the Senate and the CIA. It's like something from a movie. And I go back to my earlier post, that maybe getting subjected to the same kind of illegal harassment that she has approvingly seen others suffer will be enough to get Feinstein to begin reining these agencies in.

Yes, sorry for letting Slapdash derail another one.

fixed

 

[tom22406]

Or the Patriot Act :

"There is evidence, for example, that bin Laden thought the 9/11 attacks would cripple the U.S. economy and bring down the government. An argument can be made – is made tentatively in this book – that an inordinate focus on terrorism in the wake of 9/11 contributed to the financial crisis that crippled us beginning in 2008, but so far our economy at least has proven more resilient might have been expected. The same cannot be said for our institutions of justice and our respect for individual rights. The Patriot Act was passed in a flurry of panic, and the privacy of every American was compromised, with little or no impact on terrorist activities. It was recently renewed with little notice by a Congress peopled with politicians who had previously criticized it but found it acceptable now that a man with a D after his name occupies the Oval Office. Americans have become accustomed to removing their shoes and not putting shampoo in their carry-on bags and waiting in long lines to travel. Many Americans justify torture and indefinite detention without trial of people simply accused of cooperation with terrorists."

Pretty good, from my point of view as a liberal with slightly crazed civil libertarian tendencies. The left's abdication of its responsibility to stand up against these abuses of civil liberty, as well as the Drone Wars, is shameful. If GWB were doing this stuff, there would be marches on Washington. But then again, I'm an ideologue, not a partisan.

I would love for this thread to get back on topic. I still can't quite believe what's happening between the Senate and the CIA. It's like something from a movie. And I go back to my earlier post, that maybe getting subjected to the same kind of illegal harassment that she has approvingly seen others suffer will be enough to get Feinstein to begin reining these agencies in.

As far as your first statement I'm not sure why this isn't brought up more but I guess it does really matter as to who is doing it instead of what's being done before it gets any real coverage.Quite puzzling to say the least.

Back on topic is a good start and my apologies for getting caught up in the fishing trip.

I really do hope this does spurn some real reforms but as we saw with the proposed NSA reforms it looks like it's just putting lipstick on the pig instead of dealing with the pig itself.Maybe now that this was against Congress(and Feinstein)this gets more action done but I'm highly skeptical and I think for good reason.

This is a very serious allegation and it will be very interesting to see what unfolds from this.

 

[The Commish]

I suspect very little comes from this honestly.

 

[The Commish]

I suspect very little comes from this honestly.

And that will be used as "see, there was really nothing to this" shtick

 

[Slapdash]

Or the Patriot Act :

"There is evidence, for example, that bin Laden thought the 9/11 attacks would cripple the U.S. economy and bring down the government. An argument can be made – is made tentatively in this book – that an inordinate focus on terrorism in the wake of 9/11 contributed to the financial crisis that crippled us beginning in 2008, but so far our economy at least has proven more resilient might have been expected. The same cannot be said for our institutions of justice and our respect for individual rights. The Patriot Act was passed in a flurry of panic, and the privacy of every American was compromised, with little or no impact on terrorist activities. It was recently renewed with little notice by a Congress peopled with politicians who had previously criticized it but found it acceptable now that a man with a D after his name occupies the Oval Office. Americans have become accustomed to removing their shoes and not putting shampoo in their carry-on bags and waiting in long lines to travel. Many Americans justify torture and indefinite detention without trial of people simply accused of cooperation with terrorists."

Pretty good, from my point of view as a liberal with slightly crazed civil libertarian tendencies. The left's abdication of its responsibility to stand up against these abuses of civil liberty, as well as the Drone Wars, is shameful. If GWB were doing this stuff, there would be marches on Washington. But then again, I'm an ideologue, not a partisan.

I would love for this thread to get back on topic. I still can't quite believe what's happening between the Senate and the CIA. It's like something from a movie. And I go back to my earlier post, that maybe getting subjected to the same kind of illegal harassment that she has approvingly seen others suffer will be enough to get Feinstein to begin reining these agencies in.

As far as your first statement I'm not sure why this isn't brought up more but I guess it does really matter as to who is doing it instead of what's being done before it gets any real coverage.Quite puzzling to say the least.

Back on topic is a good start and my apologies for getting caught up in the fishing trip.

I really do hope this does spurn some real reforms but as we saw with the proposed NSA reforms it looks like it's just putting lipstick on the pig instead of dealing with the pig itself.Maybe now that this was against Congress(and Feinstein)this gets more action done but I'm highly skeptical and I think for good reason.

This is a very serious allegation and it will be very interesting to see what unfolds from this.

To be fair, W was doing this stuff and it didn't inspire liberals to march on Washington. Even if they wanted to, the government has many tools to break up any protest movement. The Occupy Wall Street protests were tiny yet the federal government spied on and infiltrated them along with taking in active role in breaking them up. It is difficult to imagine a large protest movement ever taking hold with this reality.

 

[drummer]

I would love for this thread to get back on topic. I still can't quite believe what's happening between the Senate and the CIA. It's like something from a movie. And I go back to my earlier post, that maybe getting subjected to the same kind of illegal harassment that she has approvingly seen others suffer will be enough to get Feinstein to begin reining these agencies in.

Yes, sorry for letting Slapdash derail another one.

fixed

This thread was actually getting readable until you stepped all over it.

 

[DiStefano]

I know a lot of people here are going to disagree with me, and I probably shouldn't even post this because it's just going to subject me to abuse but here goes anyhow:

Feinstein is not being a hypocrite here, because what the NSA is doing (purportedly) is far different from what the CIA is doing in this case. The CIA is listening to specific calls without warrant, a clear invasion of privacy. The NSA is collecting mass data for the purpose of running algorithms, for which they are obtaining collective warrants. As I have pointed out several times in the NSA thread, that is not, at least on paper, a violation of privacy, but a necessary tool for national security. There is no contradiction.

What an ########

Is it possible for you to disagree with me without calling me what I think you just called me?

He was just living up to your expectations and abusing you. If you have nothing to hide, why do you care?

 

[Christo]

I know a lot of people here are going to disagree with me, and I probably shouldn't even post this because it's just going to subject me to abuse but here goes anyhow:

Feinstein is not being a hypocrite here, because what the NSA is doing (purportedly) is far different from what the CIA is doing in this case. The CIA is listening to specific calls without warrant, a clear invasion of privacy. The NSA is collecting mass data for the purpose of running algorithms, for which they are obtaining collective warrants. As I have pointed out several times in the NSA thread, that is not, at least on paper, a violation of privacy, but a necessary tool for national security. There is no contradiction.

 

[TheMagus]

I never stated I was taking up their mantle. I stated that their ideas back then had great appeal to me. But I wasn't aware of the isolationism.I strongly disagree with Bock about Ron Paul, and I somewhat disagree with him about the Pateiot Act.

So it sounds like you thought you were a libertarian, but you actually weren't because you didn't understand the ideology. That doesn't mean that when you became educated, that the definition changed. Right?

 

[fatness]

I suspect very little comes from this honestly.

Some big, quiet contracts to telco, cable, and security firms in selected districts and states will probably put it slowly to rest. There's a lot of money to be made going along with it, and politicians do respect money.

 

[flapgreen]

Our current elected politicians from both parties are complicit in this. Nearly all of them seem to support the status quo. I think "typical liberal" and "typical conservative", in terms of this particular topic, are identical terms.

You're quite right, and it's been that way for years now.

yep

 

[GroveDiesel]

Boy, Feinstein sure is bossy, huh?

 

[Rayderr]

Or the Patriot Act :

"There is evidence, for example, that bin Laden thought the 9/11 attacks would cripple the U.S. economy and bring down the government. An argument can be made – is made tentatively in this book – that an inordinate focus on terrorism in the wake of 9/11 contributed to the financial crisis that crippled us beginning in 2008, but so far our economy at least has proven more resilient might have been expected. The same cannot be said for our institutions of justice and our respect for individual rights. The Patriot Act was passed in a flurry of panic, and the privacy of every American was compromised, with little or no impact on terrorist activities. It was recently renewed with little notice by a Congress peopled with politicians who had previously criticized it but found it acceptable now that a man with a D after his name occupies the Oval Office. Americans have become accustomed to removing their shoes and not putting shampoo in their carry-on bags and waiting in long lines to travel. Many Americans justify torture and indefinite detention without trial of people simply accused of cooperation with terrorists."

Pretty good, from my point of view as a liberal with slightly crazed civil libertarian tendencies. The left's abdication of its responsibility to stand up against these abuses of civil liberty, as well as the Drone Wars, is shameful. If GWB were doing this stuff, there would be marches on Washington. But then again, I'm an ideologue, not a partisan.

I would love for this thread to get back on topic. I still can't quite believe what's happening between the Senate and the CIA. It's like something from a movie. And I go back to my earlier post, that maybe getting subjected to the same kind of illegal harassment that she has approvingly seen others suffer will be enough to get Feinstein to begin reining these agencies in.

As far as your first statement I'm not sure why this isn't brought up more but I guess it does really matter as to who is doing it instead of what's being done before it gets any real coverage.Quite puzzling to say the least.

Back on topic is a good start and my apologies for getting caught up in the fishing trip.

I really do hope this does spurn some real reforms but as we saw with the proposed NSA reforms it looks like it's just putting lipstick on the pig instead of dealing with the pig itself.Maybe now that this was against Congress(and Feinstein)this gets more action done but I'm highly skeptical and I think for good reason.

This is a very serious allegation and it will be very interesting to see what unfolds from this.

To be fair, W was doing this stuff and it didn't inspire liberals to march on Washington. Even if they wanted to, the government has many tools to break up any protest movement. The Occupy Wall Street protests were tiny yet the federal government spied on and infiltrated them along with taking in active role in breaking them up. It is difficult to imagine a large protest movement ever taking hold with this reality.

Talk about selective memory...

 

[Slapdash]

Or the Patriot Act :

"There is evidence, for example, that bin Laden thought the 9/11 attacks would cripple the U.S. economy and bring down the government. An argument can be made – is made tentatively in this book – that an inordinate focus on terrorism in the wake of 9/11 contributed to the financial crisis that crippled us beginning in 2008, but so far our economy at least has proven more resilient might have been expected. The same cannot be said for our institutions of justice and our respect for individual rights. The Patriot Act was passed in a flurry of panic, and the privacy of every American was compromised, with little or no impact on terrorist activities. It was recently renewed with little notice by a Congress peopled with politicians who had previously criticized it but found it acceptable now that a man with a D after his name occupies the Oval Office. Americans have become accustomed to removing their shoes and not putting shampoo in their carry-on bags and waiting in long lines to travel. Many Americans justify torture and indefinite detention without trial of people simply accused of cooperation with terrorists."

Pretty good, from my point of view as a liberal with slightly crazed civil libertarian tendencies. The left's abdication of its responsibility to stand up against these abuses of civil liberty, as well as the Drone Wars, is shameful. If GWB were doing this stuff, there would be marches on Washington. But then again, I'm an ideologue, not a partisan.

I would love for this thread to get back on topic. I still can't quite believe what's happening between the Senate and the CIA. It's like something from a movie. And I go back to my earlier post, that maybe getting subjected to the same kind of illegal harassment that she has approvingly seen others suffer will be enough to get Feinstein to begin reining these agencies in.

As far as your first statement I'm not sure why this isn't brought up more but I guess it does really matter as to who is doing it instead of what's being done before it gets any real coverage.Quite puzzling to say the least.

Back on topic is a good start and my apologies for getting caught up in the fishing trip.

I really do hope this does spurn some real reforms but as we saw with the proposed NSA reforms it looks like it's just putting lipstick on the pig instead of dealing with the pig itself.Maybe now that this was against Congress(and Feinstein)this gets more action done but I'm highly skeptical and I think for good reason.

This is a very serious allegation and it will be very interesting to see what unfolds from this.

To be fair, W was doing this stuff and it didn't inspire liberals to march on Washington. Even if they wanted to, the government has many tools to break up any protest movement. The Occupy Wall Street protests were tiny yet the federal government spied on and infiltrated them along with taking in active role in breaking them up. It is difficult to imagine a large protest movement ever taking hold with this reality.

Talk about selective memory...

Yeah, my bad for somehow not seeing any news coverage of all ten of these guys with signs.

 

[Rayderr]

Or the Patriot Act :

"There is evidence, for example, that bin Laden thought the 9/11 attacks would cripple the U.S. economy and bring down the government. An argument can be made – is made tentatively in this book – that an inordinate focus on terrorism in the wake of 9/11 contributed to the financial crisis that crippled us beginning in 2008, but so far our economy at least has proven more resilient might have been expected. The same cannot be said for our institutions of justice and our respect for individual rights. The Patriot Act was passed in a flurry of panic, and the privacy of every American was compromised, with little or no impact on terrorist activities. It was recently renewed with little notice by a Congress peopled with politicians who had previously criticized it but found it acceptable now that a man with a D after his name occupies the Oval Office. Americans have become accustomed to removing their shoes and not putting shampoo in their carry-on bags and waiting in long lines to travel. Many Americans justify torture and indefinite detention without trial of people simply accused of cooperation with terrorists."

Pretty good, from my point of view as a liberal with slightly crazed civil libertarian tendencies. The left's abdication of its responsibility to stand up against these abuses of civil liberty, as well as the Drone Wars, is shameful. If GWB were doing this stuff, there would be marches on Washington. But then again, I'm an ideologue, not a partisan.

I would love for this thread to get back on topic. I still can't quite believe what's happening between the Senate and the CIA. It's like something from a movie. And I go back to my earlier post, that maybe getting subjected to the same kind of illegal harassment that she has approvingly seen others suffer will be enough to get Feinstein to begin reining these agencies in.

As far as your first statement I'm not sure why this isn't brought up more but I guess it does really matter as to who is doing it instead of what's being done before it gets any real coverage.Quite puzzling to say the least.

Back on topic is a good start and my apologies for getting caught up in the fishing trip.

I really do hope this does spurn some real reforms but as we saw with the proposed NSA reforms it looks like it's just putting lipstick on the pig instead of dealing with the pig itself.Maybe now that this was against Congress(and Feinstein)this gets more action done but I'm highly skeptical and I think for good reason.

This is a very serious allegation and it will be very interesting to see what unfolds from this.

To be fair, W was doing this stuff and it didn't inspire liberals to march on Washington. Even if they wanted to, the government has many tools to break up any protest movement. The Occupy Wall Street protests were tiny yet the federal government spied on and infiltrated them along with taking in active role in breaking them up. It is difficult to imagine a large protest movement ever taking hold with this reality.

Talk about selective memory...

Yeah, my bad for somehow not seeing any news coverage of all ten of these guys with signs.

You're beyond help apparently.

 

[Smack Tripper]

Tim could walk in on his wife in bed with another guy, and if she said "it's not what it looks like" he'd reply "WHEW that's. Relief. Good enough for me"

 

[Slapdash]

Or the Patriot Act :

"There is evidence, for example, that bin Laden thought the 9/11 attacks would cripple the U.S. economy and bring down the government. An argument can be made – is made tentatively in this book – that an inordinate focus on terrorism in the wake of 9/11 contributed to the financial crisis that crippled us beginning in 2008, but so far our economy at least has proven more resilient might have been expected. The same cannot be said for our institutions of justice and our respect for individual rights. The Patriot Act was passed in a flurry of panic, and the privacy of every American was compromised, with little or no impact on terrorist activities. It was recently renewed with little notice by a Congress peopled with politicians who had previously criticized it but found it acceptable now that a man with a D after his name occupies the Oval Office. Americans have become accustomed to removing their shoes and not putting shampoo in their carry-on bags and waiting in long lines to travel. Many Americans justify torture and indefinite detention without trial of people simply accused of cooperation with terrorists."

Pretty good, from my point of view as a liberal with slightly crazed civil libertarian tendencies. The left's abdication of its responsibility to stand up against these abuses of civil liberty, as well as the Drone Wars, is shameful. If GWB were doing this stuff, there would be marches on Washington. But then again, I'm an ideologue, not a partisan.

I would love for this thread to get back on topic. I still can't quite believe what's happening between the Senate and the CIA. It's like something from a movie. And I go back to my earlier post, that maybe getting subjected to the same kind of illegal harassment that she has approvingly seen others suffer will be enough to get Feinstein to begin reining these agencies in.

As far as your first statement I'm not sure why this isn't brought up more but I guess it does really matter as to who is doing it instead of what's being done before it gets any real coverage.Quite puzzling to say the least.

Back on topic is a good start and my apologies for getting caught up in the fishing trip.

I really do hope this does spurn some real reforms but as we saw with the proposed NSA reforms it looks like it's just putting lipstick on the pig instead of dealing with the pig itself.Maybe now that this was against Congress(and Feinstein)this gets more action done but I'm highly skeptical and I think for good reason.

This is a very serious allegation and it will be very interesting to see what unfolds from this.

To be fair, W was doing this stuff and it didn't inspire liberals to march on Washington. Even if they wanted to, the government has many tools to break up any protest movement. The Occupy Wall Street protests were tiny yet the federal government spied on and infiltrated them along with taking in active role in breaking them up. It is difficult to imagine a large protest movement ever taking hold with this reality.

Talk about selective memory...

Yeah, my bad for somehow not seeing any news coverage of all ten of these guys with signs.

You're beyond help apparently.

No one asked you to help, particularly by pointing to small, anti-war protests that appear to have happened before the NSA revelations started come out at the end of 2005. Well after Ashcroft, the main target in your links, had stepped down. These people aren't even protesting the NSA which was my point.

Still, if that is your standard for "marching on Washington", then conservatives and liberals march on Washington everyday about a variety of issues.

 

[Rayderr]

Or the Patriot Act :

"There is evidence, for example, that bin Laden thought the 9/11 attacks would cripple the U.S. economy and bring down the government. An argument can be made – is made tentatively in this book – that an inordinate focus on terrorism in the wake of 9/11 contributed to the financial crisis that crippled us beginning in 2008, but so far our economy at least has proven more resilient might have been expected. The same cannot be said for our institutions of justice and our respect for individual rights. The Patriot Act was passed in a flurry of panic, and the privacy of every American was compromised, with little or no impact on terrorist activities. It was recently renewed with little notice by a Congress peopled with politicians who had previously criticized it but found it acceptable now that a man with a D after his name occupies the Oval Office. Americans have become accustomed to removing their shoes and not putting shampoo in their carry-on bags and waiting in long lines to travel. Many Americans justify torture and indefinite detention without trial of people simply accused of cooperation with terrorists."

Pretty good, from my point of view as a liberal with slightly crazed civil libertarian tendencies. The left's abdication of its responsibility to stand up against these abuses of civil liberty, as well as the Drone Wars, is shameful. If GWB were doing this stuff, there would be marches on Washington. But then again, I'm an ideologue, not a partisan.

I would love for this thread to get back on topic. I still can't quite believe what's happening between the Senate and the CIA. It's like something from a movie. And I go back to my earlier post, that maybe getting subjected to the same kind of illegal harassment that she has approvingly seen others suffer will be enough to get Feinstein to begin reining these agencies in.

As far as your first statement I'm not sure why this isn't brought up more but I guess it does really matter as to who is doing it instead of what's being done before it gets any real coverage.Quite puzzling to say the least.

Back on topic is a good start and my apologies for getting caught up in the fishing trip.

I really do hope this does spurn some real reforms but as we saw with the proposed NSA reforms it looks like it's just putting lipstick on the pig instead of dealing with the pig itself.Maybe now that this was against Congress(and Feinstein)this gets more action done but I'm highly skeptical and I think for good reason.

This is a very serious allegation and it will be very interesting to see what unfolds from this.

To be fair, W was doing this stuff and it didn't inspire liberals to march on Washington. Even if they wanted to, the government has many tools to break up any protest movement. The Occupy Wall Street protests were tiny yet the federal government spied on and infiltrated them along with taking in active role in breaking them up. It is difficult to imagine a large protest movement ever taking hold with this reality.

Talk about selective memory...

Yeah, my bad for somehow not seeing any news coverage of all ten of these guys with signs.

You're beyond help apparently.

No one asked you to help, particularly by pointing to small, anti-war protests that appear to have happened before the NSA revelations started come out at the end of 2005. Well after Ashcroft, the main target in your links, had stepped down. These people aren't even protesting the NSA which was my point.

Still, if that is your standard for "marching on Washington", then conservatives and liberals march on Washington everyday about a variety of issues.

I stand by my statement.

 

[Slapdash]

Or the Patriot Act :

"There is evidence, for example, that bin Laden thought the 9/11 attacks would cripple the U.S. economy and bring down the government. An argument can be made – is made tentatively in this book – that an inordinate focus on terrorism in the wake of 9/11 contributed to the financial crisis that crippled us beginning in 2008, but so far our economy at least has proven more resilient might have been expected. The same cannot be said for our institutions of justice and our respect for individual rights. The Patriot Act was passed in a flurry of panic, and the privacy of every American was compromised, with little or no impact on terrorist activities. It was recently renewed with little notice by a Congress peopled with politicians who had previously criticized it but found it acceptable now that a man with a D after his name occupies the Oval Office. Americans have become accustomed to removing their shoes and not putting shampoo in their carry-on bags and waiting in long lines to travel. Many Americans justify torture and indefinite detention without trial of people simply accused of cooperation with terrorists."

Pretty good, from my point of view as a liberal with slightly crazed civil libertarian tendencies. The left's abdication of its responsibility to stand up against these abuses of civil liberty, as well as the Drone Wars, is shameful. If GWB were doing this stuff, there would be marches on Washington. But then again, I'm an ideologue, not a partisan.

I would love for this thread to get back on topic. I still can't quite believe what's happening between the Senate and the CIA. It's like something from a movie. And I go back to my earlier post, that maybe getting subjected to the same kind of illegal harassment that she has approvingly seen others suffer will be enough to get Feinstein to begin reining these agencies in.

As far as your first statement I'm not sure why this isn't brought up more but I guess it does really matter as to who is doing it instead of what's being done before it gets any real coverage.Quite puzzling to say the least.

Back on topic is a good start and my apologies for getting caught up in the fishing trip.

I really do hope this does spurn some real reforms but as we saw with the proposed NSA reforms it looks like it's just putting lipstick on the pig instead of dealing with the pig itself.Maybe now that this was against Congress(and Feinstein)this gets more action done but I'm highly skeptical and I think for good reason.

This is a very serious allegation and it will be very interesting to see what unfolds from this.

To be fair, W was doing this stuff and it didn't inspire liberals to march on Washington. Even if they wanted to, the government has many tools to break up any protest movement. The Occupy Wall Street protests were tiny yet the federal government spied on and infiltrated them along with taking in active role in breaking them up. It is difficult to imagine a large protest movement ever taking hold with this reality.

Talk about selective memory...

Yeah, my bad for somehow not seeing any news coverage of all ten of these guys with signs.

You're beyond help apparently.

No one asked you to help, particularly by pointing to small, anti-war protests that appear to have happened before the NSA revelations started come out at the end of 2005. Well after Ashcroft, the main target in your links, had stepped down. These people aren't even protesting the NSA which was my point.

Still, if that is your standard for "marching on Washington", then conservatives and liberals march on Washington everyday about a variety of issues.

I stand by my statement.

Then I feel the same way about you. Let me know when you want to try and make an intelligent point.

 

[Rayderr]

Or the Patriot Act :

"There is evidence, for example, that bin Laden thought the 9/11 attacks would cripple the U.S. economy and bring down the government. An argument can be made – is made tentatively in this book – that an inordinate focus on terrorism in the wake of 9/11 contributed to the financial crisis that crippled us beginning in 2008, but so far our economy at least has proven more resilient might have been expected. The same cannot be said for our institutions of justice and our respect for individual rights. The Patriot Act was passed in a flurry of panic, and the privacy of every American was compromised, with little or no impact on terrorist activities. It was recently renewed with little notice by a Congress peopled with politicians who had previously criticized it but found it acceptable now that a man with a D after his name occupies the Oval Office. Americans have become accustomed to removing their shoes and not putting shampoo in their carry-on bags and waiting in long lines to travel. Many Americans justify torture and indefinite detention without trial of people simply accused of cooperation with terrorists."

Pretty good, from my point of view as a liberal with slightly crazed civil libertarian tendencies. The left's abdication of its responsibility to stand up against these abuses of civil liberty, as well as the Drone Wars, is shameful. If GWB were doing this stuff, there would be marches on Washington. But then again, I'm an ideologue, not a partisan.

I would love for this thread to get back on topic. I still can't quite believe what's happening between the Senate and the CIA. It's like something from a movie. And I go back to my earlier post, that maybe getting subjected to the same kind of illegal harassment that she has approvingly seen others suffer will be enough to get Feinstein to begin reining these agencies in.

As far as your first statement I'm not sure why this isn't brought up more but I guess it does really matter as to who is doing it instead of what's being done before it gets any real coverage.Quite puzzling to say the least.

Back on topic is a good start and my apologies for getting caught up in the fishing trip.

I really do hope this does spurn some real reforms but as we saw with the proposed NSA reforms it looks like it's just putting lipstick on the pig instead of dealing with the pig itself.Maybe now that this was against Congress(and Feinstein)this gets more action done but I'm highly skeptical and I think for good reason.

This is a very serious allegation and it will be very interesting to see what unfolds from this.

To be fair, W was doing this stuff and it didn't inspire liberals to march on Washington. Even if they wanted to, the government has many tools to break up any protest movement. The Occupy Wall Street protests were tiny yet the federal government spied on and infiltrated them along with taking in active role in breaking them up. It is difficult to imagine a large protest movement ever taking hold with this reality.

Talk about selective memory...

Yeah, my bad for somehow not seeing any news coverage of all ten of these guys with signs.

You're beyond help apparently.

No one asked you to help, particularly by pointing to small, anti-war protests that appear to have happened before the NSA revelations started come out at the end of 2005. Well after Ashcroft, the main target in your links, had stepped down. These people aren't even protesting the NSA which was my point.

Still, if that is your standard for "marching on Washington", then conservatives and liberals march on Washington everyday about a variety of issues.

I stand by my statement.

Then I feel the same way about you. Let me know when you want to try and make an intelligent point.

Dude, you said "W was doing this stuff and it didn't inspire liberals to march on Washington." So I showed you pictures of people marching in Washington holding up protests signs about the Patriot act which of course legalized spying. Now, you could've just said something like "You're right. But those protests obviously had no effect." But you chose to go the Colonel Klink route with your "I see nothing!" act.

 

[GroveDiesel]

You know what would make this thread more awesome?

Tons more pointless posts quoting huge blocks of other quotes that make it unreadable on a mobile device.