What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Verizon required to give ALL call data to NSA (1 Viewer)

timschochet said:
5 digit know nothing said:
Politician Spock said:
5 digit know nothing said:
what are the odds we never hear from Snowden again, that he was erased? cue black helicopters
If we don't, it will be due to how well he hides himself.If the Feds catch him, they will want to make an example of him by keeping him locked up and drag out the judicial process as long as possible, as to not appear to be violating his rights at all, but to show those who are considering to be the next whistleblower what a pain in the ###, and life altering, the process of having your rights protected is.Killing him would make him a martyr. That is the last thing the Feds would want.
Unless he is just never heard from again. I liken it to the hunt for Dorner, he knows too much. They bring him in and unless they torture/brainwash him/threaten his family what is to keep him from keeping his mouth shut, a plea deal maybe? I guess it would depend on the strength of the charges brought against him, given that we are only allowed to see 4 of the slides would the whole investigation be under wraps?
The two of you are such perfect archetypes of your classic conspiracy junkie that you're almost caricatures.
I wouldn't be throwing stones if I were you. If they're one extreme, you are certainly the other. Though, I'll say this about the others. I'm not sure they think these things WILL happen and the government WILL use this data in the future. I think they are just seeing what doors this COULD open and it IS scary. If I'm being honest, I'd be surprised if the government doesn't abuse their access to this information.
I don't think I've expressed any extreme opinions in this thread. I've stated that the secrecy of this program troubles me. I've stated that I would like to see an open discussion about it. I written that I'm not especially bothered by the idea of the program, but that I'd like to know more details. I've stated that I think some of you are freaking out and talking like 1984 is right around the corner, and I regard that as nonsense. I tend to reject slippery slope arguments.

You can disagree with all of those points if you want to, but I don't believe any of them can be termed extremist.

 
timschochet said:
5 digit know nothing said:
Politician Spock said:
5 digit know nothing said:
what are the odds we never hear from Snowden again, that he was erased? cue black helicopters
If we don't, it will be due to how well he hides himself.If the Feds catch him, they will want to make an example of him by keeping him locked up and drag out the judicial process as long as possible, as to not appear to be violating his rights at all, but to show those who are considering to be the next whistleblower what a pain in the ###, and life altering, the process of having your rights protected is.Killing him would make him a martyr. That is the last thing the Feds would want.
Unless he is just never heard from again. I liken it to the hunt for Dorner, he knows too much. They bring him in and unless they torture/brainwash him/threaten his family what is to keep him from keeping his mouth shut, a plea deal maybe? I guess it would depend on the strength of the charges brought against him, given that we are only allowed to see 4 of the slides would the whole investigation be under wraps?
The two of you are such perfect archetypes of your classic conspiracy junkie that you're almost caricatures.
I wouldn't be throwing stones if I were you. If they're one extreme, you are certainly the other. Though, I'll say this about the others. I'm not sure they think these things WILL happen and the government WILL use this data in the future. I think they are just seeing what doors this COULD open and it IS scary. If I'm being honest, I'd be surprised if the government doesn't abuse their access to this information.
I don't think I've expressed any extreme opinions in this thread. I've stated that the secrecy of this program troubles me. I've stated that I would like to see an open discussion about it. I written that I'm not especially bothered by the idea of the program, but that I'd like to know more details. I've stated that I think some of you are freaking out and talking like 1984 is right around the corner, and I regard that as nonsense. I tend to reject slippery slope arguments.

You can disagree with all of those points if you want to, but I don't believe any of them can be termed extremist.
What you say is pretty irrelevant to me personally. That you are going to the lengths you are to show the others as "junkies" tells me what I need to know. You do this all the time. The "well, it's really not a big deal to me" or "it troubles me a little bit" etc etc is window dressing. I think you're perfectly fine with it right now. You see zero problems with it, but have decided to throw out these little phrases in case a back track is needed, which is smart....I believe you'll need it in the next 5 years.

 
timschochet said:
5 digit know nothing said:
Politician Spock said:
5 digit know nothing said:
what are the odds we never hear from Snowden again, that he was erased? cue black helicopters
If we don't, it will be due to how well he hides himself.If the Feds catch him, they will want to make an example of him by keeping him locked up and drag out the judicial process as long as possible, as to not appear to be violating his rights at all, but to show those who are considering to be the next whistleblower what a pain in the ###, and life altering, the process of having your rights protected is.Killing him would make him a martyr. That is the last thing the Feds would want.
Unless he is just never heard from again. I liken it to the hunt for Dorner, he knows too much. They bring him in and unless they torture/brainwash him/threaten his family what is to keep him from keeping his mouth shut, a plea deal maybe? I guess it would depend on the strength of the charges brought against him, given that we are only allowed to see 4 of the slides would the whole investigation be under wraps?
The two of you are such perfect archetypes of your classic conspiracy junkie that you're almost caricatures.
I wouldn't be throwing stones if I were you. If they're one extreme, you are certainly the other. Though, I'll say this about the others. I'm not sure they think these things WILL happen and the government WILL use this data in the future. I think they are just seeing what doors this COULD open and it IS scary. If I'm being honest, I'd be surprised if the government doesn't abuse their access to this information.
I don't think I've expressed any extreme opinions in this thread. I've stated that the secrecy of this program troubles me. I've stated that I would like to see an open discussion about it. I written that I'm not especially bothered by the idea of the program, but that I'd like to know more details. I've stated that I think some of you are freaking out and talking like 1984 is right around the corner, and I regard that as nonsense. I tend to reject slippery slope arguments.

You can disagree with all of those points if you want to, but I don't believe any of them can be termed extremist.
What you say is pretty irrelevant to me personally. That you are going to the lengths you are to show the others as "junkies" tells me what I need to know. You do this all the time. The "well, it's really not a big deal to me" or "it troubles me a little bit" etc etc is window dressing. I think you're perfectly fine with it right now. You see zero problems with it, but have decided to throw out these little phrases in case a back track is needed, which is smart....I believe you'll need it in the next 5 years.
So now you're calling me a liar. I wish you wouldn't do that. If you disagree with something I write, that's one thing. But please don't put words in my mouth and accuse me of writing something I don't believe.

I don't have "zero problems" with what we're doing. I have far less problems than most of you. Overall I think it's a good idea, and I don't think it's a major violation of the 4th Amendment. Could I be persuaded to change my mind about this? Of course. If there is information I don't know right now, or if something happens that makes me rethink this issue, or if someone makes a convincing argument that I haven't considered, then I will change my mind. And if I do, it won't be "back tracking" and I won't apologize for my earlier comments, because they were made with conviction.

 
timschochet said:
5 digit know nothing said:
Politician Spock said:
5 digit know nothing said:
what are the odds we never hear from Snowden again, that he was erased? cue black helicopters
If we don't, it will be due to how well he hides himself.If the Feds catch him, they will want to make an example of him by keeping him locked up and drag out the judicial process as long as possible, as to not appear to be violating his rights at all, but to show those who are considering to be the next whistleblower what a pain in the ###, and life altering, the process of having your rights protected is.Killing him would make him a martyr. That is the last thing the Feds would want.
Unless he is just never heard from again. I liken it to the hunt for Dorner, he knows too much. They bring him in and unless they torture/brainwash him/threaten his family what is to keep him from keeping his mouth shut, a plea deal maybe? I guess it would depend on the strength of the charges brought against him, given that we are only allowed to see 4 of the slides would the whole investigation be under wraps?
The two of you are such perfect archetypes of your classic conspiracy junkie that you're almost caricatures.
I wouldn't be throwing stones if I were you. If they're one extreme, you are certainly the other. Though, I'll say this about the others. I'm not sure they think these things WILL happen and the government WILL use this data in the future. I think they are just seeing what doors this COULD open and it IS scary. If I'm being honest, I'd be surprised if the government doesn't abuse their access to this information.
I don't think I've expressed any extreme opinions in this thread. I've stated that the secrecy of this program troubles me. I've stated that I would like to see an open discussion about it. I written that I'm not especially bothered by the idea of the program, but that I'd like to know more details. I've stated that I think some of you are freaking out and talking like 1984 is right around the corner, and I regard that as nonsense. I tend to reject slippery slope arguments.

You can disagree with all of those points if you want to, but I don't believe any of them can be termed extremist.
What you say is pretty irrelevant to me personally. That you are going to the lengths you are to show the others as "junkies" tells me what I need to know. You do this all the time. The "well, it's really not a big deal to me" or "it troubles me a little bit" etc etc is window dressing. I think you're perfectly fine with it right now. You see zero problems with it, but have decided to throw out these little phrases in case a back track is needed, which is smart....I believe you'll need it in the next 5 years.
So now you're calling me a liar. I wish you wouldn't do that. If you disagree with something I write, that's one thing. But please don't put words in my mouth and accuse me of writing something I don't believe.

I don't have "zero problems" with what we're doing. I have far less problems than most of you. Overall I think it's a good idea, and I don't think it's a major violation of the 4th Amendment. Could I be persuaded to change my mind about this? Of course. If there is information I don't know right now, or if something happens that makes me rethink this issue, or if someone makes a convincing argument that I haven't considered, then I will change my mind. And if I do, it won't be "back tracking" and I won't apologize for my earlier comments, because they were made with conviction.
I'm not calling you a liar. What I'm saying is your actions aren't matching your words. Which one is accurate is anyone's guess.

 
timschochet said:
5 digit know nothing said:
Politician Spock said:
5 digit know nothing said:
what are the odds we never hear from Snowden again, that he was erased? cue black helicopters
If we don't, it will be due to how well he hides himself.If the Feds catch him, they will want to make an example of him by keeping him locked up and drag out the judicial process as long as possible, as to not appear to be violating his rights at all, but to show those who are considering to be the next whistleblower what a pain in the ###, and life altering, the process of having your rights protected is.Killing him would make him a martyr. That is the last thing the Feds would want.
Unless he is just never heard from again. I liken it to the hunt for Dorner, he knows too much. They bring him in and unless they torture/brainwash him/threaten his family what is to keep him from keeping his mouth shut, a plea deal maybe? I guess it would depend on the strength of the charges brought against him, given that we are only allowed to see 4 of the slides would the whole investigation be under wraps?
The two of you are such perfect archetypes of your classic conspiracy junkie that you're almost caricatures.
So says Captain Hyperbole.
 
Timschochet (and anyone else for that matter), please watch this RT news report from May 23rd (well before the NSA PRISM program came to light), and pay special attention to what is said between 2:20 to 2:40, and between 4:40 to the end of the video.Now that we know PRISM exists, are you okay with government agencies using PRISM to do what was reported in the video weeks before we knew PRISM existed?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRxb5pQB_T0

 
"I'm here to reveal criminality" Doesn't seem like he agrees nothing has been abused.

Fun quotes from another great patriot:

Another Republican, Rep. Peter King of New York, said he believed the journalists involved in reporting stories about the surveillance programs should be investigated.

"If they willingly knew that this was classified information, I think actions should be taken, especially on something of this magnitude," King, who leads the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Counterintelligence and Terrorism, told CNN's "AC360°" on Tuesday.

"There is an obligation both moral, but also legal, I believe, against a reporter disclosing something which would so severely compromise national security," he said. "As a practical matter, I guess there have been in the past several years a number of reporters who have been prosecuted" under the Espionage Act.
I'm sure King is providing great oversight of surveillence programs with this mindset.

 
5 digit know nothing said:
Snowden is no Edward Lyle (Gene Hackman from Enemy of the State), it took balls to do what he did, but this will not end well for him.
He may never be able to come back to the US. But I've read there are at least a couple of countries that have announced they will give him political asylum. Iceland is one. I also read Moscow announced he could go there, but I'm not sure if that was the Russian government or just the city itself.

It's appalling to me that they are actually going after him. I can't see how what he did threatens national security unless we are saying informing the American public that the government is watching all of us (which a lot of us consider a violation of our civil rights) some sort of threat. Sure it's a threat to them and their practices. National security? No. The terrorists already know our various agencies are monitoring everything they did. We just didn't know we were being monitored in the process.

ETA: He's probably not in Hong Kong anymore. He checked out of the hotel he was staying in days ago.
As I wrote earlier, I tend to agree with you here. I don't regard this guy as the hero that you do, but your bolded argument makes a lot of sense to me. Unless there is some aspect about this we don't know, I can't see that Snowden threatened national security either.
I'm sure great American patriots like Dianne Feinstein know what they're talking about, probably best to just take their word.
My overall opinion of Feinstein (or anyone else for that matter) has very little to do with whether or not I personally share their views.
Can you let us know which politicians aren't great patriots??

 
Timschochet (and anyone else for that matter), please watch this RT news report from May 23rd (well before the NSA PRISM program came to light), and pay special attention to what is said between 2:20 to 2:40, and between 4:40 to the end of the video.Now that we know PRISM exists, are you okay with government agencies using PRISM to do what was reported in the video weeks before we knew PRISM existed? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRxb5pQB_T0
extremist and terrorist interchangeable, hmmm.
 
Timschochet (and anyone else for that matter), please watch this RT news report from May 23rd (well before the NSA PRISM program came to light), and pay special attention to what is said between 2:20 to 2:40, and between 4:40 to the end of the video.Now that we know PRISM exists, are you okay with government agencies using PRISM to do what was reported in the video weeks before we knew PRISM existed? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRxb5pQB_T0
extremist and terrorist interchangeable, hmmm.
Extremist, terrorist, populist, 220, 221... whatever it takes.

 
Timschochet (and anyone else for that matter), please watch this RT news report from May 23rd (well before the NSA PRISM program came to light), and pay special attention to what is said between 2:20 to 2:40, and between 4:40 to the end of the video.

Now that we know PRISM exists, are you okay with government agencies using PRISM to do what was reported in the video weeks before we knew PRISM existed?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRxb5pQB_T0


I thought the mere existence of the internet supposed to prevent this stuff?



Someone get Pickles in here to answer.

 
Timschochet (and anyone else for that matter), please watch this RT news report from May 23rd (well before the NSA PRISM program came to light), and pay special attention to what is said between 2:20 to 2:40, and between 4:40 to the end of the video.

Now that we know PRISM exists, are you okay with government agencies using PRISM to do what was reported in the video weeks before we knew PRISM existed?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRxb5pQB_T0
I thought the mere existence of the internet supposed to prevent this stuff?

Someone get Pickles in here to answer.
I would be suprised if Pickles doesn't have timschochet on ignore.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Timschochet (and anyone else for that matter), please watch this RT news report from May 23rd (well before the NSA PRISM program came to light), and pay special attention to what is said between 2:20 to 2:40, and between 4:40 to the end of the video.Now that we know PRISM exists, are you okay with government agencies using PRISM to do what was reported in the video weeks before we knew PRISM existed?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRxb5pQB_T0
I can't watch it at work. Do you want to describe what it says so I can answer your question? Otherwise, you'll have to wait until this evening sorry.

 
5 digit know nothing said:
Snowden is no Edward Lyle (Gene Hackman from Enemy of the State), it took balls to do what he did, but this will not end well for him.
He may never be able to come back to the US. But I've read there are at least a couple of countries that have announced they will give him political asylum. Iceland is one. I also read Moscow announced he could go there, but I'm not sure if that was the Russian government or just the city itself.

It's appalling to me that they are actually going after him. I can't see how what he did threatens national security unless we are saying informing the American public that the government is watching all of us (which a lot of us consider a violation of our civil rights) some sort of threat. Sure it's a threat to them and their practices. National security? No. The terrorists already know our various agencies are monitoring everything they did. We just didn't know we were being monitored in the process.

ETA: He's probably not in Hong Kong anymore. He checked out of the hotel he was staying in days ago.
As I wrote earlier, I tend to agree with you here. I don't regard this guy as the hero that you do, but your bolded argument makes a lot of sense to me. Unless there is some aspect about this we don't know, I can't see that Snowden threatened national security either.
I'm sure great American patriots like Dianne Feinstein know what they're talking about, probably best to just take their word.
My overall opinion of Feinstein (or anyone else for that matter) has very little to do with whether or not I personally share their views.
Can you let us know which politicians aren't great patriots??
Well, Peter King for one.

Frankly, it would be easier for me to tell you which politicians I respect than the ones I don't respect. It's a far smaller number.

 
Timschochet (and anyone else for that matter), please watch this RT news report from May 23rd (well before the NSA PRISM program came to light), and pay special attention to what is said between 2:20 to 2:40, and between 4:40 to the end of the video.Now that we know PRISM exists, are you okay with government agencies using PRISM to do what was reported in the video weeks before we knew PRISM existed? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRxb5pQB_T0
I can't watch it at work. Do you want to describe what it says so I can answer your question? Otherwise, you'll have to wait until this evening sorry.
No. You need to watch it.
 
Timschochet (and anyone else for that matter), please watch this RT news report from May 23rd (well before the NSA PRISM program came to light), and pay special attention to what is said between 2:20 to 2:40, and between 4:40 to the end of the video.Now that we know PRISM exists, are you okay with government agencies using PRISM to do what was reported in the video weeks before we knew PRISM existed? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRxb5pQB_T0
I can't watch it at work. Do you want to describe what it says so I can answer your question? Otherwise, you'll have to wait until this evening sorry.
No. You need to watch it.
I'll try to watch it later on today.

 
5 digit know nothing said:
Snowden is no Edward Lyle (Gene Hackman from Enemy of the State), it took balls to do what he did, but this will not end well for him.
He may never be able to come back to the US. But I've read there are at least a couple of countries that have announced they will give him political asylum. Iceland is one. I also read Moscow announced he could go there, but I'm not sure if that was the Russian government or just the city itself.

It's appalling to me that they are actually going after him. I can't see how what he did threatens national security unless we are saying informing the American public that the government is watching all of us (which a lot of us consider a violation of our civil rights) some sort of threat. Sure it's a threat to them and their practices. National security? No. The terrorists already know our various agencies are monitoring everything they did. We just didn't know we were being monitored in the process.

ETA: He's probably not in Hong Kong anymore. He checked out of the hotel he was staying in days ago.
As I wrote earlier, I tend to agree with you here. I don't regard this guy as the hero that you do, but your bolded argument makes a lot of sense to me. Unless there is some aspect about this we don't know, I can't see that Snowden threatened national security either.
I'm sure great American patriots like Dianne Feinstein know what they're talking about, probably best to just take their word.
My overall opinion of Feinstein (or anyone else for that matter) has very little to do with whether or not I personally share their views.
Can you let us know which politicians aren't great patriots??
Well, Peter King for one.

Frankly, it would be easier for me to tell you which politicians I respect than the ones I don't respect. It's a far smaller number.
Go for it.

Feinstien

Obama

???

 
OK. Thanks for posting that. John Whitehead is generally a guy I've respected over the years (except for the Paula Jones lawsuit.) Putting aside the main issue for the moment, I thought some of his general comments were way off base, and I'm especially sad to see him buy into the "Homeland Security purchases bullets" theory that is a popular conspiracy thing among right wing extremists these days. By repeating that story, even offhand, I end up questioning his credibility on the rest of it.

Regarding the marine: if you recall, I wrote earlier in the thread that my biggest fear regarding government increase of powers in general is not Orwell's 1984 but Kafka's the Trial. This story is a prime example of the latter. Based on what we know this guy never should have been prosecuted, and the fact that he was medically evaluated is completely Kafkaesque. It is NOT however, Orwellian, and therein lies the main distinction between my problem with government and yours. Whitehead would have you believe that if we connect the dots this is all part of a grand scheme by the federal government to attack it's critics. I say much more likely it's bureaucracy screwing things up, or perhaps some overly ambitious officials somewhere.

This guy was obviously wronged. But he's suing the government. He does have recourse. You were made aware of it, and you made the rest of us aware of it through the internet, which helps serve to affirm my earlier point that the internet provides the ultimate antidote to this sort of thing becoming the norm (which would mean we're living in a police state.)

Finally, regarding Whitehead's description of Janet Napolitano's memo- I already told you that if such a program actually exists it would not be acceptable to me. I do not want any group of people targeted for their views. That is not a way to fight terrorism, and it is a clear violation of the 4th Amendment (and the 1st). The PRISM system, as described so far, does not perform in the same manner.

 
OK Slapdash, just for you, off the top of my head- here are the politicians I would call great patriots, in no particular order:

Barack Obama

Bill Clinton

Hillary Cinton

George W. Bush

Al Franken

John McCain

Bernie Sanders

Chris Christie

Paul Ryan

Mitt Romney

Diane Feinstein

Daniel Inouye

Gabrielle Giffords

Dan Lundgren

Tom McClintock

David Dreier

Loretta Sanchez

Barney Frank

Jim Clyburn

There's probably a few I'm forgetting.

 
OK. Thanks for posting that. John Whitehead is generally a guy I've respected over the years (except for the Paula Jones lawsuit.) Putting aside the main issue for the moment, I thought some of his general comments were way off base, and I'm especially sad to see him buy into the "Homeland Security purchases bullets" theory that is a popular conspiracy thing among right wing extremists these days. By repeating that story, even offhand, I end up questioning his credibility on the rest of it. Regarding the marine: if you recall, I wrote earlier in the thread that my biggest fear regarding government increase of powers in general is not Orwell's 1984 but Kafka's the Trial. This story is a prime example of the latter. Based on what we know this guy never should have been prosecuted, and the fact that he was medically evaluated is completely Kafkaesque. It is NOT however, Orwellian, and therein lies the main distinction between my problem with government and yours. Whitehead would have you believe that if we connect the dots this is all part of a grand scheme by the federal government to attack it's critics. I say much more likely it's bureaucracy screwing things up, or perhaps some overly ambitious officials somewhere. This guy was obviously wronged. But he's suing the government. He does have recourse. You were made aware of it, and you made the rest of us aware of it through the internet, which helps serve to affirm my earlier point that the internet provides the ultimate antidote to this sort of thing becoming the norm (which would mean we're living in a police state.) Finally, regarding Whitehead's description of Janet Napolitano's memo- I already told you that if such a program actually exists it would not be acceptable to me. I do not want any group of people targeted for their views. That is not a way to fight terrorism, and it is a clear violation of the 4th Amendment (and the 1st). The PRISM system, as described so far, does not perform in the same manner.
So according to Tim, something is not unconstitutional until the SCOTUS tells him it is, or until someone successfully sues the government.

:doh:

 
OK. Thanks for posting that. John Whitehead is generally a guy I've respected over the years (except for the Paula Jones lawsuit.) Putting aside the main issue for the moment, I thought some of his general comments were way off base, and I'm especially sad to see him buy into the "Homeland Security purchases bullets" theory that is a popular conspiracy thing among right wing extremists these days. By repeating that story, even offhand, I end up questioning his credibility on the rest of it.

Regarding the marine: if you recall, I wrote earlier in the thread that my biggest fear regarding government increase of powers in general is not Orwell's 1984 but Kafka's the Trial. This story is a prime example of the latter. Based on what we know this guy never should have been prosecuted, and the fact that he was medically evaluated is completely Kafkaesque. It is NOT however, Orwellian, and therein lies the main distinction between my problem with government and yours. Whitehead would have you believe that if we connect the dots this is all part of a grand scheme by the federal government to attack it's critics. I say much more likely it's bureaucracy screwing things up, or perhaps some overly ambitious officials somewhere.

This guy was obviously wronged. But he's suing the government. He does have recourse. You were made aware of it, and you made the rest of us aware of it through the internet, which helps serve to affirm my earlier point that the internet provides the ultimate antidote to this sort of thing becoming the norm (which would mean we're living in a police state.)

Finally, regarding Whitehead's description of Janet Napolitano's memo- I already told you that if such a program actually exists it would not be acceptable to me. I do not want any group of people targeted for their views. That is not a way to fight terrorism, and it is a clear violation of the 4th Amendment (and the 1st). The PRISM system, as described so far, does not perform in the same manner.
How can you keep saying this? Are you denying the DHS memo exists? Otherwise, how would he have been targeted?

 
OK Slapdash, just for you, off the top of my head- here are the politicians I would call great patriots, in no particular order:

Barack Obama

Bill Clinton

Hillary Cinton

George W. Bush

Al Franken

John McCain

Bernie Sanders

Chris Christie

Paul Ryan

Mitt Romney

Diane Feinstein

Daniel Inouye

Gabrielle Giffords

Dan Lundgren

Tom McClintock

David Dreier

Loretta Sanchez

Barney Frank

Jim Clyburn

There's probably a few I'm forgetting.
Awful

 
OK Slapdash, just for you, off the top of my head- here are the politicians I would call great patriots, in no particular order:

Barack Obama

Bill Clinton

Hillary Cinton

George W. Bush

Al Franken

John McCain

Bernie Sanders

Chris Christie

Paul Ryan

Mitt Romney

Diane Feinstein

Daniel Inouye

Gabrielle Giffords

Dan Lundgren

Tom McClintock

David Dreier

Loretta Sanchez

Barney Frank

Jim Clyburn

There's probably a few I'm forgetting.
Awful
Yeah? What's your list?

 
OK. Thanks for posting that. John Whitehead is generally a guy I've respected over the years (except for the Paula Jones lawsuit.) Putting aside the main issue for the moment, I thought some of his general comments were way off base, and I'm especially sad to see him buy into the "Homeland Security purchases bullets" theory that is a popular conspiracy thing among right wing extremists these days. By repeating that story, even offhand, I end up questioning his credibility on the rest of it.

Regarding the marine: if you recall, I wrote earlier in the thread that my biggest fear regarding government increase of powers in general is not Orwell's 1984 but Kafka's the Trial. This story is a prime example of the latter. Based on what we know this guy never should have been prosecuted, and the fact that he was medically evaluated is completely Kafkaesque. It is NOT however, Orwellian, and therein lies the main distinction between my problem with government and yours. Whitehead would have you believe that if we connect the dots this is all part of a grand scheme by the federal government to attack it's critics. I say much more likely it's bureaucracy screwing things up, or perhaps some overly ambitious officials somewhere.

This guy was obviously wronged. But he's suing the government. He does have recourse. You were made aware of it, and you made the rest of us aware of it through the internet, which helps serve to affirm my earlier point that the internet provides the ultimate antidote to this sort of thing becoming the norm (which would mean we're living in a police state.)

Finally, regarding Whitehead's description of Janet Napolitano's memo- I already told you that if such a program actually exists it would not be acceptable to me. I do not want any group of people targeted for their views. That is not a way to fight terrorism, and it is a clear violation of the 4th Amendment (and the 1st). The PRISM system, as described so far, does not perform in the same manner.
How can you keep saying this? Are you denying the DHS memo exists? Otherwise, how would he have been targeted?
I'd like to hear Ms. Napolitano explain that memo. I'm not just going to assume it means what you think it means.

I'd like to see some connection between the memo and the action.I'm not just going to assume there is one, like apparently you are.

I'd like to see some evidence that what happened to this Marine is widespread. I haven't seen any.

...that's why I keep saying this.

 
Finally, regarding Whitehead's description of Janet Napolitano's memo- I already told you that if such a program actually exists it would not be acceptable to me. I do not want any group of people targeted for their views. That is not a way to fight terrorism, and it is a clear violation of the 4th Amendment (and the 1st). The PRISM system, as described so far, does not perform in the same manner.
This part above was the only thing I was asking about.You are the only one who gives a crap about the difference between Orwellian and Kafkaesque. It's a Red Herring. Everyone who has an issue with PRISM vioating the 4th amendment doesn't care if the negative consequences of government violating the 4th amendment are due to a grand scheme or due to an accident, or any other reason. It makes no difference to us WHY the negative consequences occured, only that they occur. To you, for whatever reason, it makes a difference. Which tells me, if you were thrown in jail, by having your 4th amendment rights violated, you'd be okay with that as long as there was no grand scheme involved. That is INSANE!!!! But that is your position, and you are sticking to it. That's fine by me. It's your life. It's your opinion. Do as you please. But for crying out loud, stop posting tons of Red Herring argument crap assuming it means **** to those of us who disagree with you.Now, regarding your response to the issue I asked about. Assuming you don't just write off Whiteheads report as a lie, he said he has had numerous veterans tell him government agencies have contacted them concerned over things they wrote in text messages and emails. If you don't think those agencies got those text messages and emails from PRISM, are you suggesting there is another government project that does the same thing PRISM does, and that's where these agencies got their data?
 
The Internet: Look Tim! A Marine being targeted for speaking out against the government online.

Tim: That is a nuthjob conspiricy theory, the government told me that isn't what the program is being used for.

The Internet: Look Tim! Jounalists having their private emails exposed to the government and prosecuted for them!

Tim: That is tin foil hat stuff, based on my faulty understanding of the program it doesn't do that.

The Internet: Look Tim! A former military member sent an email to a lawyer and the NSA threatened him with deportation.

Tim: You are paranoid, if something like that happened it would be on the internet and I would be againt it.

The Internet: Look Tim! Growing evidence that the government is targeting it's opponents as extremists and terrorists.

Tim: The Internet wouldn't allow that.

 
OK Slapdash, just for you, off the top of my head- here are the politicians I would call great patriots, in no particular order:

Barack Obama

Bill Clinton

Hillary Cinton

George W. Bush

Al Franken

John McCain

Bernie Sanders

Chris Christie

Paul Ryan

Mitt Romney

Diane Feinstein

Daniel Inouye

Gabrielle Giffords

Dan Lundgren

Tom McClintock

David Dreier

Loretta Sanchez

Barney Frank

Jim Clyburn

There's probably a few I'm forgetting.
Awful
Yeah? What's your list?
I don't keep a running list of patriots. However, if I did, none of these people would be on it save maybe McCain.

 
The Internet: Look Tim! A Marine being targeted for speaking out against the government online.Tim: That is a nuthjob conspiricy theory, the government told me that isn't what the program is being used for.The Internet: Look Tim! Jounalists having their private emails exposed to the government and prosecuted for them!Tim: That is tin foil hat stuff, based on my faulty understanding of the program it doesn't do that.The Internet: Look Tim! A former military member sent an email to a lawyer and the NSA threatened him with deportation.Tim: You are paranoid, if something like that happened it would be on the internet and I would be againt it.The Internet: Look Tim! Growing evidence that the government is targeting it's opponents as extremists and terrorists.Tim: The Internet wouldn't allow that.
The Internet: Look Tim! The government ignoring the 4th amendment could potentially lead us to 1984.Tim: If Orwell could speak today, he'd say 1984 could never happen now because we have the best defence against 1984 we could ever have... the INTERNET!The Internet: Look Tim! People all over the internet are citing examples of the government behaving like 1984Tim: What a bunch of conspiracy theorist, extremist, and populist nutjobs. You've got to ignore what you hear on the internet. It can't be trusted. What they are describing isn't even Orwellian. It's Kafkaesque! Are you going to listen to people who don't know the difference?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
OK. Thanks for posting that. John Whitehead is generally a guy I've respected over the years (except for the Paula Jones lawsuit.) Putting aside the main issue for the moment, I thought some of his general comments were way off base, and I'm especially sad to see him buy into the "Homeland Security purchases bullets" theory that is a popular conspiracy thing among right wing extremists these days. By repeating that story, even offhand, I end up questioning his credibility on the rest of it.

Regarding the marine: if you recall, I wrote earlier in the thread that my biggest fear regarding government increase of powers in general is not Orwell's 1984 but Kafka's the Trial. This story is a prime example of the latter. Based on what we know this guy never should have been prosecuted, and the fact that he was medically evaluated is completely Kafkaesque. It is NOT however, Orwellian, and therein lies the main distinction between my problem with government and yours. Whitehead would have you believe that if we connect the dots this is all part of a grand scheme by the federal government to attack it's critics. I say much more likely it's bureaucracy screwing things up, or perhaps some overly ambitious officials somewhere.

This guy was obviously wronged. But he's suing the government. He does have recourse. You were made aware of it, and you made the rest of us aware of it through the internet, which helps serve to affirm my earlier point that the internet provides the ultimate antidote to this sort of thing becoming the norm (which would mean we're living in a police state.)

Finally, regarding Whitehead's description of Janet Napolitano's memo- I already told you that if such a program actually exists it would not be acceptable to me. I do not want any group of people targeted for their views. That is not a way to fight terrorism, and it is a clear violation of the 4th Amendment (and the 1st). The PRISM system, as described so far, does not perform in the same manner.
How can you keep saying this? Are you denying the DHS memo exists? Otherwise, how would he have been targeted?
I'd like to hear Ms. Napolitano explain that memo. I'm not just going to assume it means what you think it means.

I'd like to see some connection between the memo and the action.I'm not just going to assume there is one, like apparently you are.

I'd like to see some evidence that what happened to this Marine is widespread. I haven't seen any.

...that's why I keep saying this.
I guess his laywer just made up Operation Vigilant Eagle.

Veterans a Focus of FBI Extremist Probe 

WASHINGTON -- The Federal Bureau of Investigation earlier this year launched a nationwide operation targeting white supremacists and "militia/sovereign-citizen extremist groups," including a focus on veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan, according to memos sent from bureau headquarters to field offices.
The initiative, dubbed Operation Vigilant Eagle, was outlined in February, two months before a memo giving a similar warning was issued on April 7 by the Department of Homeland Security.

Disclosure of the DHS memo this week has sparked controversy among some conservatives and veterans groups. Appearing on television talk shows Thursday, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano defended the assessment, but apologized to veterans who saw it as an accusation.

"This is an assessment of things just to be wary of, not to infringe on constitutional rights, certainly not to malign our veterans," she said on NBC's Today Show.

The documents outlining Operation Vigilant Eagle cite a surge in activity by such groups. The memos say the FBI's focus on veterans began as far back as December, during the final weeks of the Bush administration, when the bureau's domestic counterterrorism division formed a special joint working group with the Defense Department.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, pictured this month in Mexico, defended the assessment Thursday but apologized to veterans.
A Feb. 23 draft memo from FBI domestic counterterrorism leaders, obtained by The Wall Street Journal, cited an "increase in recruitment, threatening communications and weapons procurement by white supremacy extremist and militia/sovereign-citizen extremist groups."

The FBI said in the memo that its conclusion about a surge in such activities was based on confidential sources, undercover operations, reporting from other law-enforcement agencies and publicly available information. The memo said the main goal of the multipronged operation was to get a better handle on "the scope of this emerging threat." The operation also seeks to identify gaps in intelligence efforts surrounding these groups and their leaders.

The aim of the FBI's effort with the Defense Department, which was rolled into the Vigilant Eagle program, is to "share information regarding Iraqi and Afghanistan war veterans whose involvement in white supremacy and/or militia sovereign citizen extremist groups poses a domestic terrorism threat," according to the Feb. 23 FBI memo.

Michael Ward, FBI deputy assistant director for counterterrorism, said in an interview Thursday that the portion of the operation focusing on the military related only to veterans who draw the attention of Defense Department officials for joining white-supremacist or other extremist groups.

"We're not doing an investigation into the military, we're not looking at former military members," he said. "It would have to be something they were concerned about, or someone they're concerned is involved" with extremist groups.

Mr. Ward said that the FBI's general counsel reviewed the operation before it began, "to make sure any tripwires we set do not violate any civil liberties."

Some Republican lawmakers, talk-show hosts and veterans groups complained this week after the internal DHS assessment cited the potential for the same extremists groups to target returning combat veterans for recruitment. The Democratic chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, also echoed the concerns.

The separate DHS assessment, leaked this week after being sent to law-enforcement agencies, said the "willingness of a small percentage of military personnel to join extremist groups during the 1990s because they were disgruntled, disillusioned or suffering from the psychological effects of war is being replicated today." Veterans could draw special attention, the report said, because of their advanced training.

Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, the House Republican leader, said Wednesday he was offended that veterans were characterized as potential domestic terrorists.

Amy Kudwa, a DHS spokeswoman, said Thursday the report was issued before an objection about one part of the document raised by the agency's civil-rights division was resolved. She called it a "breakdown of an internal process" that would be fixed.

The FBI documents show the bureau was working with investigators inside the nation's uniformed services "in an effort to identify those current or former soldiers who pose a domestic terrorism threat." The other agencies working with the FBI are the U.S. Army Criminal Investigative Division, the U.S. Air Force Office of Special Investigations and the Naval Criminal Investigative Service.

Documents detailing the operation are unclassified, but were meant for internal distribution only.
Thankfully you've already explained that monitoring people's web activity doesn't violate their civil liberties. Good to know we can add being detained without charged to the list too, since that didn't bother you about the aforementioned Marine. Maybe we could just consider him an enemy combatant.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
5 digit know nothing said:
Snowden is no Edward Lyle (Gene Hackman from Enemy of the State), it took balls to do what he did, but this will not end well for him.
He may never be able to come back to the US. But I've read there are at least a couple of countries that have announced they will give him political asylum. Iceland is one. I also read Moscow announced he could go there, but I'm not sure if that was the Russian government or just the city itself.

It's appalling to me that they are actually going after him. I can't see how what he did threatens national security unless we are saying informing the American public that the government is watching all of us (which a lot of us consider a violation of our civil rights) some sort of threat. Sure it's a threat to them and their practices. National security? No. The terrorists already know our various agencies are monitoring everything they did. We just didn't know we were being monitored in the process.

ETA: He's probably not in Hong Kong anymore. He checked out of the hotel he was staying in days ago.
As I wrote earlier, I tend to agree with you here. I don't regard this guy as the hero that you do, but your bolded argument makes a lot of sense to me. Unless there is some aspect about this we don't know, I can't see that Snowden threatened national security either.
I'm sure great American patriots like Dianne Feinstein know what they're talking about, probably best to just take their word.
My overall opinion of Feinstein (or anyone else for that matter) has very little to do with whether or not I personally share their views.
Can you let us know which politicians aren't great patriots??
All the ones with Tea Party backing.

 
The real problem here is that no one in government can possibly win. NSA is not spying on the typical FBG and don't care you are telling your wife you're picking up your dry cleaning when in fact you're meeting a hooker at a motel. Those with the clearance in politics who know the real story can't divulge the details because they are classified, and they aren't going to say nothing is harming the common man because it makes them look like they are in on it. So they say nothing.

The politicians who don't have access to the details can crow and crow but won't crow too much because they are going to eventually find out the details, realize the program is in the best interest of the people and then go silent. Those people will then also be accused of being in on it or just not willing to do anything about, lose/lose.

Those who voted for the Patriot Act, those who have supported it, those who administer it and the White House all are at a disadvantage. They can site 40 instances of where the program prevented terror, but can't detail how the info was garnered, who was targeted or how they were targeted. The common American is at a disadvantage because they'll never get the real story, distrust their government and wonder what other programs are in place to restrict their freedoms.

While we don't want to end up like Israel with our security measures, a lot of what is in place is best left to the imagination IMO. I think people should generally be outraged by all of this but also consider the aspects of National Security that provide a service for all citizens. From what I know our government in general has a hard time processing metadata, and the complexities of spying on anyone via electronic means is arduous at best. Even those who are subversive in nature or highly conspiracy oriented aren't going to register on these data searches, but in theory they could at some point post-war on terror. That would be my worry as a citizen to be honest.
I don't see how a "war on terror" ends. The classification of what is a terrorist just changes.
I was reading about the disposition of Guantanamo Bay prisoners recently, I don't see what we currently call "war on terror" ending in the next 20 years. 30? Doubtful. 40? Maybe.
I wonder how long it would take the spotlight to be pointed at non-islamic terror related targets. Politician Spock claims it is happening already. Not too sure we need to wait to see what happens after the end of this "war" to be worried, IMO.

Imagine someone's entire electronic life being stored in these databases 40 years from now and the control that would give a government or person who wants to use it...
I guess PS was right. Funny the little details that the media barely covers.

 
5 digit know nothing said:
Snowden is no Edward Lyle (Gene Hackman from Enemy of the State), it took balls to do what he did, but this will not end well for him.
He may never be able to come back to the US. But I've read there are at least a couple of countries that have announced they will give him political asylum. Iceland is one. I also read Moscow announced he could go there, but I'm not sure if that was the Russian government or just the city itself.

It's appalling to me that they are actually going after him. I can't see how what he did threatens national security unless we are saying informing the American public that the government is watching all of us (which a lot of us consider a violation of our civil rights) some sort of threat. Sure it's a threat to them and their practices. National security? No. The terrorists already know our various agencies are monitoring everything they did. We just didn't know we were being monitored in the process.

ETA: He's probably not in Hong Kong anymore. He checked out of the hotel he was staying in days ago.
As I wrote earlier, I tend to agree with you here. I don't regard this guy as the hero that you do, but your bolded argument makes a lot of sense to me. Unless there is some aspect about this we don't know, I can't see that Snowden threatened national security either.
I'm sure great American patriots like Dianne Feinstein know what they're talking about, probably best to just take their word.
My overall opinion of Feinstein (or anyone else for that matter) has very little to do with whether or not I personally share their views.
Can you let us know which politicians aren't great patriots??
All the ones with Tea Party backing.
Poor John Boehner. He doesn't have the support of the Tea Party, nor is he far enough removed to be a patriot.

Plus, his name kinda looks like boner.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
OK Slapdash, just for you, off the top of my head- here are the politicians I would call great patriots, in no particular order:

Barack Obama

Bill Clinton

Hillary Cinton

George W. Bush

Al Franken

John McCain

Bernie Sanders

Chris Christie

Paul Ryan

Mitt Romney

Diane Feinstein

Daniel Inouye

Gabrielle Giffords

Dan Lundgren

Tom McClintock

David Dreier

Loretta Sanchez

Barney Frank

Jim Clyburn

There's probably a few I'm forgetting.
Can you please describe the qualifications for making the great patriot list? I'm drawing a blank on the common thread between these names, really.

 
OK guys. I'm not going to beat a dead horse. All of you seem to think this is a much bigger deal than I do. That's fine. Being a punching bag does get tiresome after a while, though. I'm going to leave this thread alone now for a while, until I think of something new to post that is not just a repeat of stuff I've already said, or if somebody else comes up with a new argument I haven't considered. Until then, I'll leave you guys to it...

 
OK Slapdash, just for you, off the top of my head- here are the politicians I would call great patriots, in no particular order:

Barack Obama

Bill Clinton

Hillary Cinton

George W. Bush

Al Franken

John McCain

Bernie Sanders

Chris Christie

Paul Ryan

Mitt Romney

Diane Feinstein

Daniel Inouye

Gabrielle Giffords

Dan Lundgren

Tom McClintock

David Dreier

Loretta Sanchez

Barney Frank

Jim Clyburn

There's probably a few I'm forgetting.
Can you please describe the qualifications for making the great patriot list? I'm drawing a blank on the common thread between these names, really.
I can't really. Each of these people has done something (or several things) I really admire- either consistency on issues, or a brave stand on an unpopular subject, or simply working for the good of all Americans.

 
OK Slapdash, just for you, off the top of my head- here are the politicians I would call great patriots, in no particular order:

Barack Obama

Bill Clinton

Hillary Cinton

George W. Bush

Al Franken

John McCain

Bernie Sanders

Chris Christie

Paul Ryan

Mitt Romney

Diane Feinstein

Daniel Inouye

Gabrielle Giffords

Dan Lundgren

Tom McClintock

David Dreier

Loretta Sanchez

Barney Frank

Jim Clyburn

There's probably a few I'm forgetting.
Awful
Yeah? What's your list?
I don't keep a running list of patriots. However, if I did, none of these people would be on it save maybe McCain.
If you don't consider Daniel Inouye a patriot then I suggest you know very little about him. Of all the people on my list he's probably the #1 guy. (Unfortunately just deceased.)

 
OK Slapdash, just for you, off the top of my head- here are the politicians I would call great patriots, in no particular order:

Barack Obama

Bill Clinton

Hillary Cinton

George W. Bush

Al Franken

John McCain

Bernie Sanders

Chris Christie

Paul Ryan

Mitt Romney

Diane Feinstein

Daniel Inouye

Gabrielle Giffords

Dan Lundgren

Tom McClintock

David Dreier

Loretta Sanchez

Barney Frank

Jim Clyburn

There's probably a few I'm forgetting.
Awful
Yeah? What's your list?
I don't keep a running list of patriots. However, if I did, none of these people would be on it save maybe McCain.
If you don't consider Daniel Inouye a patriot then I suggest you know very little about him. Of all the people on my list he's probably the #1 guy. (Unfortunately just deceased.)
Just looked him up, seems like he fits the bill to be called a patriot.

Not sure what he has in common with this list of career politicians including a few draft dodgers.

 
OK Slapdash, just for you, off the top of my head- here are the politicians I would call great patriots, in no particular order:

Barack Obama

Bill Clinton

Hillary Cinton

George W. Bush

Al Franken

John McCain

Bernie Sanders

Chris Christie

Paul Ryan

Mitt Romney

Diane Feinstein

Daniel Inouye

Gabrielle Giffords

Dan Lundgren

Tom McClintock

David Dreier

Loretta Sanchez

Barney Frank

Jim Clyburn

There's probably a few I'm forgetting.
Can you please describe the qualifications for making the great patriot list? I'm drawing a blank on the common thread between these names, really.
I can't really. Each of these people has done something (or several things) I really admire- either consistency on issues, or a brave stand on an unpopular subject, or simply working for the good of all Americans.
How do, say, Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich not make the list then?

 
President Obama says we need to have a debate about how much privacy we should give up in exchange for security. After the fact of course. And Edward Snowden says his purpose of exposing this was to leave it up to the people to decide if they are willing to give up their privacy for security. So they agree on this point. So where and when is this debate going to start. All I've heard from just about every member of the legislative is that Snowden is a traitor and should be found guilty of treason. Do they not agree that we should have this debate? And if they do, why aren't we having it like right now?

 
OK. Thanks for posting that. John Whitehead is generally a guy I've respected over the years (except for the Paula Jones lawsuit.) Putting aside the main issue for the moment, I thought some of his general comments were way off base, and I'm especially sad to see him buy into the "Homeland Security purchases bullets" theory that is a popular conspiracy thing among right wing extremists these days. By repeating that story, even offhand, I end up questioning his credibility on the rest of it.

Regarding the marine: if you recall, I wrote earlier in the thread that my biggest fear regarding government increase of powers in general is not Orwell's 1984 but Kafka's the Trial. This story is a prime example of the latter. Based on what we know this guy never should have been prosecuted, and the fact that he was medically evaluated is completely Kafkaesque. It is NOT however, Orwellian, and therein lies the main distinction between my problem with government and yours. Whitehead would have you believe that if we connect the dots this is all part of a grand scheme by the federal government to attack it's critics. I say much more likely it's bureaucracy screwing things up, or perhaps some overly ambitious officials somewhere.

This guy was obviously wronged. But he's suing the government. He does have recourse. You were made aware of it, and you made the rest of us aware of it through the internet, which helps serve to affirm my earlier point that the internet provides the ultimate antidote to this sort of thing becoming the norm (which would mean we're living in a police state.)

Finally, regarding Whitehead's description of Janet Napolitano's memo- I already told you that if such a program actually exists it would not be acceptable to me. I do not want any group of people targeted for their views. That is not a way to fight terrorism, and it is a clear violation of the 4th Amendment (and the 1st). The PRISM system, as described so far, does not perform in the same manner.
I really don't understand why it matters if it's Orwellian or Kafkaesque. What is the freaking difference??? Whether it's some master government conspiracy to create a global tyrannical empire, or if it is confused and abused by bungling incompetent bureaucrats, IT'S ALL BAD. Why are you so stuck on the motivation. So if someone is doing something bad, but they didn't really mean to, the bad thing they are doing is OK and they should be able to keep doing it? No it's not OK. I haven't seen anyone here questioning the motives, just the fact that it's happening which I for one am NOT OK with regardless of why they are doing it.

 
5 digit know nothing said:
Snowden is no Edward Lyle (Gene Hackman from Enemy of the State), it took balls to do what he did, but this will not end well for him.
He may never be able to come back to the US. But I've read there are at least a couple of countries that have announced they will give him political asylum. Iceland is one. I also read Moscow announced he could go there, but I'm not sure if that was the Russian government or just the city itself.

It's appalling to me that they are actually going after him. I can't see how what he did threatens national security unless we are saying informing the American public that the government is watching all of us (which a lot of us consider a violation of our civil rights) some sort of threat. Sure it's a threat to them and their practices. National security? No. The terrorists already know our various agencies are monitoring everything they did. We just didn't know we were being monitored in the process.

ETA: He's probably not in Hong Kong anymore. He checked out of the hotel he was staying in days ago.
As I wrote earlier, I tend to agree with you here. I don't regard this guy as the hero that you do, but your bolded argument makes a lot of sense to me. Unless there is some aspect about this we don't know, I can't see that Snowden threatened national security either.
I'm sure great American patriots like Dianne Feinstein know what they're talking about, probably best to just take their word.
My overall opinion of Feinstein (or anyone else for that matter) has very little to do with whether or not I personally share their views.
Can you let us know which politicians aren't great patriots??
All the ones with Tea Party backing.
Poor John Boehner. He doesn't have the support of the Tea Party, nor is he far enough removed to be a patriot.

Plus, his name kinda looks like boner.
Don't forget the crying.

 
Well if anyone actually wanted to follow this story, then using this thread would be a colossal waste of time for them but I'll post this here anyway. NSA leaker Edward Snowden: U.S. targets China with hackershttp://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/snowden-wants-people-of-hong-kong-to-decide-my-fate/2013/06/12/a69e94ee-d370-11e2-a73e-826d299ff459_story.html
This deserves it's own thread.Wars have been fought over less.
imo he's crossing the line with this.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top