NSA spying on us - for or against
June 11th, 2013 at 5:38:56 PM
permalink
I've been following this spying scandal.
I'm actually shocked by this. What's even more shocking, They aren't really spying on us, they're farming out the work to private companies.
What's fascinating is that there is a real divide among conservatives on this issue. Rand Paul, Limbaugh and Beck against the spying. Lindsey Graham, Mccain and many Repub senators support the NSA spying.
What is really fascinating are the democratic voter polls on this issue. If Bush is President, majority of demo voters against NSA spying on us, but when Obama is in office, the majority of demo voters approve. sad.
I'm an independent.(registered repub but that's only so I can vote in a primary). I don't care who is president, I am against NSA spying on the American people.
I'm actually shocked by this. What's even more shocking, They aren't really spying on us, they're farming out the work to private companies.
What's fascinating is that there is a real divide among conservatives on this issue. Rand Paul, Limbaugh and Beck against the spying. Lindsey Graham, Mccain and many Repub senators support the NSA spying.
What is really fascinating are the democratic voter polls on this issue. If Bush is President, majority of demo voters against NSA spying on us, but when Obama is in office, the majority of demo voters approve. sad.
I'm an independent.(registered repub but that's only so I can vote in a primary). I don't care who is president, I am against NSA spying on the American people.
When somebody doesn't believe me, I could care less. Some get totally bent out of shape when not believed. Weird. I believe very little on all forums
June 11th, 2013 at 5:50:45 PM
permalink
I don't think we've been given a coherent answer on what they're doing. At the very least, it's the widest scope search warrant in the history of man and a clear violation of the 4th amendment. I'm pissed.
June 11th, 2013 at 5:55:40 PM
permalink
Brand new Wikipedia page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program)
Sanitized for Your Protection
June 11th, 2013 at 6:04:08 PM
permalink
I've said it on here before and I'll say it again. Orwell was right. Big Brother is watching. Not as ridiculous as you might think....we are slowly but surely having our freedoms eroded in the interest of "safety" or "patriotism"...or to "protect us from terrorism". This is happening under administrations both Republican and Democrat. You've been warned.
June 11th, 2013 at 6:17:22 PM
permalink
The program does give the power to build an enemies' list -- any enemy you decide on.
If a comparison were made with the old mail service, the government would (without opening any letters) record the sender and recipient of every letter sent and form a data base from that. Then look for links with certain known bad guys.
I don't know, but that sure sounds too invasive constitutionally. It's one thing to sit and monitor every message going to and from a small set of people with whom you have a court order on. This is really a significant extension from that.
If a comparison were made with the old mail service, the government would (without opening any letters) record the sender and recipient of every letter sent and form a data base from that. Then look for links with certain known bad guys.
I don't know, but that sure sounds too invasive constitutionally. It's one thing to sit and monitor every message going to and from a small set of people with whom you have a court order on. This is really a significant extension from that.
Sanitized for Your Protection
June 11th, 2013 at 7:52:37 PM
permalink
A lot people here are interested in data collection and using it to an advantage.
Let's say, you could monitor all the casinos phones in Vegas in the following way:
You know the phone number (but no names) and what phone numbers are calling other phone numbers and you make a historical database of the info. That's all you got. But you can do it continuously.
How long before you figure out how to squeeze more information out of that data? You start by looking up public business phones that casinos list for offices. Pretty soon you know what numbers these known numbers contact and other numbers you look up for IDing in public ways if possible without breaking the law.
If I saw one casino was making an excessive number of calls to the courthouse (mayor's office), already I can start putting this info to speculation. Or corporate buy out, and I see potential buyers on the outside numbers?
If that's not violating the 4th amendment, it's quite an end run around it.
Let's say, you could monitor all the casinos phones in Vegas in the following way:
You know the phone number (but no names) and what phone numbers are calling other phone numbers and you make a historical database of the info. That's all you got. But you can do it continuously.
How long before you figure out how to squeeze more information out of that data? You start by looking up public business phones that casinos list for offices. Pretty soon you know what numbers these known numbers contact and other numbers you look up for IDing in public ways if possible without breaking the law.
If I saw one casino was making an excessive number of calls to the courthouse (mayor's office), already I can start putting this info to speculation. Or corporate buy out, and I see potential buyers on the outside numbers?
If that's not violating the 4th amendment, it's quite an end run around it.
Sanitized for Your Protection
June 11th, 2013 at 8:08:12 PM
permalink
deleted
DUHHIIIIIIIII HEARD THAT!
June 11th, 2013 at 8:10:13 PM
permalink
Let's be clear. The Patriot Act overrode your 4th Amendment rights. This was happily passed by Bush with tacit agreements from both sides of the aisle. The Prism program now in place was passed in 2007 by the Bush Administration. Congress okayed the program, so I don't understand why people are up in arms over this, unless of course, you're completely partisan parrot.
Back in the 80s it was quite clear that the NSA could monitor and was monitoring my long distance phone calls into the US from Canada.
Back in the 80s it was quite clear that the NSA could monitor and was monitoring my long distance phone calls into the US from Canada.
-----
You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
June 11th, 2013 at 8:13:15 PM
permalink
deleted
DUHHIIIIIIIII HEARD THAT!
June 11th, 2013 at 8:16:27 PM
permalink
Quote: terapinedI'm actually shocked by this.
Not me. I'm quite sure it's only a small fraction of what is going on... There was once a not-very-public story with a poster getting convicted for posting a 'terrorist threat' on 4chan /b/, an unmoderated crapflooding board. Something like that can't happen without automated and wide-scale communications monitoring. And that was years ago, nets like this can only grow.
Pre-2001, things like this could be called conspiracy theories. Post-2001, there's no conspiring, it's done in the open with wide and interpretable wording, then deployed to the maximum extent this wording can be interpreted to and beyond.
Quote: terapinedWhat is really fascinating are the democratic voter polls on this issue. If Bush is President, majority of demo voters against NSA spying on us, but when Obama is in office, the majority of demo voters approve. sad.
Democrats are less of a constant political position and more of a populist crowd. What is in vogue today the party stands for; what the party currently stands for, their electorate tries and brings themselves to support.
The right is far more fragmented, being based on entrenched political positions rather than group dynamics. A lot of these positions have nothing to do with one another, people only accept "the package" because they care deeply about one part.
Resist ANFO Boston PRISM Stormfront IRA Freedom CIA Obama
June 11th, 2013 at 8:16:44 PM
permalink
Quote: IbeatyouracesAs I said long ago, the Constitution is a worthless, meaningless piece of paper.
As Bush said: "It isn't as rough as Charmin', and flushes cleaner, too."
"What, me worry?"
June 11th, 2013 at 8:29:13 PM
permalink
The reason is that in the former administration, purely domestic communications were not involved, as Wikipedia, among other sources, makes clear: "It provides for the targeting of any customers of participating corporations who live outside the United States, or American citizens whose communications include web content of people outside the United States." It is interesting to see that you note that the monitoring preceded Bush. Furthermore, Obama and the Democrats made a huge deal about wiretapping overseas phone calls in the campaign run-up to 2008: YouTube.Quote: boymimboThe Patriot Act overrode your 4th Amendment rights. This was happily passed by Bush with tacit agreements from both sides of the aisle. The Prism program now in place was passed in 2007 by the Bush Administration. Congress okayed the program, so I don't understand why people are up in arms over this, unless of course, you're completely partisan parrot.
June 12th, 2013 at 12:40:14 AM
permalink
What I find interesting is the thought your privacy has a dollar value which can be attributed to it, but I don't know how much it's worth. Your privacy can be used, if violated, by someone to make money and sometimes also at your expense.
I am a robot.
June 12th, 2013 at 7:16:49 AM
permalink
Most likely Google, Yahoo, Facebook, Amazon, and MSFT have more data on you than NSA. Your e-mails are 'read' to feed you the 'correct' ads.
I have this little program called Ghostery which blocks the tracking cookies, and most sites I visit tries to dump about 8-14 tracking cookies.
I have this little program called Ghostery which blocks the tracking cookies, and most sites I visit tries to dump about 8-14 tracking cookies.
June 12th, 2013 at 7:29:14 AM
permalink
Quote: BhappyMost likely Google, Yahoo, Facebook, Amazon, and MSFT have more data on you than NSA. Your e-mails are 'read' to feed you the 'correct' ads.
Even if it were the case, it would be different.
All Google can do with their data is feed you targeted ads. In bad faith, they could let you see approved spam. Worst-case scenario, they could spam you.
Government... it's different. Least that could happen is failing a clearance check (not an option in a lot of lines of employment) because of some one-liner comment you casually threw in response to someone's facebook status update back in college. Worst - I don't want to speculate.
And with the PRISM program, no longer is any commercial entity going to have more data on you than the NSA; what they've got, they've got to share.
Resist ANFO Boston PRISM Stormfront IRA Freedom CIA Obama
June 12th, 2013 at 8:34:31 AM
permalink
Quote: P90
Government... it's different. Least that could happen is failing a clearance check (not an option in a lot of lines of employment) because of some one-liner comment you casually threw in response to someone's facebook status update back in college. Worst - I don't want to speculate.
No, the least that can happen is nothing. Which is exactly what is happening to 99.9999% of the people surveilled in this program.
Seriously. This is what the NSA does. Getting upset about this is like getting upset that the IRS knows how much money you make.
"So as the clock ticked and the day passed, opportunity met preparation, and luck happened." - Maurice Clarett
June 12th, 2013 at 8:59:29 AM
permalink
Know pretty closely some people such things happened to. Probably not related to PRISM, just general data-mining, but it matters.Quote: rdw4potusNo, the least that can happen is nothing.
It doesn't.Quote: rdw4potusGetting upset about this is like getting upset that the IRS knows how much money you make.
Quote: rdw4potusWhich is exactly what is happening to 99.9999% of the people surveilled in this program.
"If you're not a criminal, why worry about laws, justice, police, rules and shit? You're not going to be on their receiving end, unless you're a criminal, are you one?"
Resist ANFO Boston PRISM Stormfront IRA Freedom CIA Obama
June 12th, 2013 at 10:40:37 AM
permalink
Going on a bit of a tangent here:
Even if a majority of Americans were opposed to the government spying on their communications, there is nothing they can do about it. The root of all the bullshit that's been going on in the federal government for the last decade is the two party system.
You have two parties that are practically identical in every respect that matters. Create the illusion of choice / democracy by drumming up emotions about non-issues like religion, gay rights and such, and you have the people go along nicely with this.
Now that a real issue has come up, namely government reach into private lives, even Lindsey "We will make the President fail" Graham scrambles to come to Obama's defense, along with McCain and all the other scum.
Time to rile people up about something meaningless to those in power again - I wonder what it's gonna be. Healthcare? Sharia law? Soft drink sizes?
Even if a majority of Americans were opposed to the government spying on their communications, there is nothing they can do about it. The root of all the bullshit that's been going on in the federal government for the last decade is the two party system.
You have two parties that are practically identical in every respect that matters. Create the illusion of choice / democracy by drumming up emotions about non-issues like religion, gay rights and such, and you have the people go along nicely with this.
Now that a real issue has come up, namely government reach into private lives, even Lindsey "We will make the President fail" Graham scrambles to come to Obama's defense, along with McCain and all the other scum.
Time to rile people up about something meaningless to those in power again - I wonder what it's gonna be. Healthcare? Sharia law? Soft drink sizes?
June 12th, 2013 at 11:01:38 AM
permalink
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety" -Ben Franklin
June 12th, 2013 at 11:16:24 AM
permalink
I worked for a company in the early 2000s that did link analysis with similar data. Not phone records, but addresses, credit headers, employment records, etc. We were able to tie together all of the 9/11 terrorists using public information. Sadly after the fact, but the system worked.
The point is that if phone A calls phone B a bunch of times, and then phone B calls a known terrorist, there is already probable cause to investigate the owner of phone B and phone A. That's what we did with credit headers and the data we had, and according to what little I've read, similar link analysis is being done on these cell phone records. If done in a Constitutional way, there's no personal data exchanged until probable cause is established. It wouldn't surprise me if that system (and some of my code) is what the government is using, since it was developed in part with federal funding. Data mining and blanket surveillance are illegal. Building up a network map of entity connections using anonymous data, and then only deep-diving an investigation when the chain of probable cause can be established, is not. That's what law enforcement does now.
http://www-01.ibm.com/software/data/identity-insight-solutions/
The point is that if phone A calls phone B a bunch of times, and then phone B calls a known terrorist, there is already probable cause to investigate the owner of phone B and phone A. That's what we did with credit headers and the data we had, and according to what little I've read, similar link analysis is being done on these cell phone records. If done in a Constitutional way, there's no personal data exchanged until probable cause is established. It wouldn't surprise me if that system (and some of my code) is what the government is using, since it was developed in part with federal funding. Data mining and blanket surveillance are illegal. Building up a network map of entity connections using anonymous data, and then only deep-diving an investigation when the chain of probable cause can be established, is not. That's what law enforcement does now.
http://www-01.ibm.com/software/data/identity-insight-solutions/
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice."
-- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
June 12th, 2013 at 11:26:45 AM
permalink
Seeing as how nobody should even contemplate the idea of privacy of one's phone, it sounds as if the time is very ripe for those expendable phones. What do they call them on "NCIS," "burnable cellphones" or something like that?Quote: MathExtremistData mining and blanket surveillance are illegal. Building up a network map of entity connections using anonymous data, and then only deep-diving an investigation when the chain of probable cause can be established, is not. That's what law enforcement does now.
June 12th, 2013 at 11:33:24 AM
permalink
This is so not true it`s laughable. How about innocent people having thier money seized by law enforcement agencys. This has happened many times and 60 minutes did an expose on it. Many of those people were innocent.Quote: P90Know pretty closely some people such things happened to. Probably not related to PRISM, just general data-mining, but it matters.
It doesn't.
"If you're not a criminal, why worry about laws, justice, police, rules and shit? You're not going to be on their receiving end, unless you're a criminal, are you one?"
Happy days are here again
June 12th, 2013 at 12:06:04 PM
permalink
Quote: MathExtremistData mining and blanket surveillance are illegal. Building up a network map of entity connections using anonymous data, and then only deep-diving an investigation when the chain of probable cause can be established, is not. That's what law enforcement does now.
Not sure the original intent of the 4th isn't violated. If the telecom companies are ordered to turn over specific data due to probable cause that's much narrower, and targets specific data than this whole crapload of data connections -- that is made available without probable cause on millions of Americans.
Yes, they could have been doing this forever. That never guarantees that something is right and just though, and or necessary, and not overly intrusive.
Actually, I see no difference than if the government orders anonymous pictures of all Americans, then only uses their face recognition on the whole 300 million americans when they are looking for someone. AS far as I know the U.S. does not have a big database of citizen pictures to do this. But maybe that is another secure program. I don't see a whiskers difference in any of it.
Crime data, generally contains pictures of people wanted or convicted, not everyone. That's the difference.
Sanitized for Your Protection
June 12th, 2013 at 5:01:32 PM
permalink
If you've bought a digitized passport in the last couple of years you can count on it.Quote: rxwineAS far as I know the U.S. does not have a big database of citizen pictures to do this. But maybe that is another secure program. I don't see a whiskers difference in any of it. Crime data, generally contains pictures of people wanted or convicted, not everyone. That's the difference.
June 12th, 2013 at 10:22:59 PM
permalink
To the OP: against. I thought this would be a poll!
"So drink gamble eat f***, because one day you will be dust." -ontariodealer
June 13th, 2013 at 1:19:49 AM
permalink
Quote: HunterhillThis is so not true it`s laughable. How about innocent people having thier money seized by law enforcement agencys. This has happened many times and 60 minutes did an expose on it. Many of those people were innocent.
You missed that it was part of a comparison.
Same "innocents shouldn't worry about it" logic that dictates we shouldn't care about blanket surveillance because "nothing is happening to 99.9999% of the people surveilled in this program".
Resist ANFO Boston PRISM Stormfront IRA Freedom CIA Obama
June 22nd, 2013 at 8:08:30 AM
permalink
How can spying on Americans be good?........Any action that beats back the BEAST is good.
Each day is better than the next
December 18th, 2013 at 8:40:33 AM
permalink
This interview is a joke. The idiot host actually had asked to have a conservative guest to be "removed from the screen". And libs claim that CNN is "objective"? *facepalm*
Fighting BS one post at a time!
December 18th, 2013 at 8:43:48 AM
permalink
Quote: Beethoven9thThis interview is a joke. The idiot host actually had asked to have a conservative guest to be "removed from the screen". And libs claim that CNN is "objective"? *facepalm*
I'm so glad that one segment settles the argument over CNN's objectivity forever.
Ding Dong the Witch is Dead
December 18th, 2013 at 8:45:39 AM
permalink
Quote: ams288Quote: Beethoven9thThis interview is a joke. The idiot host actually had asked to have a conservative guest to be "removed from the screen". And libs claim that CNN is "objective"? *facepalm*
I'm so glad that one segment settles the argument over CNN's objectivity forever.
Does this "one segment" show any bias in your opinion?
Fighting BS one post at a time!
December 18th, 2013 at 9:31:44 AM
permalink
Quote: Beethoven9thQuote: ams288Quote: Beethoven9thThis interview is a joke. The idiot host actually had asked to have a conservative guest to be "removed from the screen". And libs claim that CNN is "objective"? *facepalm*
I'm so glad that one segment settles the argument over CNN's objectivity forever.
Does this "one segment" show any bias in your opinion?
Why put quotes around one segment? lol
Yes, it's totally biased. But that conservative guest is also insane. So it's a tradeoff.
In the past, I always considered CNN to be extremely "fair and balanced," to the point where it was just boring to watch. It's no secret that that Zucker guy who is running CNN now wants to focus more on entertaining the audience than informing them in order to beef up ratings. So soon we may have another MSNBC/FOX News type channel where all the programs are opinion based.
Ding Dong the Witch is Dead
December 18th, 2013 at 9:36:02 AM
permalink
I stopped watching CNN after they got rid of Lou Dobbs. He had a funny show.
December 18th, 2013 at 9:38:21 AM
permalink
Um...because that was the phrase you used. DuhQuote: ams288Why put quotes around one segment? lol
Oh, I get it now. So you think that hosts on so-called "objective" news networks should now decide if guests are "insane"? (What exactly did the guest say in the segment that was so "insane" anyway?)Quote: ams288But that conservative guest is also insane. So it's a tradeoff.
Somehow, I doubt you'd be saying any of this if a Fox News host cut the mic on a liberal guest.
Thank you very much.Quote: ams288Yes, it's totally biased.
Fighting BS one post at a time!
December 18th, 2013 at 9:58:53 AM
permalink
Quote: Beethoven9thUm...because that was the phrase you used. Duh
Yeah, I think people could have figured that out without the quotes. As it stands, it just seems like you were overemphasizing one segment to make some kind of point.
Quote: Beethoven9thOh, I get it now. So you're saying that hosts on so-called "objective" news networks can now decide if guests are "insane"? (What exactly did the guest say in the segment that was so "insane" anyway?)
Somehow, I doubt you'd be saying any of this if a Fox News host cut the mic on a liberal guest.
Literally his first statement is insane about Don Lemon being a bit supporter of Obama. Prove it.
And I wouldn't be saying any of this if a Fox News host cut the mic on a liberal guest because I wouldn't be caught dead watching Fox News. Ain't nobody got time fo dat! And any liberal guest knows what they're in for when they agree to an interview on that station.
Ding Dong the Witch is Dead
December 18th, 2013 at 10:15:07 AM
permalink
Grammar 101: Quotes are used to denote what someone has said, regardless of whether or not others "could have figured that out" themselves.Quote: ams288Yeah, I think people could have figured that out without the quotes.
This was the most recent "segment". That's why I referred to it. Duh. Would you have preferred a laundry list of CNN's biased behavior since its inception in 1980?Quote: ams288As it stands, it just seems like you were overemphasizing one segment to make some kind of point.
Also, I love how you don't even dispute how biased the segment truly is. lol
Wait a second. Accusing someone of being a supporter of [insert politician here] is your definition of being "insane"?? *facepalm*Quote: ams288Literally his first statement is insane about Don Lemon being a bit supporter of Obama.
Oh brother. You probably think Katie Couric is unbiased too, huh? *facepalm #2*Quote: ams288Prove it.
Didn't think so. Case closed.Quote: ams288And I wouldn't be saying any of this if a Fox News host cut the mic on a liberal guest...
Fighting BS one post at a time!
December 18th, 2013 at 11:05:26 AM
permalink
Quote: P90All Google can do with their data is feed you targeted ads. In bad faith, they could let you see approved spam. Worst-case scenario, they could spam you.
Spam isn't the worst case scenario with the private companies; credit card theft is. Last Christmas, Amazon inexplicably canceled one of my orders. When I called to complain they explained that my Amazon account had been hacked, so they had canceled my order (without even telling me!) They were completely unapologetic about it, their attitude was that this was my fault that Amazon's data infrastructure had been breached by a hacker. I was shocked by their arrogance.
And then I read this: "The CIA surprised IBM earlier this year when it picked Amazon to build a cloud-computing service that would connect the broader intelligence community. The contract could be worth as much as an estimated $600 million over its initial four-year term. A win for Amazon could help unlock doors with other security-sensitive government agencies and commercial clients like Wall Street banks—big, profitable sectors that have long been IBM's turf."
Amazon can't be trusted to keep my Discover card number under wraps, but the CIA relies on them for America's most sensitive secrets! Part of me feels like it's my patriotic duty to warn the CIA that Amazon's security is unreliable, but let's face it: the CIA could care less what I think.
December 18th, 2013 at 11:30:35 AM
permalink
Quote: Beethoven9thWould you have preferred a laundry list of CNN's biased behavior since its inception in 1980?
Yes I would! And be sure to omit any of their right leaning biased behavior to make your point seem stronger.
Ding Dong the Witch is Dead
December 18th, 2013 at 11:41:20 AM
permalink
...which is why I'm not gonna waste my time (re: the bolded sentence). LOL!Quote: ams288Yes I would! And be sure to omit any of their right leaning biased behavior to make your point seem stronger.
P.S.-Thanks for ignoring my other points. Guess you were attempting to "make your point seem stronger". lol
Fighting BS one post at a time!
December 18th, 2013 at 12:08:41 PM
permalink
Let's cut off the partisan bickering and focus on the thread topic (I just laughed in my head as I wrote that, but anyway):
Federal court rules NSA domestic phone data-mining unconstitutional.
Will it make a difference? Probably not. Feels good though. Everyone donate to EFF if you feel strongly about this issue.
Federal court rules NSA domestic phone data-mining unconstitutional.
Will it make a difference? Probably not. Feels good though. Everyone donate to EFF if you feel strongly about this issue.
"So drink gamble eat f***, because one day you will be dust." -ontariodealer
December 18th, 2013 at 12:17:45 PM
permalink
Quote: Beethoven9thP.S.-Thanks for ignoring my other points. Guess you were attempting to "make your point seem stronger". lol
Nah, I've just grown bored with the argument.
Ding Dong the Witch is Dead
December 18th, 2013 at 12:35:16 PM
permalink
I understand. Most people feel that way after they lose a debate. lol ;)
Fighting BS one post at a time!
December 18th, 2013 at 12:46:26 PM
permalink
Quote: Beethoven9thI understand. Most people feel that way after they lose a debate. lol ;)
Did I lose because you were unable to offer any evidence that Don Lemon is a liberal? Or was it you randomly bringing up Katie Couric's politics for God only knows what reason that did me in? lol
Ding Dong the Witch is Dead
December 18th, 2013 at 12:48:49 PM
permalink
Quote: ams288Did I lose because you were unable to offer any evidence that Don Lemon is a liberal? Or was it you randomly bringing up Katie Couric's politics for God only knows what reason that did me in? lol
You "lost" the argument because you gave up. :) Standard practice on politicized topics, whether they were meant to be or not.
If the House lost every hand, they wouldn't deal the game.
December 18th, 2013 at 12:51:51 PM
permalink
Quote: ams288Did I lose because you were unable to offer any evidence that Don Lemon is a liberal?
Um...I already did. Unfortunately, no amount of evidence can convince guys like you. *headshake* (I'm saving the next *facepalm* for later...lol)
Fighting BS one post at a time!
December 18th, 2013 at 12:53:01 PM
permalink
Quote: Beethoven9thUm...I already did. Unfortunately, no amount of evidence can convince guys like you. *headshake* (I'm saving the next *facepalm* for later...lol)
Where? I missed it.
Ding Dong the Witch is Dead
December 18th, 2013 at 12:54:27 PM
permalink
The video. DUHQuote: ams288Where? I missed it.
Good thing I saved the *facepalm* for right now.
Fighting BS one post at a time!
December 18th, 2013 at 1:03:57 PM
permalink
Quote: Beethoven9thThe video. DUH
Good thing I saved the *facepalm* for right now.
Nah, the video is what prompted this argument in the first place. You implied that CNN has always been biased. I said it HAS been objective, but may be moving away from objectivity under the new Zucker guy. Then you got upset for me calling the insane conservative guy insane. I said one reason he was insane for proclaiming Don Lemon to be a leftist in his opening statement. And you offered no evidence to back up his argument after I said that.
So somehow now you claim the video where Don Lemon is accused of being a leftist and replies, "None of that is true," is your evidence to an argument that came after you posted your "evidence" to begin with.
Ding Dong the Witch is Dead
December 18th, 2013 at 1:17:39 PM
permalink
Not only unconstitutional but ineffective. The NSA originally claimed (lied to congress) the data mining had thwarted 52 terrorist threats. They later (without fanfare) reduced that claim to 3 threats and now refuse to offer any evidence of the 3.
December 18th, 2013 at 1:43:02 PM
permalink
LOL. You honestly expect a person to take you seriously after saying: "...because I wouldn't be caught dead watching Fox News. Ain't nobody got time fo dat! And any liberal guest knows what they're in for when they agree to an interview on that station."
Yeah, you're really objective and open-minded. I also noticed that YOU gave arguments to support your assertion about Fox. Wonder why?
Yeah, you're really objective and open-minded. I also noticed that YOU gave arguments to support your assertion about Fox. Wonder why?
Fighting BS one post at a time!
