Slashdot Mirror


U.S. Secretly Tapping Bank Databases

The Washington Post and New York Times are reporting on a Bush administration initiative that has tapped into a vast global database of confidential financial transactions for nearly five years. Relying on a presidential emergency declaration made under the International Emergency Economic Powers, the administration has been surveilling the data from the SWIFT database, which links about 7,800 banks and brokerages and handles billions of transactions a year. From the article:
Together with a hundredfold expansion of the FBI's use of "national security letters" to obtain communications and banking records, the secret NSA and Treasury programs have built unprecedented government databases of private transactions, most of them involving people who prove irrelevant to terrorism investigators.
The NYTimes goes on to say that the joint CIA-Treasury program has played a hidden role in domestic and foreign terrorism investigations since 2001 and helped in the capture of the most wanted Qaeda figure in Southeast Asia. Still, the access to large amounts of confidential data was highly unusual, and concerns were raised about legal and privacy issues.

34 of 537 comments (clear)

  1. Corporate advantage? by Manip · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Does anyone else worry that the USA might use its intelligent services to give its corporate entities an advantage over foreign ones?

    If they use the information purely to look for money laundering or terrorism then that's cool, it would be 99% automated anyway... Looking for patterns and the like... But what if the security services use that information to give helpful hints to US companies over the international counterparts? Is that fair?

    We are talking about large amounts of money, and most of us know that money can lead people to act less than morally, so it isn't a far stretch to believe that they might do that... Even be authorised to do that.

    1. Re:Corporate advantage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's interesting.

      So, out of curiosity, is that worse or better than subsidizing the company so it can artificially price itself into the market to try to steal contracts? You know.... like Airbus and the European Union does?

    2. Re:Corporate advantage? by Tx · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Oh, come on. We all know that the US government subsidizes Boeing and the like through military contracts and the like, so get off your frigging high horse. At least in Europe we're up front about subsidies, rather than the hypocritical US position of paying lip service to free market principles, while being protectionist as hell in reality.

      --
      Oh no... it's the future.
    3. Re:Corporate advantage? by mOdQuArK! · · Score: 3, Insightful
      in the other the govt buys stuff they don't really need in order to increase demand and indirectly having money go from the govt to the economy

      I suspect that the more likely reason is to be able to "redistribute wealth" from the taxpayers to cronies & big campaign contributors. The "it's good for the economy" reason is just a rationalisation to divert peoples' attention from who is benefiting the most from those handouts.

      If the people in the government _really_ wanted to help the economy, they'd just train & hire more infrastructure grunts (teachers, police officers, fireman, health care workers, etc).

      This be a more effective way of injecting cash into the economy (since folks like these are much more likely to spend the extra cash immediately) without supporting welfare. It would encourage upward economic mobility and provide a much better educated & productive labor force.

      The stronger infrastructure would also make it easier to do business, and having more people with money to spend would provide more business opportunities.

      Of course, given past history, most people are going to rightfully suspect that allocating funds to hire more low-level employees will probably end up expanding the bureaucracy than it would actually hiring actual workers, but instead of making proposals to try and restrict the growth of the bureacracy, the kneejerk reaction is to reduce spending by _cutting_ low-level employees, which has _no_ benefits to the economy and often makes the infrastructure look bad (since it's under increased strain to provide services with less people).

  2. quick success by swissfondue · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So the US found a quick way to access international payment flows. I wonder about their "successes", which sound a lot like the "take our word for it, we know Saddam has chemical weapons". Also SWIFT, a seemingly international organization, has in fact confirmed it is controlled by the US by agreeing to pass all its data to the US. I wonder what its Arab clients are thinking. SWIFT can probably now close shop.

    --
    Rubies and Pearls are not what you think.
    1. Re:quick success by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I always love that response: "We didn't find WMD's? Well then, he must have moved them." That's the perfect bulletproof argument. You can use it for unicorns too: "We haven't seen any? Well then, they must be hiding."

      Mod me down all you want. It's still true.

      -Eric

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  3. seriously by scenestar · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You americans can do whatever the fuck you want to your own citizens.

    But please keep us europeans out of it.

    --
    perpetually dwelling in the -1 pits
    1. Re:seriously by Oswald · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I sympathize completely with your view on this, but I can't help pointing out the irony in your post. Invading the privacy of non-U.S. citizens isn't even an issue here. So what you say, from a (U.S.) legal standpoint (and, sorry to confirm your suspicions, the point of view of much of the citizenry), is exactly backwards. We're NOT supposed to do this to ourselves, but are quite free to do it to anybody else.

      On the other hand, I hardly think this makes us unique. Stop for a second to ask yourself if the British or the French intelligence services would have any qualms about examining the financial records of American citizens (or each others' citizens). Laughable. Not even an issue. It's only makes news here because we have an article in our Constitution that theoretically protects us from our unjustified snooping, and Americans keep getting caught in the dragnet. Do Europeans have similar articles? I'm sorry to say I don't know, but I've been told they do not.

  4. Re:A message from the right by EGSonikku · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Uh oh you caught me!

    You are right though, in reality I do not mind secret courts, phone tapping, bank tapping, warrantless searches, americans being held indefinatly without access to a lawyer or charges being filed, torture, secret prisons, war, CIA leaks, and our spending more money on defense than all other countries on the planet combined and doubled while our education and healthcare go down the toilet and we run up a defecit that cannot reasonably be paid in the next 5 generations.

    Yup, red handed. Was just trying to annoy you, my bad. :-(

    Can we go back to blaming communism?

    --
    - "Scientia non habet inimicum nisp ignorantem"
  5. Re:Secretly? by Rick+Zeman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why don't companies announce immediately when they have been forced to do something by the government against their will (like Google)? As far as I was aware America is still a country where you can speak freely against the government without fear of punishment. Why not just admit it in public that you are being forced to hand over confidential information? If the banks are hiding it too, then they are as much to blame and should not be trusted.

    Or is the government using threats to keep the banks quiet? If so, what threats do they use? And can anything be done about it to make sure it doesn't happen again?


    In the case of the NSA tapping the phone switches, the threat was that of "future government contracts and renegotiations" which was/is CONSIDERABLE $$$. Since Google doesn't have the same business model (lots of $$ from lots of sources instead of lots of $$ from few sources), they had the flexibility (and dare I say it...freedom) to speak out loud.

  6. the worst aspect of this? by LewsTherinKinslayer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    i'm a lefty pinko who advocates the protection and expansion of civil rights: wanna know what the worst aspect of this (and the NSA phone call database, etc is?

    how much time is being wasted by the FBI when investigative man power could be directed more effectively at more pressing issues.

  7. .....And purcashing habits... by nurb432 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Not only do they know how much money you move, but by getting into the retail databases, they also know what ( and when, and where ) you are buying.

    Just hope that what you bought today legally doesnt become 'questionable' ( or down right illegal ) tomrrow. You might find a knock on your door.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  8. Re:Secretly? by Broken+Bottle · · Score: 3, Insightful

    [blockquote] Why don't companies announce immediately when they have been forced to do something by the government against their will (like Google)?[/blockquote]

    Given the Bush administration's behavior regarding these sorts of activities, likely the companies are threatened with federal prosecution if they reveal the attempt because it would the "terrorists" hints about how we're trying to track them down. It's more than convenient that these hints to the "terrorists" are also hints to the public that the White House is trampling our civil rights and evading oversight YET AGAIN.

  9. Re:I don't know what's worse... by I+am+Jack's+username · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The fact that this is happening or the fact that this does not surprise me anymore. Every election year I tell myself I'll vote with my conscious and vote Libertarian. Screw that, I just want these f***ers OUT now.
    - Lobo (10944)

    I can understand how people who agree with the Democratic/Republican platforms can vote for them - I fundamentally disagree with their platforms, but I know lots of folk think it's a-okay.

    I can understand people who who've never even compared the platforms of the other parties voting Democrat/Republican:

    "On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."

    "Odd," said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."

    "I did," said ford. "It is."

    "So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't the people get rid of the lizards?"

    "It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."

    "You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"

    "Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course."

    "But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"

    "Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in."
    - So long, and thanks for all the fish - Douglas Adams

    What I don't understand is how people can choose the lesser evil to try to just slow the downward spiral. It's still a downward spiral even if it's a bit slower - the result is the same. Sure, if you're old you might not have to deal with the end result, but even then, do you really not care about the people coming after you?

    Don't you want to do the right thing? Even if the party you vote for looses, doing the right thing is surely better than actually voting for the Democrats/Republicans?:

    It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
    - Eugene Victor Debs
  10. Re: And the worst is... by Black+Parrot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    > Cheney doesnt even have the grace to be emberassed about it.

    If he's not embarassed to argue in favor of torture, why should a little thing like this faze him?

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  11. oh yeah and russia is so innocent? by cheekyboy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Jeez dude get a clue.

    Russia isnt so nice and they hide things, they go the shit and 50megaton nukes.

    Oh but because they have 1000s of them and subs we cant invade em coz we're toast.

    Who sold the chemicals? That damn photo of RUmselfd shaking hands with Saddamn in the80s is so damn funny!!!

    Btw, Rumselfd also was a director of a company that allowed/helped north korea with reactors and now dont want iran to have any.

    Its a global scam, they just want all OIL resources.

    FACE it people, OIL is the reason for the last 150years of human achievements. He who has >50% of its resources wins.

    No matter how many lies, or deaths or billions or trillions spent, he who has it rules. Even if its part ownership or proxy.

    Get a clue people. With out oil there wouldnt be so much plastics/food/power and hence people!!!!!!!!!!

    Coal cant achieve that role.

    --
    Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
  12. Not taking it sitting down by Tony · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So far it seems though, and I say this as a foreign observer, that America is taking it all sitting down.

    We're not taking it sitting down. We're taking it in the ass, bent over the lap of a bound lady liberty. And the funny thing is, there's a bunch of folks saying they absolutely love it, because George Bush said they love it.

    "C'mon, you know you love it!" he says. But still they don't squirm like he likes, so he says, "Terrorism! 9/11!"

    And then they orgasm. "Oooo, I just love you, Mr. President!" And they say, "Those other people who don't love getting raped in the ass by their government are nothing but liberal crybabies." Because it's easier for them to call names and ignore the waxing fascism than it is for them to admit the truth: they support a fascist regime that has not made us one iota safer.

    They, the party that once called for reduced government interference in our lives, are whining about how fucking great it is that the government is more involved in our lives to the point where they know how we spend our money and whom we call, and they are telling us how to think.

    So, no. We're not taking it sitting down. We can't sit down. Our asses are sore.

    --
    Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
  13. Re:I don't know what's worse... by Greyfox · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I do that at the state and local level. At the Felderal level it's a little too much like throwing my vote away for my taste. I usually just vote against the incumbant unless they've done something to give me a warm fuzzy. It's still throwing your vote away (98% of the time the incumbant will win) and if they lose because of my vote the Senate is losing all that experience and possibly seats on comittees will have to change, but I don't think any one person should remain too long in the corrupting influence of Congresss anyway. If I had my way, 1 or 2 terms would be the limit.

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  14. Europe should ditch American listening posts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What the fuck are we doing in Europe, having US listening and monitoring stations listening in on us from our own soil?

    If Americans want to elect Bush, thats there problem, but we should be protecting our interests, not theirs.

  15. Re:I don't know what's worse... by jusdisgi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Libertarian the word has some nice ideas attached to it. The active political party identified as the Libertarian party is full of crazies, or at least, really extreme viewpoints.

    No, you've got it backwards. Libertarian, the ideal, is an extreme viewpoint. Furthermore, its basic tenants (government is always inefficient, the unregulated free market will work smoothly and provide for everyone's best interest, individuals can provide for their own security) are demonstrably false. There are some Libertarian people out there that aren't insane...but I frequently question whether they've really thought through to the inevitabilities of what Libertarianism leads to when actually put into practice.

    --
    Given a choice between free speech and free beer, most people will take the beer.
  16. Re:I don't know what's worse... by Qzukk · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What have the future generations done for us that we should care for them? Fuck'em.

    Decide which discount nursing home you'll spend the rest of your life in, for one.

    --
    If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
  17. Re: Wow by cluckshot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They are not fools. (Mods if you don't like the truth just comment against it or get a life) The guys who are doing this monitoring have a full plan to monitor all data that can be collected on every person on the earth. I know this because I have read the Requests for Proposals from the various agencies involved. There can be only one logical conclusion of this effort. These guys want to establish a world wide Gestapo or SS. They intend to do so with impunity. They will do just as the NAZI's did, and cover their mafactor status as being "anti-terrorist".

    For those who don't believe this just test a few facts. These people know full well that Al Qaeda doesn't use the modern banking system. These people know full well that their efforts have little or no effect on Al Qaeda. At the same time these people refuse to do border enforcement or any of the requested security measures already law in the USA which would protect the people from real terrorism. Where for example is the phone number where a US Citizen may call and have an illegal or undesirable alien (One who is acting badly for those who don't understand) promptly and properly dealt with under law. Where I live, if I call the Sheriff I may see an officer in 1 hour or so depending on the time of day. If I called about a real live Al Qaeda member to the US Border Patrol or ICE the call would never be responded to. There are only 65 ICE agents actually empowered to make arrests in the USA as a whole. Surely this tells the truth about the real intent here. It is pretty undeniable.

    What is developing is obvious in another arena. George Bush has not issued a single Veto since he became president. This is because his treasure trove of info arrived at by this nefarious means that he couches as "Anti-Terrorist Efforts" actually is used as extortion against US Senators and Representatives who dare vote against his plans. This is why all measures always pass with at least a minimal margin no matter what. He doesn't care to eliminate the Congress as he controls it by this means.

    My US Senator Jeff Sessions has come under serious pressure trying to destroy his career as a US Senator because he spoke up against the Immigration lies that were being spread. The cost he has paid has been very high. In an election he will face the Republican Party Machine trying to destroy his reputation and take away the money from contributors. Supposing you dare contribute a significant amount of money, you may find your business contracts with the government suspended if you have any. You may find your reputation destroyed by the data they developed in this mass spying effort. The senator himself will find every detail of his life made public to try to ruin him.

    This is a direct threat to the very existence of a free people and a freely elected government. It makes the President of the United States of America and his team the chief terrorists in the world. It makes without doubt the danger very high. This is why we in the USA live in a continual state of "Terrorist Alerts" and other mechanisms designed to keep us sturred up and always afraid. This paranoid state they have us living in is making the whole world think we are insane. The fact of our sanity being in question because of this is becoming all of the discussion around the world. These people are up to no good in the White House. DO NOT MARK me as part of those who oppose the Republican Party generally. I support and go to meetings. I am a long standing life long Republican. These men in the White House only claim to be Republicans. I know most decent Republicans oppose what is going on.

    What for example have they done to Preserve Protect or Defend the Constitution of the United States of America? (Their oath of office) I am a supporter of a strong America and I definitely support the efforts to put down Islamic Radical Terrorism. The efforts of these people are giving aid and comfort to the enemies of America at time of war. Yes their actions are TREASONA

    --
    Never Politically Correct ~ I prefer the facts If you don't like what I say, get a life, or comment yourself.
  18. Re:Cheney's response by TubeSteak · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The senator [Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee] said he was particularly troubled that the administration had expanded its Congressional briefings on the financial tracking program in recent weeks after having learned that The New York Times was making inquiries.

    "Why does it take a newspaper investigation to get them to comply with the law?" the senator asked. "That's a big, important point."
    Specter gets right down to the essentials.

    The question isn't "Why are they running a secret program?"
    It's "Why are they doind it without the proper oversight?"
    --
    [Fuck Beta]
    o0t!
  19. Color me unsurprised by l5rfanboy · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Does it fail to surprise anyone else that CNN and other major media (I mean, 'news') outlets aren't reporting on this? Then again, they're so busy reporting on Kidman and Urban's desires for a normal wedding, Anna Nicole Smith's inheritance rival dying, and Reese Witherspoon suing someone over a false pregnancy story (all on CNN.com). Who has time for this kind of news when there's all that out there! Such decisions!

    I will be interested in seeing the BBC's take on the matter.

  20. And that was mod'ed +5? by khasim · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why bother watching Fox? Better perhaps to take advantage of the BBC's reporting. Take a moment and any of their coverage. It's hard not to notice the actual facts of chemical weapon use. Which, of course, rather requires the existence of the same.

    Look at the YEAR in which they were used.

    If Saddam had them 20 years ago, that does NOT make him a threat TODAY.

    No one is saying that Saddam did not have chemical weapons at any time in the past. We know he did. We were the ones who were helping him develop them for use in the Iraq/Iran war.

    And your articles are rather long on descriptions of Saddam lounging by a pool in a speedo ... and rather short on facts about chemical weapons.

    Right, there's no interest at all in avoiding another Taliban-like haven for government-sponsored terrorism, as is found in Iran.

    Dude, Iraq fought Iran.

    Iraq was a secular totalitarian state.

    There was NO danger of them changing to a Theocracy while Saddam was alive.

    So just leaving Saddam and the sanctions in place would have achieved your stated goal without the loss of a single US soldier's life.

    That sort of retrograde, destabilizing influence on the entire middle east certainly does impact oil flow (for the entire world, in case you're not paying attention), and allowing it to thrive is unacceptable on a lot of levels, not just as it relates to oil.

    If it's not about oil, then make the case without mentioning oil.

    Because you cannot do so, without fantasy scenarios that Saddam's existance would have prevented, it is/was/will be about the oil.

    And before you start mentioning Saddam as some sort of not-so-bad alternative to the extremist jihaddi types, remember that he was busy shipping (along with press releases!) cash to organizations like Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and even to individual families of suicide bombers.

    So? No one is saying he was an angel. Just that he was not a threat to the United States of America or our allies.

    Do not confuse "bad person" with "threat to the US".

    To say nothing of lobbing scud missles across borders, trying to annex Kuwait, and so on.

    Do you have some kind of calendar-phobia?

    You keep bringing up actions from years before the last invasion. What he did in 1990 has no bearing on whether we should invade in 2003. There were THIRTEEN YEARS between those two events.

    "For oil" is a tidy bit of sophistry, though, that must feel convenient.

    I don't know about "feel convenient", but it certainly fits the established facts.

    But the real issue with the oil is that it lies in a place where its value is being sought by medieval-minded theocratic crazies that use that single source of revenue to keep places like Iran running backwards from history.

    And again you support the position that it was about the oil. Or, more exactly, about who controls the oil.

    So, be as sarcastic/flippant as you want to be about it. The fact remains that you do not have a justification that does NOT involve the oil.

    Putting those oil reserves in the hands of constitutional democracies is certainly acting "for the oil," but not in the way you so cravenly describe.

    Oil does not vote. Oil does not elect representatives. There is nothing noble about going to war for oil. Therefore, saying that the war was for oil cannot be "craven".

    That's like saying that when the US marched into Germany and liberated the concentration camps, that it was for the German beer.

    Only in your mind, only in your mind.

    Germany was actively invading other countries and attacking our ally England.

    Iraq had

  21. Re:I don't know what's worse... by SillyNickName4me · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Government is always inefficient when doing things private companies have been doing better for years

    Government is always inefficient in a working republic or representative democracy, it is that way by design and for good reasons. I could explain it here, but it would be a bit lengthy. Instead of doing that, I challange you to think about why this is and why this is in fact a very good thing.

  22. Re: Wow by SillyNickName4me · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Being taken seriously by the /. crowd isn't really high on my list anyway.

    If you don't come up with anything usefull, then indeed you won't be taken seriously, not just by the slashdot crowd, but by anyone who has some capacity of independent thought.

    That said, I am not the slashdot crowd, I am an individual slashdot reader putting up a question to you. Why the fuck are you posting here if you don't want to debate anything to begin with?

    Besides, I suspect that I'm not in the minority with my viewpoint. I'm just not afraid to post non-AC.

    I suspect you are indeed part of the majority which dismisses arguments based on who is making the argument and not based on the merrits of that argument. At least, your posts are strongly suggesting this.

    So, are you capable of independent thought and making an argument or are you just one of the mindless sheep.

  23. Re:Wow by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They had the intelligence, and the power to cherrypick, to invade the country, Iraq, that was right for them. The Bush administration is the Iran/Contra administration . All these people made their bones in the 1980s CIA/NSA cocaine and guns conspiracy. That hijacked American foreign policy to wage secret wars in Central America. To raise money for secret wars elsewhere, like in Africa, and Osama bin Laden's Afghanistan. With secret Saudi funding and Iranian funding. As seed money for robbing the Savings and Loans of over a $TRILLION (in 1980s dollars: our GDP was 1/4 what it is today).

    These same people, like Poindexter, Negroponte, Bolton and so many others, wrench our country into invading Iraq to the benefit of Saudi Arabia and Iran, giving the NSA and CIA powers previously forbidden by our constititional democratic republic. While spying on all Americans for the political power that ensures their corporate backers will make all the money they want, forever.

    They're pulling it off. As measured by $TRILLIONS in profits and unlimited power, killing thousands around the world and leaving our country to rot. How can we possibly deny that they're smart, that they're doing it all on purpose, that it's malice, even evil, that is driving all their actions? Because the truth is too much to admit, especially since we like to believe what we see in the media: the Republican government works for us, not themselves and their corporate masters.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  24. Re: Wow by heinousjay · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm not speaking to the original point, but

    I suspect you are indeed part of the majority which dismisses arguments based on who is making the argument and not based on the merrits of that argument. At least, your posts are strongly suggesting this.

    When ranting and raving on the internet without presenting any sort of corroboration, indeed with not even leads toward information that may serve as a basis of evidence, dismissal is pretty much the only option. Anyone can post anything, and chasing down the rainbows of paranoia isn't a productive activity. After all, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

    This whole situation is kind of like the OJ defense: claim the administration is so incompetent as to be unable to conduct the normal business of the country, while at the same time masterfully organizing the biggest conspiracy in history completely successfully? Something doesn't fit.

    --
    Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
  25. There's an old saying... by Civil_Disobedient · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.

  26. Re: Wow by heinousjay · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Now I'll speak to the original point, since you seem to have missed the chance I provided you for critical thought.

    I guess I missed the part where the evidence of the CIA and the NSA allowing 9/11 was posted. Maybe it's in your super special edition of Slashdot that I don't get?

    From here it looked like the unfounded assumption upon which the entire rest of the post is based.

    --
    Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
  27. Re:p.s. by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Another hint: The people that "bad eating habbits" (not Ronald) killed knew about nutrition and made their choice. There was free will (or lack therof) involved. Can you say the same about Osama? Did all the people he killed choose to die? That where the false dichotomy comment comes in, and is on target...

    I'm not saying that America doesn't need to wise up and get agressive on nutrition, but lets put the blame where the blame belongs. McDonalds didn't make America fat, poor education about nutrition did. The fact that 5 days of the week parents choose to bring home food from [fill in the fast food place] instead of preparing a balance meal themselves is what makes America fat. And also your attitude that [X] is responsible instead of ourselves is one of the biggest problems. It is much easier to blame something else than accept responsibility for our actions.

    You could close McDonalds tomorow and do you really think America would miraculously get health? Guess what - America would just start going to Burger King, Chipolte, and KFC more...

    --
    "But this one goes to 11!"
  28. Re:p.s. by mrraven · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Interesting that you are so outraged about the idea of the nanny state doing anything about a serious health crisis that has real consequences for 1/3rd of the U.S. population yet you are quite comfortable with the government become a huge authoritarian spying apparatus. How about taking individual responsibility for our own self defense? Hmmmmmm...

    It's OK for the government to abrogate our constitutionally guaranteed civil liberties but not to attempt to educate people about the obesity epidemic that is directly causing the deaths of 1 in 5 Americans that die every year? Is that really the way you want to go?

    Here's the real secret, many that call themselves "conservatives" are right wing authoritarians who actually believe in a strong centralized Federal police state. The founding fathers who were decentralists would be appalled at this type of thinking. Far from being conservative and respectful of tradition you people are in fact radical authoritarians in the same vein as fascists.

    Witnessing the decay of our Democratic Republic in real time is fucking depressing.

    --
    Tired of all the isms, don't exploit people as an employer, or a government, mmmmK?
  29. Re:Wow by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Tell me about the Iran/Contra Democrats.

    --

    --
    make install -not war