Oh, I know, but spamming irrelevant links isn't going to help your authoritarian cause. If you spam links to corrupt politicians of the past (and some would argue that what they did is vastly different anyway), that does nothing to justify modern day corruption.
(which are, I should point out, minor in the grand scheme of 7 billion people going about their daily lives)
Trying to trivialize egregious violations of individual liberties and the constitution tells me exactly where you stand.
I would ask that you propose an alternate system which provides a similar level of intelligence
I do not want a similar level of intelligence; it's bad enough as it is.
Because to go without a system would be the ultimate in foolishness.
To a bootlicker, yes, but to people with brains, no. Even if you believe that safety is more important than freedom (a disgusting position, by the way), the reality is that terrorists aren't hiding in every shadow.
As a country with alliances all over the world the US cannot be without signals intelligence.
It's completely possible.
He's decided that since one Judge, with one set of rules from politicians, allows the government to keep a list of people he's called on his cell phone; no judges can ever be trusted. Moreover he's demanding the judge be prosecuted.
It's clearly more than just one judge. I have zero faith in the intelligence of the general public, but at the very minimum, there needs to be public oversight. What do we get with the NSA? Government thugs rubberstamping warrants for other government thugs.
As for prosecuting the judge, that makes complete sense. These people should be protecting people's constitutional rights, but they have knowingly and utterly failed to do so, even if they refuse to admit it.
it seems that it's more a case of you cowering from your personal bogeyman (the NSA) than anybody else.
There has never been a government throughout history that has not abused its powers in horrendous ways; not a one. People have every reason to be cautious of government thugs and to disregard bootlickers such as yourself.
And if push comes to shove, most people in this country would likely disagree with you.
And? I wasn't aware that something is right just because most people believe it, or that the majority have absolute power.
The point that Hillary Clinton seems to be making, and that you are missing, is that there actually needs to be a discussion of this matter.
Rights are not up for debate.
It is far from clear to me that the current program is truly illegal
But it is unconstitutional.
You clearly misread what this country is about - it's supposed to be a democracy, and all of this talk about 'the land of the free and the home of the brave' is what young kids are taught.
Oh, I fully realize that the "land of the free and the home of the brave" nonsense is just propaganda; if I didn't, would I be complaining about something so egregious as the NSA spying? I am fully aware that our government is extremely corrupt.
However, I do believe we must try to be the land of the free and the home of the brave. You are not trying; instead, you're licking the government's boots and suggesting that people who believe in freedom should grow up and stop thinking in black and white. Pathetic.
1) How the fuck do you propose to run a government WITHOUT spying?
A government without something along the lines of the NSA could easily exist. Remember that freedom is more important than safety, and the government clearly can't be trusted to provide oversight for itself.
Quit spying? What fantasy world are you living in?
The real world, which is a world where freedom takes priority over safety.
The problem here is that the spies are out of control.
The problem is that the spies cannot be controlled. Government thugs will do whatever they please, especially in situations where it is simply not possible for the public to provide oversight. We gave the government a chance to provide oversight for itself, and it predictably failed.
What good is a spy agency if everyone knows what they are doing and how to avoid them?
I'd rather have no spy agency than have a disgusting organization like the NSA continue to operate; anyone who doesn't despise freedom feels the same way.
With alternatives like Palin and Romney one is left with little choice.
Third parties. If you vote for evil, you are naive and part of the problem. Try to give someone else a chance, if for no other reason than to send a message.
I don't care how transparent this is or how much oversight it has; spying on innocent people will never be okay, and neither will spying on people to find out if they're innocent or not.
The reason government does these bad things is because government is badly managed, and badly constructed
It does these things because it is run by humans. There wasn't a single government in history that didn't suffer from rampant corruption, and that's why we must not give the government certain powers at all.
not because government itself is inherently complicit.
But it is. There is no way you can harass citizens at airports, harass citizens at borders, harass citizens randomly, ship citizens off to free speech zones for sending messages that you disapprove of, get into pointless wars with multiple countries, spy on everyone, install surveillance devices on random people's property, and do a host of other nonsense without being inherently complicit in the violation of individual liberties.
I admit, it's cute that you're naive enough to believe the government can be trusted with even half as much power as it has now, but such mentalities aren't going to help us fix the underlying problems; the government simply shouldn't have as much power as it does now. We do not need regulation (Which won't work, as the government will never be able to police itself, nor does it want to; especially with something as secretive as the NSA, since the public can't watch it.); we need the government to lose the powers that can easily be used to violate individual liberties.
If you drive a broken down car, do you conclude that 'cars are bad'?!
Cars are inanimate objects, you fool. Humans are easily susceptible to corruption (especially those in politics), which is the problem; your analogy simply doesn't hold.
Something is knocking on your ass; it wants to play with your rancid hole! What is it that's knocking? Who could be knocking on your ass at this untimely hour? Well... my fetid little friend, that's who! "What does he want!?" you ask. Well, he wants to insert himself directly into your foul fictionhole so that the two can make The Elixir of Life. What say you?
And the number of places where one could live as a self-sufficient recluse is rapidly dwindling.
Not really. There are still plenty of places you could go where no one would probably find you, but I'm not sure how many people would even desire such a thing.
Living your self-sufficient life you cannot really help anyone or be there for anyone; it's like you don't exist at all.
Except for the fact that you do exist. Not everyone cares about helping others or being there for others, though, and I suspect that's the sort of person who would move to a remote location alone.
Going by the votes on the Act over the past few years if you want to work to elect candidates who might do your will then supporting the Democratic Party is probably your best choice.
Both parties have shown that they hate freedom, so voting for either Republicans or Democrats is simply inadvisable.
Well, now I'm curious. What would your policy prescription be after 9/11 and the anthrax attacks?
Investigations are fine. Mandating that cockpit doors be secured and shut at all times are fine. Infringing upon people's individual liberties to try to stop terrorists is not fine. Going to war to find imbeciles hiding out in the desert is also not fine.
Are you one of the "Americans should die bravely in shopping malls for our freedom because doing anything is tyranny" camp?
I'm one of those "Security isn't worth it if it causes us to lose some of our individual liberties."
By the way, I hope you don't claim to want a small government.
Maybe you should push to get more Democrats elected instead.
Better yet, don't vote for Republicans or Democrats, and look at the amount of people who voted for the Patriot Act the first time around; almost everyone in congress voted for it, which shows their true colors.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, I know, but spamming irrelevant links isn't going to help your authoritarian cause. If you spam links to corrupt politicians of the past (and some would argue that what they did is vastly different anyway), that does nothing to justify modern day corruption.
How comical! How comical!
George Washington ran a spy ring
I don't care. Now, vanish.
Yeah, vote third party. But don't lie to yourself and pretend that it makes a difference.
Even if they don't win, you can still send a message by voting for them. And it's infinitely better than voting for evil.
(which are, I should point out, minor in the grand scheme of 7 billion people going about their daily lives)
Trying to trivialize egregious violations of individual liberties and the constitution tells me exactly where you stand.
I would ask that you propose an alternate system which provides a similar level of intelligence
I do not want a similar level of intelligence; it's bad enough as it is.
Because to go without a system would be the ultimate in foolishness.
To a bootlicker, yes, but to people with brains, no. Even if you believe that safety is more important than freedom (a disgusting position, by the way), the reality is that terrorists aren't hiding in every shadow.
It was perfectly apparent. Don't believe everything you hear on television; do a bit of research yourself.
Again, voting for evil is never advisable, even if the opposition is even more evil.
As a country with alliances all over the world the US cannot be without signals intelligence.
It's completely possible.
He's decided that since one Judge, with one set of rules from politicians, allows the government to keep a list of people he's called on his cell phone; no judges can ever be trusted. Moreover he's demanding the judge be prosecuted.
It's clearly more than just one judge. I have zero faith in the intelligence of the general public, but at the very minimum, there needs to be public oversight. What do we get with the NSA? Government thugs rubberstamping warrants for other government thugs.
As for prosecuting the judge, that makes complete sense. These people should be protecting people's constitutional rights, but they have knowingly and utterly failed to do so, even if they refuse to admit it.
it seems that it's more a case of you cowering from your personal bogeyman (the NSA) than anybody else.
There has never been a government throughout history that has not abused its powers in horrendous ways; not a one. People have every reason to be cautious of government thugs and to disregard bootlickers such as yourself.
And if push comes to shove, most people in this country would likely disagree with you.
And? I wasn't aware that something is right just because most people believe it, or that the majority have absolute power.
Who is cowering from the bogeyman?
You, apparently.
The point that Hillary Clinton seems to be making, and that you are missing, is that there actually needs to be a discussion of this matter.
Rights are not up for debate.
It is far from clear to me that the current program is truly illegal
But it is unconstitutional.
You clearly misread what this country is about - it's supposed to be a democracy, and all of this talk about 'the land of the free and the home of the brave' is what young kids are taught.
Oh, I fully realize that the "land of the free and the home of the brave" nonsense is just propaganda; if I didn't, would I be complaining about something so egregious as the NSA spying? I am fully aware that our government is extremely corrupt.
However, I do believe we must try to be the land of the free and the home of the brave. You are not trying; instead, you're licking the government's boots and suggesting that people who believe in freedom should grow up and stop thinking in black and white. Pathetic.
Noone is suggesting a givernment that doesn't spy. Most of us aren't even suggesting that the NSA not spy.
Well, I am suggesting the latter. I do not think it is okay to spy on innocent foreigners, either.
Security is important and I think we need to find a balance
Find a balance with... what? What are we balancing? Losing some of our freedoms is simply not acceptable.
1) How the fuck do you propose to run a government WITHOUT spying?
A government without something along the lines of the NSA could easily exist. Remember that freedom is more important than safety, and the government clearly can't be trusted to provide oversight for itself.
To me, that does not seem like an adult perspective
But cowering from the bogeymen is an adult perspective? That is what you wish to do.
angry without anything sensible to contribute to the discussion except raw emotion.
"raw emotion"? Who is it that wants a corrupt spy agency to continue operating because they're scared of bogeymen?
Look, you live in a country that's supposed to be the land of the free and the home of the brave; safety is simply less important than freedom here.
Quit spying? What fantasy world are you living in?
The real world, which is a world where freedom takes priority over safety.
The problem here is that the spies are out of control.
The problem is that the spies cannot be controlled. Government thugs will do whatever they please, especially in situations where it is simply not possible for the public to provide oversight. We gave the government a chance to provide oversight for itself, and it predictably failed.
What good is a spy agency if everyone knows what they are doing and how to avoid them?
I'd rather have no spy agency than have a disgusting organization like the NSA continue to operate; anyone who doesn't despise freedom feels the same way.
8 years of Bush thinking he knew what was best for you is largely what got us into this mess.
And Obama is just as much of a thug for continuing these policies and, in certain cases, expanding them.
With alternatives like Palin and Romney one is left with little choice.
Third parties. If you vote for evil, you are naive and part of the problem. Try to give someone else a chance, if for no other reason than to send a message.
I don't care how transparent this is or how much oversight it has; spying on innocent people will never be okay, and neither will spying on people to find out if they're innocent or not.
I dont see this going anywhere, the problem isnt the laws its the check and balances (oversight) that was put in place to stop these abuses.
The problem is with the law; you cannot seriously expect the government to provide oversight for itself.
The reason government does these bad things is because government is badly managed, and badly constructed
It does these things because it is run by humans. There wasn't a single government in history that didn't suffer from rampant corruption, and that's why we must not give the government certain powers at all.
not because government itself is inherently complicit.
But it is. There is no way you can harass citizens at airports, harass citizens at borders, harass citizens randomly, ship citizens off to free speech zones for sending messages that you disapprove of, get into pointless wars with multiple countries, spy on everyone, install surveillance devices on random people's property, and do a host of other nonsense without being inherently complicit in the violation of individual liberties.
I admit, it's cute that you're naive enough to believe the government can be trusted with even half as much power as it has now, but such mentalities aren't going to help us fix the underlying problems; the government simply shouldn't have as much power as it does now. We do not need regulation (Which won't work, as the government will never be able to police itself, nor does it want to; especially with something as secretive as the NSA, since the public can't watch it.); we need the government to lose the powers that can easily be used to violate individual liberties.
If you drive a broken down car, do you conclude that 'cars are bad'?!
Cars are inanimate objects, you fool. Humans are easily susceptible to corruption (especially those in politics), which is the problem; your analogy simply doesn't hold.
Something is knocking on your ass; it wants to play with your rancid hole! What is it that's knocking? Who could be knocking on your ass at this untimely hour? Well... my fetid little friend, that's who! "What does he want!?" you ask. Well, he wants to insert himself directly into your foul fictionhole so that the two can make The Elixir of Life. What say you?
Self-sufficiency doesn't really exist.
To varying to degrees, it does.
And the number of places where one could live as a self-sufficient recluse is rapidly dwindling.
Not really. There are still plenty of places you could go where no one would probably find you, but I'm not sure how many people would even desire such a thing.
Living your self-sufficient life you cannot really help anyone or be there for anyone; it's like you don't exist at all.
Except for the fact that you do exist. Not everyone cares about helping others or being there for others, though, and I suspect that's the sort of person who would move to a remote location alone.
Going by the votes on the Act over the past few years if you want to work to elect candidates who might do your will then supporting the Democratic Party is probably your best choice.
Both parties have shown that they hate freedom, so voting for either Republicans or Democrats is simply inadvisable.
Oh no wait, it's Green party fucks, right? Or Libertarians? Or [insert a worthless third party here].
It's whichever third party you agree with. Republicans and Democrats have had their chance, and they've shown that they both despise freedom.
Well, now I'm curious. What would your policy prescription be after 9/11 and the anthrax attacks?
Investigations are fine. Mandating that cockpit doors be secured and shut at all times are fine. Infringing upon people's individual liberties to try to stop terrorists is not fine. Going to war to find imbeciles hiding out in the desert is also not fine.
Are you one of the "Americans should die bravely in shopping malls for our freedom because doing anything is tyranny" camp?
I'm one of those "Security isn't worth it if it causes us to lose some of our individual liberties."
By the way, I hope you don't claim to want a small government.
Maybe you should push to get more Democrats elected instead.
Better yet, don't vote for Republicans or Democrats, and look at the amount of people who voted for the Patriot Act the first time around; almost everyone in congress voted for it, which shows their true colors.