International serveilance.

[diogenes]

NSA operates covert surveillance of people in the US. (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/14/washington/14nsabox.html)

Everything in this article is confirmed by administration officials. If this is what they're admitting to, what are they doing that is still confidential and covert?

[smurfslappa]

That they're not telling you who they're doing it to, or telling that person either?

[diogenes]

That was a remarkably low key response from you. I would have thought you were going to say that they were also eaves-dropping on Tele-tubbies on the moon.

[XerxesX]

There are indigenous peopel dancing in the streets. Or as one well put it. The mexicans are restless. Who gives a shit about the Teletubbies. The disturb the young ones. I am not afraid. And if Smurfslapper is afraid of tellies he is hiding it well.

What is your stance on the Teletubbie-threat ?

[diogenes]

That they are going to destroy traditional family units in the United States because one of them carries a purse. Haven't you read anything written or said by the good reverend Falwell? How've you been XerxesX? You still in holiday travelling all over god knows where?

[smurfslappa]

Yep. They're also not telling you why they're eavesdropping. What do you think they're looking for?

[diogenes]

Could be anything under the umbrella term of "subversive" activity.

[smurfslappa]

Well then you might have to use your damn head. What could they be spying on millions of Americans for? Maybe they're just looking for the important ones?

[diogenes]

I don't think they're spying on millions of Americans. I don't think they have the carrying capacity to monitor millions of Americans. Considering the amount of information that flows back and forth in the United States they couldn't possibly check everything, not in the near future anyhow. It's simply too much information.

[smurfslappa]

They just screen for the basics. What the masses are talking about, how aware of our situation we are, how much we know and about what. I forgot the name of that one military system they got that always dropping eaves on us. I know they got to be monitoring the internet. They don't need to record phone calls, they just check off the usual words and there goes another point on your profile. Don't tell me they don't got the hardware.

I think it was last year or late 2004 that someone hacked into the largest database on U.S. citizens, swiping the goods. Come on now, it's the end times. Give these guys a little credit.

[Joeslogic]

Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act of 1994, after it was passed in both the House and Senate by a voice vote. The law that President Clinton signed into law and that was approved by voice votes in 1994 by a Democrat-majority House and a Democrat-majority Senate not only made clear the phone companies' "duty" to cooperate, it authorized $500 million in taxpayer funds to reimburse the phone companies for equipment "enabling the government, pursuant to a court order or other lawful authorization, to access call-identifying information that is reasonably available to the carrier." Again, the law, by referring to "other lawful authorization," states clearly that a court order isn't the only form of lawful authorization possible. This is the issue that the Democrats of the Howard-Dean-John-Kerry era just don't seem to prepared to credit. The Democrats who controlled the White House and both houses of Congress in 1994 showed signs of understanding the national security issues at stake here when they passed the law. Their understanding seems to have eroded since then. It can't be that they feel America faces less of a threat - if anything, the attacks of September 11, 2001, make the case for such programs even stronger. What's changed isn't the enemy threat but the party that now controls the White House. Which explains why Mrs. Clinton is "deeply disturbed" about activities legal under a law her husband signed.
(http://www.nysun.com/article/32651)

If the Ship of fools called the democratic party can be legitimized to an equally foolish American public who stupidly want to fall for whatever spin Paula Zahn, Catie Curic, Keith Olbermann .... whichever liberal media person you want to pick. Well go ahead then and be my guest.

[Joeslogic]

The American Public over whelmingly approve of wiretapping.

A majority of Americans initially support a controversial National Security Agency program to collect information on telephone calls made in the United States in an effort to identify and investigate potential terrorist threats, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll.

The new survey found that 63 percent of Americans said they found the NSA program to be an acceptable way to investigate terrorism, including 44 percent who strongly endorsed the effort. Another 35 percent said the program was unacceptable, which included 24 percent who strongly objected to it.

A slightly larger majority--66 percent--said they would not be bothered if NSA collected records of personal calls they had made, the poll found.

Underlying those views is the belief that the need to investigate terrorism outweighs privacy concerns. According to the poll, 65 percent of those interviewed said it was more important to investigate potential terrorist threats "even if it intrudes on privacy." Three in 10--31 percent--said it was more important for the federal government not to intrude on personal privacy, even if that limits its ability to investigate possible terrorist threats.

Half--51 percent--approved of the way President Bush was handling privacy matters.

The survey results reflect initial public reaction to the NSA program. Those views that could change or deepen as more details about the effort become known over the next few days.

USA Today disclosed in its Thursday editions the existence of the massive domestic intelligence-gathering program. The effort began soon after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Since then, the agency began collecting call records on tens of millions of personal and business telephone calls made in the United States. Agency personnel reportedly analyze those records to identify suspicious calling patterns but do not listen in on or record individual telephone conversations.

Word of the program sparked immediate criticism on Capitol Hill, where Democrats and Republicans criticized the effort as a threat to privacy and called for congressional inquiries to learn more about the operation. In the survey, big majorities of Republicans and political independents said they found the program to be acceptable while Democrats were split.

President Bush made an unscheduled appearance yesterday before White House reporters to defend his administration's efforts to investigate terrorism and criticize public disclosure of secret intelligence operations. But he did not directly acknowledge the existence of the NSA records-gathering program or answer reporters' questions about it.

By a 56 percent to 42 percent margin, Americans said it was appropriate for the news media to have disclosed the existence of this secret government program.

A total of 502 randomly selected adults were interviewed Thursday night for this survey. Margin of sampling error is five percentage points for the overall results. The practical difficulties of doing a survey in a single night represents another potential source of error.
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/12/AR2006051200375_pf.html)

This in spite of the misinformation and anti America propaganda being spewed out to the gullible American public on a daily basis.

[Joeslogic]

We have roughly 300 Million people in the U.S. 2/3s of which use the phone on a daily basis. Most teenage kids now have their own Cell phones. I have 2000 min on mine just to keep from going over min on my bill. If the 200 million callers use a conservative 400 min total cell and phone min a day. (This is excluding business calls which would blow consumer calls right out of the water) That’s what somewhere around 13 min a day (talk about conservative figures) multiply that times 200 million people.

You stupid asses have got a better chance of winning the lotto in three states than you have a chance of getting your phone monitored.

They target terrorist suspect’s dumbasses.

They target terrorist suspect’s dumbasses.

THEY TARGET TERRORIST SUSPECTS DUMBASSES!!!!

[XerxesX]

Its important that the initial surveilance dont require manpower. Computers can monitor whatever, and USA has the right to monitor whatever they want and print as much money as they want and invade what they see fit.

They target terrorist-suspect Joe. But everyone that knows a terrorist-suspect is a terrorist suspect until checked out. So what you say is totally off the wall wrong.
A billion western democratic citicens are or will be checked, investigated and found to be of a category that decides further surveilance.

I will not go into caracterdescriptions, but simply say that these people are just like anybody else. They are not the best, nor the brightest. The best and the brightest are dead by allergic reaction to Bushs C-level rethorics. Oh yeah. Thats right. One man stands. He prepares a process against the conmen and was mentioned here earlier.

SOMETHING HAPPENED THAT DAY.
Maybe we are in a game of "texas hold em".
Maybe its just criminal negligence.
Since USA has yet to develope a culture of responsible leadership, ( That take sthe personal consequence of failures by leaving office ), its not likely that the central perpetrators will be touched.

Maybe you could look at the way certain people have made fortunes while "infiltrating" both terrorists and drugkartelles. This one UStrooper was ( as mentioned earlier ), pissed that he could not torch the coca-fields ).

USA has had many such Cocafields, badguys, terrorists, druglords etc on their paylist.

Do not cross the mongols. They ride wherever they want. And the world is the grazing field of their herds. Pluss maybe you will look cool in a bigger car.

[Joeslogic]

Here is an example of typical misrepresentation. People are aware of Carnivore and the idea that they government eavesdrops on e-mail activity to then key in on specific words to trigger interest. This would be somewhat believable. What is not believable because the infrastructure is simply not there not to mention absence to the technology? This is where most of the country is in Smurfville on this. Because a majority of people are convinced through misrepresentation you should not find comfort in this.

Of the billions of conversations they would have to monitor. Minutely believable if it were instantaneously transmitted digital data. (if you are gullible but not if you are a realist) But this is not even digital data this is analog data (for the sake of this conversation analog and digital sound waves are the same they are dynamic, not static like ASCII text). They would have to ever so slowly and simultaneously listen to millions of calls to get even a small percentage of the calls and they would have to do it real-time. Using voice recognition software.

THINK PEOPLE!!!!!! Use your brain. Do not spew out the same old rhetoric you were told (or led to believe by their creating a false impression) from the media.

I'm calling out every politician that tries to cash in on this convenient misrepresentation. And the media who have created it.

#1. Sound waves cannot be tagged in any reliable way like text
#2. If they could do this reliably they do not travel in digital bursts you would have to monitor them in real-time each individually.
#3. The only other scenario would be individual analysists actual people doing this. Do I really need to go over the numbers again. (Are we to also believe that the population of the state of Texas are all actually NSA agents working three shifts 40 hour weeks in order to monitor even a percentage of all the other states and territories? Or is it just freaking possible that

Maybe

Just Maybe

WHEN THEY SAY THAT THEY ARE TARGETING TERRORISTS THEY MIGHT BE TELLING THE TRUTH?

[XerxesX]

Soundwaves must be converted to digital format.
So they do not need realtime surveilance.
In addition, its extrordinary what some thousand dedicated analysts can cover. Think Joe ! How many individual/families can one man cover in a day.

10 ? 100 ?

[Joeslogic]

Let’s just say it was 100. for the sake of argument. I’m thinking more like four.

There are ~300 million people here. Like I said you got better odds of winning the lotto.

Look that’s beside the point. look you a Cannot convert analog sound waves to digital ones and zeros then transmit them over a line and listen on the other end. You’re misunderstanding how it is done. Trust me on this I have a degree in EE.

It’s like some people prefer to believe that digital music is better or more accurate then analog that is bullshit also. It can be cleaned of recording static easily and replicated easy, does not degrade over time. But it still is not as accurate as analog.

To show you this I would have to either A. have a chalk board and you in front of me to illustrate this or B. find some webpage that already has an illustration of digital sound wave conversion.

[XerxesX]

Ill buy that.
So the electronic traces are of another kind. We all still leave a lot of data that can be processed and analyzed. That sum still constitutes an ability to check on a LOT of people in a short time.

Probably why folks are bitchin about the intel one had and did not produce and so on. Its cutting it down thats the problem. The mongols would have cut it down closer to the neck of it.

AND THEY WOULD HAVE HAD FUN DOING IT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[diogenes]

Hey Joe, I can post bullshit links as well. Bush did his eavesdropping without congressional approval. The 94 bill was passed by congress and used in limited quantity. Bush overstepped his authority, and so has Cheney.

[smurfslappa]

The difference between your bullshit and his bullshit is that his isn't bullshit Diogenes! When will your liberal mind allow you to see this?

[Joeslogic]

If you have no logical point to make then take a que from the Jerry Springer show stratagy guide. Accuse everyone of bullshit.

[diogenes]

Or take a page from every "conservative" ever and blame everything on liberal bias in the media. Your story is getting old Joe.

[Joeslogic]

All that shit about congressional approval is ment to give the perception that something occured that required their approval. He also took a piss in the whitehouse toilet and did not go to congress to get their approval. And the point is?

The point is most Americans can see there is nothing here. You should also Dio.

[diogenes]

Really, so you're okay with them tapping your phone?

[Joeslogic]

Really, so you're okay with them tapping your phone?


Thank you Dio your making my point. The government is not tapping my phone and not tapping your phone. No one at Fugly Forums is at risk of being tapped except maybe whoever is calling Nursey may be at risk of being tapped. And then only if certian criteria are met.

Your ignorance of the process for this makes my point the general public has been fed a pack of lies.

[diogenes]

Answer the question? Are you okay with your phone being tapped? Since I didn't make your point for you. All you did was avoid mine.

[Joeslogic]

You see folks; liberal media bias has convinced the all to willing and ready to believe liberal minds that the phones of American citizens are being tapped. It a sad state of events really but what is so alarming is how pervasive the lie is and the large percentage of people that have been duped.

So Dio are you for the U.S. government sending out agents to all the government preschools to buttfuck the little children. Just a yes or No will do. :roll:

Answer to your amateurish and irrelevant question. If me or you or any of my neighbors. Are in the habit or corresponding with known foreign terrorists, or for that matter suspected foreign terrorists. Yes I pray to god that they have the wisdom to tap in and see what is being discussed.

Now that I have provided you an answer why don't you go and read up on the guidelines involved in the phone tapping policy. Educate yourself a little bit. It seems that you are being influenced by the liberal innuendo being placed out there by our massively leftwing anti-American media.

[diogenes]

So you are okay with Intelligence services conducting phone taps and monitoring e-mails without independent oversight by the judiciary or congress? I guess the constitution only applies if the democrats are doing something wrong.

"Those who would trade freedom for security deserve neither." Benjamin Franklin.

[Joeslogic]

Telling an elected democrat what you are proposing to do and getting permission is just asking for what you are doing to be on the front page of the enquirer.

Dio I try real hard to explain this and its like miles of text just went in were never comprehended just went right out.

The idea that the government could monitor on any broad scale phone conversations of American citizens is a joke. I could explain it five different ways and a month from now you will find the version with the best angle for taking out of the context from which it was meant and twist it around. I suggest you go back to page one and re-read.

It was Bill Clinton that started monitoring phone data to the extent that it is. He did not have nearly the reason and justification that we currently have. Does it not strike you as odd that you were not informed then by your o so diligent media then? Where was the uproar?

As for your question, are you smoking crack you seem to have missed the answer.

Answer to your amateurish and irrelevant question. If me or you or any of my neighbors. Are in the habit or corresponding with known foreign terrorists, or for that matter suspected foreign terrorists. Yes I pray to god that they have the wisdom to tap in and see what is being discussed.

Now that I have provided you an answer why don't you go and read up on the guidelines involved in the phone tapping policy. Educate yourself a little bit. It seems that you are being influenced by the liberal innuendo being placed out there by our massively leftwing anti-American media.

[diogenes]

"Those who would trade freedom for security deserve neither." Benjamin Franklin.

[Joeslogic]

Dio you are showing your Libertarian side I'll have to remind you of this one day when you go back to endorsing Big Brother as a necessary for the greater good.

[diogenes]

I'm not a fan of government intrusion. Never have been. J. Edgar Hoover wasn't that long ago he was using things like this to blackmail government officials.

[Joeslogic]

Your right there, for instance the Democratic Party during the Clinton administration obtained approximately 1000 FBI reports illegally on every one of them Republican politicians and influential persons within conservative circles. They have been using threat and innuendo about those mysterious reports since then. Otherwise the republican majorities would have accomplished much more. If you think that is not the case your very naive. If you think that is ok because the cause was a righteous one you are very much a typical liberal democrat and need to stop the bullshit pretension that you’re against government intrusion into private lives.

[diogenes]

I'm not okay with that, and just because the Democrats do something doesn't mean it's right for the Republicans to do so in turn. Need I remind you of Nixon?

[XerxesX]

Xerx wrote
Posted: Sun May 14, 2006 5:17 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ill buy that.



All wrong xerx. All wrong Joe. It is totally possible to transcribe analog sound into ones and zeroes. So there are virtually no quantitative limits to the possibilities of mass-surveilance. Qualitative limits exist ofcourse, but the possible number of referance-words should impressive. Lets say this intel is washed a few rounds before human ears are at it.
Talked to this guy on the plane back to London. He studied electrical engeneering in Japan a few years ago :wink:

Dio wrote
Posted: Wed May 17, 2006 11:01 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm not a fan of government intrusion. Never have been. J. Edgar Hoover wasn't that long ago he was using things like this to blackmail government officials.


Who had the pictures of Hoovers sexual escapades ?

Who blackmailed the blackmailer ? Who killed Kennedy ? Who hides the truth about extraterrestial activity on Earth ? Friends of Mars ( the planet ) ? Or friends of Marrs ( The preacher ). Or none. Maube suspects are the ones most likely to be inocent. A truth easily manipulated :?

[Joeslogic]

Go back to the numbers Xerx.

Virtually anything analog can then be converted to digital.

But if I have a 30 min. conversation with you then for 30 min our conversation has to be analyzed the program and hardware are good but not that good remember 300 million people talking at least a conservative average of 13 min non-business personal chat. Each individual one tying up processor time in real time. It cannot predict what is going to be said in our 30 min. of conversation.

I did not say that you cannot convert I said you could not reasonably do it on a large scale.

Logic would dictate that they would selectively choose to concentrate on the most likely scenario that would successfully bring back reliable intelligence. If you’re in a fishing contest and you only have a few Cain poles to fish with do you run around dragging a hook around the lake trying to catch all the fish? Or do you simply use your best judgment and throw a worm on a hook where it’s most likely to get a sizable fish to bite?

The bullshit is compelling and after you read this you will get compelled later to believe some outlandish crap. But you have to refocus and think logically.

[diogenes]

Which is to think that they will monitor all behavior they consider subversive. For example, the wire taps and serveillance of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Was he a terrorist Joe?

[XerxesX]

After conversion. Cant they just speed it up. The first recognition will be eletronic anyway. Talking about voice and word recognition patterns. Thus you get a huge mass of data with a raw quality of possibles. I think you are right about the impossibility of searching thoroughly through it all. But a vague idea, backed by statistic of behaviour and word-use would be a powerful tool.

Then you set it up in paterns of friendship and social convergency. I see the point that is much, but 300 mill will not be much in the preliminary research.
One example woud be thatyoung boys with weak images of father, and confused identity are more likely to become politically extreme and resort. Focus that group. Focus next on friendships. The way a young man consumes will allso be telling. The young outgoing ethnic arabian that draws back from social life and stops drinking ?

[XerxesX]

But my bro says you are right about this Joe. The futuristic wiev of possibilities here, would rather be a repetition of the blunders , leading up to the war.

[Joeslogic]

Which is to think that they will monitor all behavior they consider subversive. For example, the wire taps and serveillance of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Was he a terrorist Joe?

No just someone that Kennedy did not trust which is why Hoover goes down in history as an asshole.

You bring up some really good points Dio are you seeing it yet? Is the hypocrisy not apparent? :roll:

Camelot; the man the world loved. Lover and friend to the black folks. I must say there is one thing I really do admire and he was the last of a breed actually a fiscally conservative Democrat that was anti-communist. We will not likely ever see that again. And its something your history scholars will not tell you at that place you go to that considers it's self an institution of higher learning.

[smurfslappa]

Even way back in the day these guys knew what they were up to... (http://www.padfield.com/1993/william-morgan/pages/MorganMonument-2.html)

"Sacred To The Memory Of w Morgan
A Native of Virginia,
A Capt In The War Of 1812
A Respectable Citizen Of
Batavia And A Martyr
To The Freedom Of Writing
Printing And Speaking The
Truth He Was Abducted
From Near This Spot In The
Year 1926 By FreeMasons
And Murdered For Revealing
The Secrets Of Their Order"

Although now an ex-president, Mr. Adams did not long remain in private life. The greatest part of his career still lay before him. Owing to the mysterious disappearance of William Morgan, who had betrayed some of the secrets of the Masonic order, there was in some of the northern states a sudden and violent prejudice against the Freemasons and secret societies in general. An "anti-mason party" was formed, and by its votes Mr. Adams was, in 1831, elected to congress, where he remained, representing the same district of Massachusetts, until his death in 1848. He was shortly afterward nominated by the anti-masons for the governorship of Massachusetts, but was defeated in the legislature, there being no choice by the people."

They tried, but failed.

[diogenes]

Hey Joe, I don't care if it's the Democrats or the Republicans. I'm not a black man, so that argument has no point for me. We're arguing surveillance here, and the Republicans have done it as well. Because we all know that everything evil in government comes from Democrats. Quit being such a conspiracy theorist dipshit Joe. You turn a blind eye to Republican transgressions and blame everything on the Democrats. Let me guess, the national debt is the democrats fault too.

[Joeslogic]

National debt democrats problem o hell yeah.

The cycle works this way. Tax revenue is looked at then the dems get schools bridges and roads named after themselves as if it were they that built them. After charging the tax payers then there is all the other pork projects. After all that is done they turn and say we don't have enough money for the poor, elderly, sick unfortunate people you republicans aren’t mean are you?

Then that night the news tells everybody, the students are dumberer. :roll: the teachers underpaid, Elderly are hungry. Sick are pathetic and in pain. And it’s because the mean republicans will not pass a bigger budget. And raise taxes to help.

The vicious cycle never ends.

Like I said Dio I'm an independent actually but you sir are the blind one. I only point out to you that your information is incorrect or as best misguided and then proceed to show you why its misguided. Its called media bias. Where you and most Americans get their news. Bombarded with bullshit from day to day. Eventually the stink rubs off on you.

But I can see how you would want to change the subject from surevlience since that is a looser for sure.

[diogenes]

Right, so Reagan didn't quadruple the national debt, and Bush hasn't almost doubled it? While borrowing huge amounts of money from foreign governments. Surveillance without independent oversight is illegal. The executive branch doesn't have the right to monitor anyone without oversight by either the judiciary or congress. The Bush administration has engaged in yet another illegal act, and you are praising them for it. The Constitution is the single most important document in the United States, and they're willing to ignore it if they have to. Bush swore an oath to uphold the constitution, and that should be his primary responsibility. Not the war on terror, and not the economy. Tell me how that's a losing argument?

[Joeslogic]

We give huge amounts of money to foreign governments not borrow and 9 times out of 10 end up just forgiving them their debt cause they cannot pay. Regan stimulated the economy and generated more revenue. It was up to the Dems in congress to be fiscally responsible but hey when it’s not their money and they can be heroes by spending it why not? All they had to simply do was reduce spending. When the republicans enacted the contract with America and real welfare reform was made we began to get back on track with the budget. The only reason our budget is not balanced now is simply due to both natural disaster as well as the events post 911 due to fighting terrorism. Even through all of that revenue has increased Dio, go and figure that one out. Bush lowered taxes and the economic activity increased as did tax revenue. It’s been proven to work twice now.

The federal government’s only job is to defend its citizens against foreign threats and protect the rights of its citizens that is the rights as they are defined in the constitution of the United States. In using means of surveillance to monitor terrorist’s threats this is the job of out government thank you. And you and ilk show your inconsistency with the facts and with your selective outrage show yourselves as the hypocrites you are.

[diogenes]

We give huge amounts of money to foreign governments not borrow and 9 times out of 10 end up just forgiving them their debt cause they cannot pay.

Categorically untrue. Bush so far has borrowed over 1 trillion dollars from foreign governments. Reagan also borrowed heavily, though he borrowed from the American public. Presidents don't have as much control over the economy as you would like to think. If Reagan is responsible for the boom of the eighties, do you also assume that Clinton is responsible for the boom of the nineties? The problem I have with Republican tax cuts is that they fund the tax cuts with borrowed money, which requires that the government pay interest. When Bush came into office every man, woman, and child in the United States had around a $28,000 share of the national debt. Since Bush came into office, with his "booming economy" and "record tax receipts" that share of debt has risen to around $45,000. In addition, under both Reagan and Bush, they're tax cuts and "economic booms" have amounted to real wages falling relative to inflation. So if the average person has less money in their pocket, in spite of the fact that the economy is "booming" then why would anyone in the bottom 90% of wage earners vote republican on economic issues?

[Joeslogic]

So many misstatements I do not know where to begin. Dio you sure do have some kind of "fuzzy" math. Show me your source or go try to find one not so liberal with the same numbers. A good example would be the U.N. that anti-American establishment that basically lives on our generosity. The U.S. funds the U.N. paying more in U.N. dues than most countries combined If the U.N. does something against us and we say "You know what? Fuck the U.N. we are not paying our membership dues" Some economic scholar that you study under would say we borrowed against money owed to the U.N. That is laughable. If the U.N. is a club that you have to be a member of then its really simply. We do not pay our dues then revoke our membership. Otherwise what you really have is simply an empanelment scheme don't we?

Also by the way. We were talking about Surveillance a subject you seem to have skirted. You may want to start a new thread or I will simply keep reminding you that I have beat you soundly on that debate.

[diogenes]

Also by the way. We were talking about Surveillance a subject you seem to have skirted. You may want to start a new thread or I will simply keep reminding you that I have beat you soundly on that debate.

Surveillance without independent oversight is illegal. The executive branch doesn't have the right to monitor anyone without oversight by either the judiciary or congress.

You should pay attention Joe. You never responded to that statement. Your argument that you can't tell elected officials anything without making that information public, would you be using Valerie Plame as an example?

Illegal surveillance. (http://www.bordc.org/callin_060517.php)

On top of that, they are trying to make it illegal for the free press to report on such violations of the fourth amendment. (http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002157186)

Bushes surveillance program is illegal. (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-12-data-gathering_x.htm)

They've also been conducting surveillance of non-violent protest, which is clearly an act of terrorism according to the Bush Administration. (http://www.aclu.org/safefree/spying/24709prs20060321.html)

As for the National Debt, here is a clock counting it and several dozen links in regards to the National Debt. (http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/)

Sorry I wasn't perfectly accurate with the debt numbers. Although they are still substantial, here is a table that expresses them quite clearly. (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/darby1.html)

Of course, these are all "liberal" sources, so none of them has any validity in your mind. Since the definition of "liberal" to you is any point that varies from your own, and is therefore invalid.

[XerxesX]

Its a chilly wind blowing, when major powers threaten to leave the UN. 30s and Germany and the league of nations, Remember ? Careful Joe !

It will be hard to blame the new chinese grip on USeconomy on the dems. The classic medicine of economic liberalism. Reducing government part of income. Its good as long as the natural resources and invention can support it. The natural rescources are finite. Bushs C-level understanding of history; ( And thusly, USAs place and position in the world ), might not have been the best bet made.

Hugo Chavez was asked about the US weapons embargo on Venezuela. "Its an empty gesture from an impotent power", was his answer.

"Owned" is an expression that springs to mind.

COUNTERING THIS

There will be one or two possible exeptions:

1:The technological benefit of massive weapons-purchases.
2: The possibilities of gaining market-advantages through terror and coercion. ( Pending on use of said weapons-investment ).

The first will be "good" and the second "bad", but bad should be tempered by the theft of tech and license-income. China stealing US nuculear tech. Indonesia stealing german avionics. Westerners stealing the ancient inventions of paper, coinage, gunpowder etc. :lol: Hilarious aint it !
So if you guys pay for your downloads, you might have the right to use all that investment. :lol:

[XerxesX]

If usmedia is socialist. Then we have a problem coining labels for the media of the rest of the world.

The most dire warning yet would be the number of us church-goers. 40% attendance ! The correlation between organized ( tyrannical ) religion, and poverty is well documented.

Satanist media perhaps ?

Best of luck !

[Joeslogic]

So your sticking to your stratagy of skirting the subject again.

[Joeslogic]

look Dio here is the challange. I say as does the Atterney General as does the Judicial branch that G. W. is not breaking the law. So, you on the other hand have PROOF BY GOD!

You have a miserable list of sources to validate your point.

Take your miserable list of sources and show me that one that was writing articals complaining about the agregeous breach of peoples rights in 1994 specifically regarding Bill Clintons bill that was passed making all of this possible.

I'll tell you right now I have not read a fucking one but I don't need to there all a bunch of miserable shitass Democrats wearing journalists hats with not one bone of integrity in their body. That is unless you can do your research and find the same journalist complaining in 94.

It is a challenge Dio if you are up to it. I doubt you are.

The Democrats bill brought up by that shit bag Patrick Leeky Lahee had written into the bill that ALL TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPANIES ARE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE A MEANS FOR THE GOVERNMENT (and this part is imporntant) TO ACCESS CITIZENS INFORMATION WITHOUT WARRANT".

Either

1. Call me a fucking liar and prove it is true

or

2. Shut the fuck up going around posting what every shit bag anti-American journalist says like thats the way it simply is.

Cause your have not got a clue what you are talking about.

[smurfslappa]

I'm fairly certain that the majority of Americans feel that Bush is breaking the law. You don't because you lack foresight. As far as I can tell you're the classic example of the delusional American, and I'm glad I have you around as an example of the typical know-nothing American in my End of the World shit talk.

[Joeslogic]

Same events different parties. The world wand not spoon fed that there were serious breaches into rights to privacy in the 90's therefore it happened and noone complained. They did not know and it apparently did not hurt them.

They were spoon fed the idea that G.W. bush is spending his time invading the privacy of honest citizens.

The public should be pissed if that were true and that is the truth they know to be.

[diogenes]

Take your miserable list of sources and show me that one that was writing articals complaining about the agregeous breach of peoples rights in 1994 specifically regarding Bill Clintons bill that was passed making all of this possible.

So you agree that it is an "agregeous breach of peoples rights" when Clinton does it, but not when Bush does it? I was 12 in 1994, so I really don't give a shit what they were monitoring back then. I care what they are monitoring now.

I'll tell you right now I have not read a fucking one but I don't need to there all a bunch of miserable shitass Democrats wearing journalists hats with not one bone of integrity in their body.

Like I said Joe, your definition of liberal is anyone who doesn't agree with you. The fact that you didn't bother to read the links, a classic example of you ignoring evidence, further proves that you are unwilling to examine any point of view you don't already possess. For those who refuse to think, it is best they at least rearrange prejudices from time to time.

The Democrats bill brought up by that shit bag Patrick Leeky Lahee had written into the bill that ALL TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPANIES ARE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE A MEANS FOR THE GOVERNMENT (and this part is imporntant) TO ACCESS CITIZENS INFORMATION WITHOUT WARRANT".

Funny, like I said you only have a problem with it when the democrats are doing it. I don't agree with either party doing it. You're trying to make this a partisan issue, so who's making this into something it's not? This is an issue of big brother invading people's privacy.

[Joeslogic]

Dio I am challenging you to put up or shut up. It is real simple I am proving the stories are bullshit.

I knew of the privacy rights issues then and was alarmed by it. But Dio, the silence was deafening.

If the reporters have an obvious agenda that can be proven by a two faced approach of reporting and it can be proven that they were misrepresenting the facts in this case also then your whole house of cards just collapses doesn’t it?

I am afraid your theory is proven unequivocally beyond a shadow of a doubt already.

My offer still stands I do not know how I can make it any easier for you. If it will help I'll explain how try Google the name of the person that wrote the bullshit column. Include surveillance, telecom, and privacy. etc. and see what you come up with. I was there and there was no outrage. On top of it the times were very different then. There was not the obvious terrorism issue then as it is now.

[diogenes]

If the reporters have an obvious agenda that can be proven by a two faced approach of reporting and it can be proven that they were misrepresenting the facts in this case also then your whole house of cards just collapses doesn’t it?

This post is not about media bias, I really don't care. It's about the federal government encroaching on people's rights. Get it straight and stop trying to make this a liberal vs. conservative issue. Stick to the topic.

[Joeslogic]

Who is being spied upon Dio?

[XerxesX]

Oh ! Nobody close, I am sure. Its the kind of thing that happens somewere else. Like in hollywood-movies. With fast cars and women.

And it really gets to you, and in the end you cant work :x

[Joeslogic]

Fast cars, women... ok tell me more.

[diogenes]

Maybe if you would have read some of the links, instead of denying evidence based on nothing.

[Joeslogic]

With the same occurrence twice in recent history. I asked you, actually mocked and challenged you to show me where the reporters wrote the same articles in the mid 90s.

You and apparently your journalist have taken and politicized the situation. Decided that there are two sets of rules. When Dio are you going to stop seeing the world through your liberal Blue tinted glasses?

[diogenes]

Hey Joe, when did I say it was okay for Clinton to do the same thing? I'm not saying it's okay for Clinton or anyone to do. You're challenging me to find an article where reporters show outrage about it in '94. I was 12 years old in '94. So I really don't give a shit. According to what you are saying this is a good idea, that the government should be able to do things like this. If that's the case then you should be applauding the Democrats for their foresight in putting a law into place that would allow this surveillance. But you're not. You should stop viewing the world with your head up your ass.

[Joeslogic]

Dio honestly think about what I'm saying I'm calling out the reporters who wrote the articles. I'm using a real illustration to show you and you refuse to see it.

We could move on to discuss the interpretation of the laws. What the executive branch has the rights to do. Who falls under the safety net of rights as an American citizen? But first you have to see that what you accuse me of you are guiltier of. If that is you are going to try to use news articles you have to be able to admit the obvious bias.

Armed with the self-righteous belief that you are of the same mindset as the media. A warm fuzzy, caring, compassionate, ideologically superior left. Suddenly it’s ok and right to manipulate the beliefs of the people. After all their just a bunch of ignorant people who need to be guided to your way of thinking. So therefore a few well placed lies is ok then. It’s not wrong because we got to do what we can against the mean, self-centered, cruel, uncaring, dishonest, ideologically inferior right.

[diogenes]

I suppose when your only tool is a hammer every problem tends to look like a nail, doesn't it Joe.

[Joeslogic]

If your saying "Damn Joe you hit the nail right on the head every time!" then yeah I can understand that.

[phatboy]

So do you think that the government hasnt been doing this for years without our knowledge?

[Joeslogic]

I'm saying that laws were passed in the 90's that allow for the current surveillance. And that the same Democrats that are voicing there "concern" about the privacy of citizens and the legality of surveillance. Were involved in proposing a much more invasive bill at that time. This was common knowledge.

The legality aspect is debatable. Just like I can say it’s illegal for you to eat a bag of potatoes chips and then follow up with a front page article plastering your picture across the page putting a chip in your mouth while holding a bag of lays. Then I get 30 or so of people on my side that are more than willing to use the politics of destruction to agree and validate my point.

Then the strategy can be centered on the obvious that you did indeed eat the chips and attack your credibility if you say you did nothing illegal. I return with "Look the sob is laying through his teeth we have pictures for Christ sake!"

If this sounds ridiculous to you it should. Learn the true details of the surveillance program and the whole surveillance program saga will seem just as ridiculous.

[diogenes]

I'm saying that laws were passed in the 90's that allow for the current surveillance.

Which never should have been passed in the first place. Now if you're in favor of the surveillance, you're in favor of these laws, and you should be giving the democrats credit. You're not doing that.

And that the same Democrats that are voicing there "concern" about the privacy of citizens and the legality of surveillance.

You're assuming that the NSA is only spying and reading the phone records of foreign calls into the United States. You can't possibly believe that. Actually, you can, and you'd blame it all on the "liberal" media.

The legality aspect is debatable.

I would like to actually debate that, but you can't pull your head out of your ass long enough to talk about anything but the media.

Just like I can say it’s illegal for you to eat a bag of potatoes chips and then follow up with a front page article plastering your picture across the page putting a chip in your mouth while holding a bag of lays.

You could do that, and no one would care since it's potato chips. That was probably the worst example of anything I have ever seen. They're launching an investigation to find out if anyone's rights were violated. As they should, since those rights are essential to the continued freedom of the American people. You're ignoring all of this and focusing on the media.

If this sounds ridiculous to you it should. Learn the true details of the surveillance program and the whole surveillance program saga will seem just as ridiculous.

As long as you ignore the fact that everyone involved is a politician and they might be lying.

[Joeslogic]

Dio go back to I don't know page two maybe where I made the case that it is impossible for the NSA to monitor but just a small percentage of traffic. Given this simple fact and combine it with the fact of motive being prevent a terrorist attack or your ass is grass scenario. Then it’s easy to believe that they are only monitoring the communications with foreign terrorists’ links.

[diogenes]

And anyone else they might consider subversive, including ecological groups, communists, or muslims in general? How exactly would they know the people making the phone calls are terrorists Joe? I'd like to know the answer to that. How do they know there is any terrorism link prior to monitoring the phone calls. So 100% of the calls they've monitored have been made by terrorists to their cells in the United States.

[Joeslogic]

Hey Dio I know you mean well and I can see the good in that. Believe me I'm not for invading peoples privacy I do not like it. The monitoring is for suspected terrorists and under the conditions currently because we have a free and open society it is very apparent to me that what is being done is by necessity.

I respect your right to not see it that way. But at the same time I do not understand how you can not see it that way. I suppose it takes different strokes for different folks.

[diogenes]

Here's the problem I have with that. Law enforcement should not decide who is innocent or guilty, the courts do that. The NSA should not be deciding who constitutes a suspected terrorist without oversight by the courts. Or at least congress. Who's watching the watchers. I sure as hell don't trust them to watch themselves.

[Joeslogic]

Ok there has to be a point break.

If a guy is in a submarine barreling towards the U.S. and ignoring communications with the Coast Guard.

Does the coast guard take the crew in the submarine to court and sue them?

Or

Does the U.S. defend it's self against a nuclear threat?

I mean none have been proven guilty yet in a court of law right?

No need to answer I'm sure. We are talking about suspected Terrorists outside the U.S. communicating with persons inside the U.S. The federal government gets into business all the time that it is not supposed to this time they damn well better be in the business of protecting its citizens against a foreign threat.

By the way do you know about the Massouwi laptop fumble?

[diogenes]

That's not an appropriate example. In the case of the submarine you have a proven imminent threat. In the case of the wire tapping, you have SUSPECTED terrorists. In the case of the submarine if it has entered U.S. waters illegally then the coast guard would have the right to use whatever means necessary to prevent an immenent threat. In the case of the suspected terrorists there may or may not be a threat. If that's the case then the privacy of a U.S. citizen outweighs the governments right to know unless otherwise decided by an independant judiciary. The system of checks and balances exists for a reason.

[Joeslogic]

Hey what ever happened to Hillary on the TV series "Fresh Prince of Belaire"?

I always thought she was hot and I have not seen her in anything since.

[diogenes]

She's driving a nuclear submarine into the port of Long Beach. Coast Guard is all over her.

[Joeslogic]

Damn I never figured her for being one of them.

How about Sammy the one on the soaps who got accused of being fat and I never understood that cause she is mega hot.

Alison Sweeney thats it.

[diogenes]

Was she on Days of Our Lives or Something.

[Joeslogic]

I think that was it gotta google it again hold on. ..... Days of our lives, Sammy Brady. If she is fat then I got a serious thing for fat chicks. I bet it was her ass in Phats avatar that had me so damn mesmerized.

http://us.ent4.yimg.com/tv.yahoo.com/images/he/photo/tv_pix/nbc/days_of_our_lives/alison_sweeney/days3.jpg[/url]

[diogenes]

Whore.

[Joeslogic]

In case you missed the ring on the finger and maybe more importantly the little one. You can see in this pic this hottie is already taken.

Just click to expand to full resolution.

http://www.itgirlpublicrelations.com/headshots/AlisonSweeneyBen1.JPG

[diogenes]

Yet more proof she's a whore. She probably bought that ring with welfare stamps.

[Joeslogic]

:shock:

Unless thats a cz musta been a lot of stamps. Besides she is as pure as the winter snow go ahead and try to find a pic of her that is in any way trashy much less showing a lot of skin.

:oops: Not that I've ever tried ... I'm just sayin.

[diogenes]

Whore. I bet she's smuggling a nuclear submarine in her clap trap.

[Joeslogic]

Ok its been about 6 years since the last Terrorist attack on American soil and the Dems are now in control all they simply have to do is pull funding for the surveillance program they have the trump card will they play it?

[diogenes]

I can see you're still completely insane. Good to know things don't change.

[Joeslogic]

Hey their in charge and have made great claims so if their feeling froggy let's see them jump.