Terrorist bank records

davidjh7

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2006
Posts
2,607
Media
0
Likes
111
Points
283
Location
seattle
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Pecker said:
For pity's sake, when are some of you going to accept that we are at war and that we will be for many years to come?

While you wring your hands over phone calls and bank accounts, the Sears Tower is obliterated and hundreds, if not thousands, more die? You can bet that part of the investigation of those idiots in Miami was financial and their phones were tapped.

What's next?
Sadly, though, thousands of Americans ARE dying, murdered by a small group of bastards at the top who put them in an impossible situation, and then refused to truy support them. In the MEANTIME, they are busy making SURE their power is secure by establishing a truly fascist form of government. What is going on now is about power and money, not about protecting anybody from terrorism. You can't protect against terrorism, by it's nature. All you can really do is to be reasonably aware, intellegent, and not let terrorism achieve it's goal, which is to disrupt the way you live, work and think. By the very defintion of terroism, this administration ARE the biggest terrorists in this country!! I'm sorry--I can NOT condone their actions, not an believe there can ever be an America again. If I had been German in WWII, and could see what Hitler was doing to his own people in the name of nationalism and self protection of citizenry, I likely would have been quickly put in a death camp, because I can't keep silent, nor condone a small group of people destroying a good country purely for their own power and wealth grab. Condemn me if you like, but I refuse to be silent and go quietly into the shithole, because someone says it is the safe thing to do. I would rather "they" put a bullet in my brain.
I agree that the terroists are evil, dangerous, and definately want to kill every american. their whole purpose of their theocracy has been, as long as it has existed, to destroy the infidel--they see it as God's work. Haven't we learned this lesson yet? Wars fought over ideology and religion can go on for CENTURIES! it already HAS! Tis administration is fighting about resources, in the name of ideology, religion, and whatever else they want to claim. The ONLY way to really WIN a war on what the terrorists are fighting for, is complete and total genocide. Otherwise, it just waxes and wanes forever. Does this giv OUR government the right to destroy OUR country? DO you think those in power give ONE SHIT about anybody but their stock brokers who died in 9/11? If they TRULY had wanted a response to Bin Laden, the first thing they would have done is executed the Bin Laden family, and the families of any and all related parties. Insane? Yes. Unfair? Absolutely. Unjust? Totally. But unfortunately, the only way to stop a son of a bitch, is to be a BIGGER son of a bitch. Human history has proven this over and over.
I may regret posting this when I am in a better mood, and had some sleep. But somehow I doubt it.
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
93
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
VeeP said:
...I worry more about the precedential implications than I do being personally "violated" by the current powers that be. Placing the same techniques in the hands of future derilicts is a scary thought indeed. But, once again, we had been looking the other way for decades prior to 9/11, then suddenly found ourselves on the defense and having to play catch-up. Typically one isn't inclined to spend a lot of time nitpicking minutia whilst others busily plot to wipe his ass off the map. Which results in a rushed Patriot Act, and so on.
What the fuck, man, you mean you actually GET IT??? I really have exceptionally straight-forward banking practices, and I keep my taxes up-to-date. It is NOT worry about what they will find out about me that has me so incensed, it is that they are doing it at all, and HOW they are doing it.

And VeeP, you are oh-so-correct in one other area, too. Our knee-jerk herd-of-sheep citizens (not just in the US, this time...) are so fucking brainwashed into the sound-byte mode that they just cannot see the big picture. Folks, if you are only seeing one pixel of the big picture, you WILL fuck up. I can't honestly believe that ANYONE in this country does not understand why some of the countries in the middle east have so much animosity toward the United States. Do none of you, not one single person, understand the whole thing, going back to The Shah of Iran, and the western world part in the creation of the state of israel? The activities of World Bank, Inc.? The fucking arrogant imperialism of the US and other countries, but especially the US? Countless other (good and justified) reasons for such rancor? Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with their cowardly terroristic response. But it really does piss me off big time that people from another continent are coming over here and punishing our innocent citizens for the sins of the greedy bastards in government who have made it their "manifest destiny" to make the world "safe for democracy..." which of course translates into "ripe for the pickin'.."
 

VeeP

Sexy Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2005
Posts
1,752
Media
2
Likes
30
Points
268
Gender
Male
DC_DEEP said:
What the fuck, man, you mean you actually GET IT???
Well, yeah, I tend to be a little "bigger picture" than some would think and I appreciate someone recognizing it. Just because I decline to jump on the administration-bashing bandwagon does NOT mean I believe they should be given carte blanche. Immediately post-9/11 I happen to believe any administration would have acted similarly as that's the knee-jerk position we found ourselves in. However, now that we're a significant (and let's not forget incident-free) distance from that horrific day, people are finally starting to realize just what "the world as we know it will change" is coming to mean and that it's going to be a very long haul indeed against these jihadist fucks. So far they've been pretty darn successful at turning our freedoms against us.

DC_DEEP said:
It is NOT worry about what they will find out about me that has me so incensed, it is that they are doing it at all, and HOW they are doing it.
Can you elaborate a bit? And I don't mean that provocatively... I'm genuinely curious how you believe it should be done differently. I think we proved with the satellite phone thing that exposing classified programs to the world just so some news outlet can wrap themselves in a sensational front page story probably isn't the way. Perhaps you think they shouldn't be doing it at all, but personally I've always believed cutting off funding was/is priority one with combating these bastards. And yes, I realize there's stinging irony in that our very support of the same has played a big role in allowing them to gain the stature they now enjoy on the world stage.

DC_DEEP said:
Our knee-jerk herd-of-sheep citizens (not just in the US, this time...) are so fucking brainwashed into the sound-byte mode that they just cannot see the big picture. Folks, if you are only seeing one pixel of the big picture, you WILL fuck up.
That's exactly my point, DC_DEEP. No sooner than Iraq was injected into the discussion (again, by someone other than me), I started hearing regurgitated sound bytes and sweeping generalizations. I can turn on the TV if I want to hear that drivel.

DC_DEEP said:
I can't honestly believe that ANYONE in this country does not understand why some of the countries in the middle east have so much animosity toward the United States.
Hate to break it to you, man... but they're everywhere. Nothing irks me more than a total disregard for history in favor of hand wringing and "sky is falling" mayhem. To my much earlier point, if many of us don't wake the fuck up it isn't gonna matter one bit who in "America's Got Talent"... :rolleyes:
 

ETA123

Just Browsing
Joined
Jun 1, 2006
Posts
190
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
236
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
VeeP said:
War is ugly, no doubt about it and incidents such as these only serve to weaken our cause. Are incidents such as these reason to abandon our cause? Personally, I don't think so.

Nice of you to disparage all of our troops in one shot based on the inexcusable actions of a few. Well done!

"A nation"? Do tell me which history book you are working from. Apparently the pages about Hitler marching across Europe have gone missing from yours.
Hmmm, did you actually READ what I wrote, or just post a knee-jerk response? It's obvious you didn't read it. I'll leave it to you to figure out why. Here's a little clue for you though, Hitler marching aross Europe has nothing to do with why the US got involved in WWII (as a side note, you might want to investigate what Prescott Bush was involved in at the time). The US was practicing a completely hands off approach until they were attacked by Japan. If you read a history book, you might notice that. You might also notice that Germany declared war on us as part of their treaty with Japan.

Pick up a book, read it, then get back to me. Your knowledge of actual history and facts is abyssmal.

You respond to DC_DEEP as if you share the same argument, yet haven't read a thing he's posted that you haven't twisted. YOU are the type of person he's referring to that has no comprehension of why countries in the middle east have so much animosity. . . . you do realize that don't you?

You're so lost in the propaganda you don't even know what the "cause" is.

As to biased news, there was a survey done in 2004. Of the people in the US that believed that Sadam was responsible for 9/11 and that we had found stockpiles of WMD's in Iraq, over 80% relied on Fox for their main source of news. The number one source for people that knew that wasn't the case? The internet and print media, followed by other news networks. If you're truly taking the position that Fox isn't biased, you're a lost cause, that has distanced themselves too far from reality.
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
93
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
ETA123 said:
...You respond to DC_DEEP as if you share the same argument, yet haven't read a thing he's posted that you haven't twisted. YOU are the type of person he's referring to that has no comprehension of why countries in the middle east have so much animosity. . . . you do realize that don't you?... If you're truly taking the position that Fox isn't biased, you're a lost cause, that has distanced themselves too far from reality.
Actually, ETA, I have some points of agreement and some points of disagreement with both you and VeeP.

Look, everyone, thanks for all your responses to my original post. Don't misunderstand me or twist my words.

There are terrorists, and they must be dealt with.

The laws of physics do apply here - for every action taken, there will be an equal and opposite reaction. Tread carefully.

Greed and corruption at the highest levels, in ANY government, takes precedence uber alles. The loyal patriotic citizens be damned.

Government policy and practice, both domestic and foreign, is not made piece-meal. Those who make the "rules" understand this, and are exceptionally adept and sly at it. Those who do not attempt to see the gestalt of the domestic and foreign policies are doomed to suffer the consequences.

Imperialist nations do not make good neighbors, and their neighbors realize this. Imperialist nations are generally hated by others. With good reason.

If you bully someone weaker than yourself, long enough, your victim will eventually take care of you, by any means necessary. This is also true of countries, not just individuals.

The current administration of the US government (to use an analogy) is trying to cure an infected toenail by cutting off the leg at the hip... when a dose of antibiotics would be a much more rational and appropriate approach.

We need to fix the terrorist problem by rectifying the underlying issues, not simply attacking the symptoms. Treating the entire world, including our own citizens, as potential terrorists is a bad idea.
 

ETA123

Just Browsing
Joined
Jun 1, 2006
Posts
190
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
236
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
DC_DEEP said:
The current administration of the US government (to use an analogy) is trying to cure an infected toenail by cutting off the leg at the hip... when a dose of antibiotics would be a much more rational and appropriate approach.

We need to fix the terrorist problem by rectifying the underlying issues, not simply attacking the symptoms. Treating the entire world, including our own citizens, as potential terrorists is a bad idea.

You just summed it up perfectly with those two paragraphs.
 

VeeP

Sexy Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2005
Posts
1,752
Media
2
Likes
30
Points
268
Gender
Male
ETA123 said:
Hmmm, did you actually READ what I wrote, or just post a knee-jerk response? It's obvious you didn't read it. I'll leave it to you to figure out why. Here's a little clue for you though, Hitler marching aross Europe has nothing to do with why the US got involved in WWII
The "comparison" (and I use the term loosely here) drawn between Iraq and Japan was by you, sir. My argument spoke to the respective scopes of WW II and the War on Terror. There are those who see our involvement in Iraq as part of the latter, the scope of which is largely a matter of personal opinion as we now find ourselves on the defense against more "unknown" than "known". As I stated previously, many of the aspects of 'conventional' warfare do not a apply in this case. Those who do not see Iraq as part of the broader War on Teror often rely on the "they didn't attack us first" view, just as you did. While that's certainly your prerogative, I couldn't help but notice you chose to abandon your 'There was no terrorism in Iraq' assertion. Quite frankly, you and I can debate it until we're both blue in the face, but history will have to judge whether the Iraqi conflict was 'right', 'wrong', or has anything to do with the broader War on Terror, for that matter. The greater impact may not be felt for years (if not decades) to come.

ETA123 said:
You respond to DC_DEEP as if you share the same argument, yet haven't read a thing he's posted that you haven't twisted. YOU are the type of person he's referring to that has no comprehension of why countries in the middle east have so much animosity.
How about we leave that determination to the author, shall we? DC_DEEP is a big (no pun intended) boy; I'm sure he can handle it. And in the very unlikely event we require a third party to parse our discussion, we'll call on you first... mmm 'kay? :rolleyes: *Sigh*... but I digress...

I believe where DCD and I are in agreement is the 'pixelated' vision so many people in this world possess. And, as he (so delicately!) put it... take that approach and you will fuck up.

ETA123 said:
If you're truly taking the position that Fox isn't biased, you're a lost cause, that has distanced themselves too far from reality.
Once again, I never took any such position. And you, sir have the audacity to imply that I haven't read (and/or am 'twisting')what you wrote? Please. I explicitly stated my belief that every media outlet is slanted, FOX being no exception. Furthermore, I simply asked you to offer some proof to your repeated statement that "ABC is LESS biased". Instead you chose to launch a diatribe against FOX (...WTF, man?). As it's become readily apparent you are unable to back up your claim, I will leave it at that.

Which brings me to my final point. The increasing level of vitriol coupled with the decreasing substance to your posts speaks volumes to the transparency of your arguments (do you realize your last post was devoted solely to personal attack and patronization?) Considering the discussion has gone far afield from the original topic and in the interest in keeping this a friendly place, at this point I shall simply agree to disagree with you.

Thanks for the lively "debate". :smile:
 

ETA123

Just Browsing
Joined
Jun 1, 2006
Posts
190
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
236
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
VeeP said:
Which brings me to my final point. The increasing level of vitriol coupled with the decreasing substance to your posts speaks volumes to the transparency of your arguments (do you realize your last post was devoted solely to personal attack and patronization?) Considering the discussion has gone far afield from the original topic and in the interest in keeping this a friendly place, at this point I shall simply agree to disagree with you.

Thanks for the lively "debate". :smile:
Isn't that cute? You can't defend your positions accurately or with any integrity, so you resort to attacking me for pointing out the flaws in your argument. Typical Bushbot.

Little hint for you, contrary to your assertion, it was not I that decided to insert WWII into the dicussion, I believe that was a result of your assertion in an earlier post. You might want to read back a tad.

Second, you DID imply through your posts that you considered Fox reliable by attacking my statements that there were many agencies LESS biased that Fox, which is readily apparent to anyone who actually pays attention.

You can continue with your spinning and parsing of words, it simply weakens your "argument".

Unable to back up my claim? Here's a suggestion for you, do a Google search for "fox bias" and see what comes up. Take a look at the information you're presented with. When you're done there, watch the documentary "Outfoxed". After you've done that, come back and talk to me, until then, you're just spewing opinion with no basis in fact.

Here, I'll even start you out:
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1067
http://editor.slate.com/default.aspx/id/2119864/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1319955,00.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel_controversies_and_allegations_of_bias (read the external links, pay close attention to the polls showing the mistaken views of those who primarily watch Fox for their news).

Here, just so everyone can see it:

"The "signature political news show" of the Fox News Channel, Special Report with Brit Hume, was found to have a strong bias in their choice of guests, overwhelmingly choosing conservatives over 'non-conservatives' to appear in interviews. This was the finding of the media watchdog group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), noted in a study taken across a 19 week period from June 2003 to December 2003. They found the ratio of conservative guests to liberals to be 50:6." . . . . .
  • 67% of Fox viewers believed that the "U.S. has found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the al Qaeda terrorist organization" (Compared with 56% for CBS, 49% for NBC, 48% for CNN, 45% for ABC, 16% for both NPR and PBS). However, the belief that "Iraq was directly involved in September 11" was held by 33% of CBS viewers and only 24% of Fox viewers.
  • 33% of Fox viewers believed that the "U.S. has found Iraqi weapons of mass destruction" "since the war ended". (Compared with 23% for CBS, 20% for both CNN and NBC, 19% for ABC and 11% for both NPR and PBS)
  • 35% of Fox viewers believed that "the majority of people [in the world] favor the U.S. having gone to war" with Iraq. (Compared with 28% for CBS, 27% for ABC, 24% for CNN, 20% for NBC, 5% for both NPR and PBS)
  • Fox viewers were unique in that those who paid greater attention to news were moderately more likely to have these misperceptions than those who paid less or no attention to news.
Any questions? Seems like pretty clear evidence that Fox viewers seem to toe the party line more than anyone else, looks like a pretty clear bias to me (and pretty clear proof that ABC is less biased). Then there's the fact that Roger Ailes (formerly employed by Bush Sr., Reagan and Nixon) runs Fox News, and don't forget Tony Snow, the Fox News anchor now employed by the Bush administration as their Press Secretary. Just look at the actual facts.

Once again, prove me wrong, don't just attack, present some real, accurate information (something you have yet to do while you endorse the wholesale trampling of the Constitution by the Bush administration).
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
93
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
Well, if we can eventually meander back on topic... mayhap I will make a couple of comments on my way there...

The whole premise/pretext of our "war" in Iraq was apparently just that, a pretext. (No obvious wmd). Which brings up a whole slew of other topics. How, and why, does our government make the global decision of who is allowed to have wmd? We certainly do. We all know many other nations currently have at least a few nukes in their arsenals. Why have we not invaded all the others? Should we be offended if another nation (say, France) invaded the US and started blowing up everything in sight to remove our wmd?

Ok, now that no wmd were found in Iraq, we get to "well, we had bad intelligence reports." Uh, not an excuse. They are the experts in covert operations, they should know which sources are reliable and which are not.

Ok, well, we're gonna go in there anyway. We'll shock and awe them with a couple of sidewinders, and they will cower belly-up and let us have our way with them. Oops, well, whaddayaknow, that didn't happen either.

Ok, well, let's orchestrate an election, that will fix everything. Um, well, once again, that didn't go as planned, right? (Keep the Shah of Iran in mind for this next phrase...) The group we hoped to put in power under guise of a free election didn't make it. Better come up with a currently-non-existing plan b, General Motherfucker, or we put you back in the recruiting office in Bumfuck, IL. And make it work so that we can have a good cover story. Hmm, where has the brand new plan b gotten us?

Plan C, Plan D, Plan L-M-N-O-P have not worked. At what point do we re-evaluate, re-group? Pardon me for saying so, but those billions of tax dollars (which in a way, belong to me) are being poorly invested. The loss of life up to now is disgustingly, unacceptably, grossly out of proportion to every shred of excuses that have been used to keep our troops over there. And despite all the claims to the contrary, for some reason, I feel less safe now than when georgie-porgy first declared his "war on terror."

I'm just simply outraged by the current administration's handling of just about everything that they touch. I've been told every negative thing I could possibly be told about my resistance to the current situation. I'm fairly certain that at some point in time, Martha Washington must have said "Dammit, George, just pay the damned taxes and let it rest." I, for one, am glad that he went with his conscience instead.

Other than a few anecdotal instances, such as the Miami-Sears Tower thingy, can anyone give me any investment/return figures on what we have gained in security by giving up so many blood-purchased freedoms and rights? The bank records, the phone records, the ISP IP records, the Google search records... for me personally, it's like this: if someone broke into my house, and stole some cheap costume jewelry, it would not be the loss of the possession that bothered me, it would be the violation I suffered by the break-in and robbery. It's exactly the same with my rights and freedoms; I don't have anything to hide regarding my bank records and phone calls, but I resent having the invasion.
 

ETA123

Just Browsing
Joined
Jun 1, 2006
Posts
190
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
236
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
DC_DEEP said:
Other than a few anecdotal instances, such as the Miami-Sears Tower thingy, can anyone give me any investment/return figures on what we have gained in security by giving up so many blood-purchased freedoms and rights? The bank records, the phone records, the ISP IP records, the Google search records... for me personally, it's like this: if someone broke into my house, and stole some cheap costume jewelry, it would not be the loss of the possession that bothered me, it would be the violation I suffered by the break-in and robbery. It's exactly the same with my rights and freedoms; I don't have anything to hide regarding my bank records and phone calls, but I resent having the invasion.
Of course there's also the issue that with very few exceptions, anyone detained on suspicion of being a "terrorist" or having such ties, has been detained without charge, in most cases without access to counsel, and without any public acknowledgment of who they are, where they were being held, or what they were suspected of, which equates to yet more violations of Constitutional principals.

Your entire post is comprised of good points. It's probably worth inserting that the people that were relied on for intelligence prior to the invasion were also hand-picked as potential leaders of a "new" Iraq. Chalabi, for instance, was a source of intelligence, he was also a prime choice of the Bush administration to be prime minister. Of course, he also had a conviction for bank fraud in Jordan and was evading a 40 year prison sentence and was later found to have been giving information on the US to Iran.
 

VeeP

Sexy Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2005
Posts
1,752
Media
2
Likes
30
Points
268
Gender
Male
ETA123 said:
Isn't that cute? You can't defend your positions accurately or with any integrity, so you resort to attacking me for pointing out the flaws in your argument. Typical Bushbot.
Your cheap shots, name calling and low-road tactics are precisely why I no longer wish to debate with you. I'll let those who read the thread decide who among us has integrity. I didn't pass that judgement on you, therefore I'll be damned if I'm going to let you pass it on me.

ETA123 said:
Little hint for you, contrary to your assertion, it was not I that decided to insert WWII into the dicussion, I believe that was a result of your assertion in an earlier post. You might want to read back a tad.
Correct, then you persisted with a Japan/Iraq comparison, with which I took issue. BFD, dude! Hardly a reason to come unhinged.

ETA123 said:
Second, you DID imply through your posts that you considered Fox reliable by attacking my statements that there were many agencies LESS biased that Fox, which is readily apparent to anyone who actually pays attention.
If this isn't a 'twisting of words', I don't know what is. My original request and the ensuing discussion speaks for itself.

ETA123 said:
You can continue with your spinning and parsing of words, it simply weakens your "argument".
Hypocritical, if not downright laughable.

ETA123 said:
Once again, prove me wrong, don't just attack, present some real, accurate information
I think I hear an echo in here. No, it's just you clambering to get the last word.
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
93
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
ETA, VeeP, dudes, stop your battle, and join me in stimulating discourse about our current situation. I'm getting the impression that you both have something of substance to contribute, but are getting much too caught up in sparring. If I may, I would suggest that you focus some of this wonderful energy to make our country better, not in taking potshots at one another. Do not waste your passion.
 

VeeP

Sexy Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2005
Posts
1,752
Media
2
Likes
30
Points
268
Gender
Male
Agreed, DC_DEEP. One of us tried to put an end to the sparring two posts ago. If I have to be the one to cry 'uncle' first, so be it. UNCLE. :rolleyes:
 

VeeP

Sexy Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2005
Posts
1,752
Media
2
Likes
30
Points
268
Gender
Male
DC_DEEP said:
for me personally, it's like this: if someone broke into my house, and stole some cheap costume jewelry, it would not be the loss of the possession that bothered me, it would be the violation I suffered by the break-in and robbery. It's exactly the same with my rights and freedoms; I don't have anything to hide regarding my bank records and phone calls, but I resent having the invasion.
Is your costume jewelry really at any peril, though? What I find interesting about this scuttlebutt is that it would appear none of our supposed 'lawmakers' have genuinely pressed the issue of putting an immediate stop to either program. They're certainly able to find time to introduce fluff 'resolutions' to get each other on the record regarding their Iraq war stance (which, we might note, serves no pupose other than to be politicized during the fall elections and in '08). Why not a 'resolution' to put an end to 'domestic spying'? Let alone it's been going on for five years now. Me thinks these people are not as 'in the dark' as they'd like us to believe. Washington leaks like a sieve constantly... how can they not have felt the 'drip, drip, drip' prior to now?
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
93
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
VeeP said:
Is your costume jewelry really at any peril, though? What I find interesting about this scuttlebutt is that it would appear none of our supposed 'lawmakers' have genuinely pressed the issue of putting an immediate stop to either program. They're certainly able to find time to introduce fluff 'resolutions' to get each other on the record regarding their Iraq war stance (which, we might note, serves no pupose other than to be politicized during the fall elections and in '08). Why not a 'resolution' to put an end to 'domestic spying'? Let alone it's been going on for five years now. Me thinks these people are not as 'in the dark' as they'd like us to believe. Washington leaks like a sieve constantly... how can they not have felt the 'drip, drip, drip' prior to now?
Well, I don't own any costume jewelry... I was trying to illustrate that the intrinsic value of whatever may be stolen often pales in comparison to the FACT that it was stolen. And speaking of a resolution to end domestic spying (I think it's already illegal, by constitutional standards...) have you heard anything lately about the push to toughen up lobbying rules? I should start a different thread for that one...

At any rate, just because the administration tells the sheep that it's methods are all perfectly legal, that does not mean that they are telling the truth. Just because it says that its operations are limited to overseas transactions, that does not mean they are being honest (remember phone records...) Just because they say they have not "appropriated" domestic passenger lists from most of the major airlines, that does not mean that those passenger lists aren't now in government hands. The fact that I flew to Little Rock, San Diego, Chicago (twice), New York City (twice), and Atlanta last year is nothing that I am ashamed of. The fact that the government threatened the airlines, and the airlines released that information (along with my credit card info) in direct violation of their stated privacy policy, well, that really does bother me. If anyone reading this does not understand the issue here, please don't even bother to respond, you just don't have the mental capacity to "get it".
 

VeeP

Sexy Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2005
Posts
1,752
Media
2
Likes
30
Points
268
Gender
Male
DC_DEEP said:
Well, I don't own any costume jewelry... I was trying to illustrate that the intrinsic value of whatever may be stolen often pales in comparison to the FACT that it was stolen.
LOL, DCD... I meant "costume jewelry" (with quotes)!! I'm guessing my hum-drum phone calls and bank records are of no interest to anyone, but to your point, where is the dividing line.

DC_DEEP said:
And speaking of a resolution to end domestic spying (I think it's already illegal, by constitutional standards...) have you heard anything lately about the push to toughen up lobbying rules?
Indeed, what about that? That's the kind of thing they should be working on.

DC_DEEP said:
If anyone reading this does not understand the issue here, please don't even bother to respond, you just don't have the mental capacity to "get it".
Maybe the issue here is that now, after five incident-free years, we're finally coming to the realization that hey, allowing such programs to slip quietly into perpetuity may not be such a good idea. I liken it to the 'asleep at the switch' mentality that allowed us to be attacked. We sheep just love to be lulled into complacency.
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
93
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
VeeP said:
...We sheep just love to be lulled into complacency.
LOL Don't you mean "lied into complacency"??? I did post a little something about the lobbying thing. Saw a little article in the Washington Post.
 

ETA123

Just Browsing
Joined
Jun 1, 2006
Posts
190
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
236
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
VeeP said:
Maybe the issue here is that now, after five incident-free years, we're finally coming to the realization that hey, allowing such programs to slip quietly into perpetuity may not be such a good idea.
I'm curious . . . if we went from 1993 (first WTC bombing, approximately one month after Clinton took office) to 2001 without a foreign terrorist attack on the continental US, why is it that such programs are credited for the last 5 years? If you wish to figure the embassy bombings into the equation, you must also figure attacks on US (and our allies) targets overseas since 9/11 (such as the Bali nightclub bombing and the like). We could, of course, figure Oklahoma City into the equation, but since the types of militias that McVeigh was involved with are not on the terrorist watch list (while environmental groups are on the list), http://www.cq.com/public/20050325_homeland.html these programs most likely would not have had any effect on that bombing either.

Global terrorism has increased in the past 5 years. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/26/AR2005042601623.html

So basically, there were fewer attacks, both foreign and domest, by the targets of these policies, over a longer period of time before these programs came into existence.

So, please clarify for me what you mean by "after five incident-free years, we're finally coming to the realization that hey, allowing such programs to slip quietly into perpetuity may not be such a good idea."

There has not been sufficient time nor evidence to put forth as fact the idea that these programs are successful. Hell, I haven't been mugged in 5 years worth of visiting New York City, Los Angeles and Detroit, that doesn't mean the police are catching all the muggers.
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
93
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
ETA123 said:
...So, please clarify for me what you mean by "after five incident-free years, we're finally coming to the realization that hey, allowing such programs to slip quietly into perpetuity may not be such a good idea."
I thought I was just being dense, I didn't understand that either.