General Discussion

kentauros

(29,414 posts)

12. Yes, we should still express our opinions to them.

Mon Jun 10, 2013, 10:35 AM

Jun 2013

For me, though, they're all republicans. I know from experience that their ideas about anything are always diametrically opposed to whatever I'm expressing to them. I suppose I could do it anyway and see what their form-letter replies are...

The one thing about all this is that I don't see the government doing all that much with the data, unlike your average data-mining corporation. Which is more insidious? I'd choose the latter, but some just have a more inherent distrust of the government than civilian operations.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

59 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

I'm waiting a bit before forming a solid opinion on this NSA mess. [View all] MineralMan Jun 2013 OP

Same here, thanks for articulating this so well. emulatorloo Jun 2013 #1

I guess I'm too old to believe that instant judgments make sense. MineralMan Jun 2013 #2

"I can't do anything about it, anyhow" kentauros Jun 2013 #6

Well, that's always a consideration. All of these programs MineralMan Jun 2013 #9

Yes, we should still express our opinions to them. kentauros Jun 2013 #12

Absolutely. We should express informed opinions, MineralMan Jun 2013 #15

I agree with the waiting part. kentauros Jun 2013 #17

Whatever Cruz says will be listing heavily to starboard. MineralMan Jun 2013 #20

I'd say for him the boat's been capsized to starboard! kentauros Jun 2013 #23

Certainly I would not expect any positive change from ... ananda Jun 2013 #39

Well, that makes sense. MineralMan Jun 2013 #40

We've been burned too many times by speculative "Instant Analysis" in the media emulatorloo Jun 2013 #7

It's not just DU, of course. It's the Internet. MineralMan Jun 2013 #10

Agreed. But of course the factual info won't get media airtime, only the bullshit speculations. JaneyVee Jun 2013 #3

True. Factual information, however, can be weeded MineralMan Jun 2013 #4

Always wise liberal N proud Jun 2013 #5

It's always tempting to jump into such things with MineralMan Jun 2013 #8

I agree whole heartedly. janlyn Jun 2013 #11

I doubt we'll ever know what's really going on. The Velveteen Ocelot Jun 2013 #13

That is most certainly true. No matter how much MineralMan Jun 2013 #16

It could be a carefully controlled plan at this time and it is quite possible that the NSA doesn't.. spin Jun 2013 #14

Actually, Nixon did exactly that, given the technology MineralMan Jun 2013 #18

I'm with you. Better to wait and allow this to unfold before jumping on either bandwagon. n/t Avalux Jun 2013 #19

agreed RainDog Jun 2013 #21

Yup. Everyone should stop and consider before posting. MineralMan Jun 2013 #22

But what fun is that? nt geek tragedy Jun 2013 #24

I'm waiting until 2016 Autumn Jun 2013 #25

hear hear creon Jun 2013 #26

Meanwhile Greenwald can take this to the bank flamingdem Jun 2013 #27

The 24/7 news cycle... TommyCelt Jun 2013 #28

I have concerns mick063 Jun 2013 #29

Another Classic Example... KharmaTrain Jun 2013 #30

There are also thoughtful threads on DU, not just emotional ones. MineralMan Jun 2013 #32

A very measured OP. I think before the end of the week we will have a much msanthrope Jun 2013 #31

Good points! I agree! DrewFlorida Jun 2013 #33

Oh, you and your whole "not jumping to conclusions" thingy... Jeff In Milwaukee Jun 2013 #34

I know. I should be waving my arms around. MineralMan Jun 2013 #35

One of my favorite lines from M*A*S*H Jeff In Milwaukee Jun 2013 #36

This bit of doggerel comes to mind: MineralMan Jun 2013 #37

Exactly what I've been thinking. Thank you for Raven Jun 2013 #38

Me too. moondust Jun 2013 #41

You seem a good person to ask... DURHAM D Jun 2013 #42

Terminology nitpick jeff47 Jun 2013 #44

So the Director of National Intelligence is likely DURHAM D Jun 2013 #47

See my explanation below, as a reply to your original question. MineralMan Jun 2013 #48

Not directly, but he set up the system under which such people can receive clearances. (nt) jeff47 Jun 2013 #49

Typically, the organization in question makes the final decision. MineralMan Jun 2013 #45

Do you think the FBI is actually involved in granting clearance DURHAM D Jun 2013 #50

The FBI recommends for or against the clearance. MineralMan Jun 2013 #51

Well said; nicely played. longship Jun 2013 #43

The only thing new is this guy was able to find an interesting PowerPoint presention. DCBob Jun 2013 #46

I hope you will consider my piece in developing a clearer picture. It takes into account facts... stevenleser Jun 2013 #52

Thanks. I'll have a look at it. MineralMan Jun 2013 #53

Me, too. I have to admit I haven't really kept up on this newest "scandal". kestrel91316 Jun 2013 #54

Well, so far there hasn't been that much to keep track of. MineralMan Jun 2013 #55

Same here. His interview was weird, but also compelling so I too will apples and oranges Jun 2013 #56

So far, I don't think they reveal anything that violates MineralMan Jun 2013 #57

Thanks for this post Mineral Man. Everyone NEEDS to read this post and do a lot of thinking. Auntie Bush Jun 2013 #58

This is not one of the things that I tend to get instantly outraged over Proud Liberal Dem Jun 2013 #59