General Discussion

cali

(114,904 posts)

48. if I meekly apologize and start posting threads about

Sun Jul 7, 2013, 11:18 AM

Jul 2013

what a little weasel Snowden is and how Greenwald once had the temerity to defend a white supremacist, maybe I can be forgiven.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

87 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

If I stipulate that Snowden is slime, Greenwald is a hater, Morales is a dictator [View all] cali Jul 2013 OP

Hear, hear. It's time to begin discussing what we do about all the illegal spying. reformist2 Jul 2013 #1

Yes it is time to do something about the illegal spying, starting with checking on the security Thinkingabout Jul 2013 #5

and we need to stop outsourcing the job of American Security nineteen50 Jul 2013 #33

This may be a good issue for many operations. It always turns into another corporate welfare Thinkingabout Jul 2013 #50

Like the hiring of private armies and security guards for government nineteen50 Jul 2013 #64

Al Gore did not nominate John Roberts. Therefore, Ralph Nader lied...what could have been graham4anything Jul 2013 #2

Throwing darts is not the best way to pick a thread in which to place your post pinboy3niner Jul 2013 #3

Head Justice John Roberts is mentioned prominently in the OP lower paragraphs. graham4anything Jul 2013 #6

and which Democrats voted for him? nineteen50 Jul 2013 #34

It's not darts that poster is throwing Fumesucker Jul 2013 #10

And if President Obama had vetoed the reauthorization of the Patriot Avt Savannahmann Jul 2013 #7

Or as my mother said a few thousand times while I was growing up: cali Jul 2013 #8

The veto would be overridden 99 to 1. The correct person to lobby is Peter King, republican, Long Is graham4anything Jul 2013 #9

A veto makes a moral statement Fumesucker Jul 2013 #11

Yes, it does. And it enables a few in our media to discuss why this bill or that bill was truedelphi Jul 2013 #84

I doubt the veto would have been overridden. Savannahmann Jul 2013 #12

What are you talking about? 91% of the american people want major gun control months ago and now graham4anything Jul 2013 #13

What the absolute fuck? your posting is completely off the rails. cali Jul 2013 #14

Yes it directly answers the question above it. The veto would have been overridden graham4anything Jul 2013 #16

It proves that just because the people want something doesn't mean it'll get through Congress. baldguy Jul 2013 #19

Graham Savannahmann Jul 2013 #17

You do realize the reauthorization put safeguards in place that were not previously there. randome Jul 2013 #18

Safeguards in name only. Savannahmann Jul 2013 #23

No, in some circles, all that means is that you have Obama derangement syndrome tularetom Jul 2013 #4

You're still missing the fact that A) Snowden's assertions & accusations were lies baldguy Jul 2013 #15

No. I'm focusing on the incontrovertible facts of the expanding National Security State cali Jul 2013 #20

"but has no qualms about or even interest in the private corporations which do exactly same things" baldguy Jul 2013 #22

Post removed Post removed Jul 2013 #46

Martin Luther King: sabrina 1 Jul 2013 #51

"but has no qualms about or even interest in the private corporations which do exactly same things" baldguy Jul 2013 #57

Explain that please. I have huge problems with those private 'security' Corporations sabrina 1 Jul 2013 #59

And you miss the point entirely. baldguy Jul 2013 #67

Well, that ought to make everyone feel really secure. There is no obligation for sabrina 1 Jul 2013 #74

+1 treestar Jul 2013 #71

How does that Orwell phrase go? randome Jul 2013 #21

No. I'm going on what Senators Wyden, Udall and Leahy say. cali Jul 2013 #24

They're calling for more transparency, right? randome Jul 2013 #25

The evidence speaks for itself. Read the docs. morningfog Jul 2013 #32

We have always spied on our allies. randome Jul 2013 #38

It was "legalized" under Obama, like torture was under Bush. morningfog Jul 2013 #43

I don't see an expansion. I hear lots of proclamations that it has occurred. randome Jul 2013 #47

the terms of more transparency and less secrecy treestar Jul 2013 #72

They've fallen for Rumsfeld's 'unknown unknowns'. randome Jul 2013 #73

The evidence does stand on its own. Have you been away or something? sabrina 1 Jul 2013 #77

You are this excited about metadata? randome Jul 2013 #78

Is that what you think? So haven't been paying attention. sabrina 1 Jul 2013 #79

No there are journalists who have been after the Big Story of the NSA for some truedelphi Jul 2013 #85

More transparency, less secrecy. That's what we all want. randome Jul 2013 #86

This is an outrageous post. Jackpine Radical Jul 2013 #26

if I meekly apologize and start posting threads about cali Jul 2013 #48

I'm happy to see some people coming around and start to agree on things davidpdx Jul 2013 #27

The million dollar question: Why are they doing this?? RufusTFirefly Jul 2013 #28

You forgot one very true important distractive. gholtron Jul 2013 #36

THANKS. sibelian Jul 2013 #83

#16 watoos Jul 2013 #39

+1 for Distractivist Playbook pscot Jul 2013 #40

Thx. Credit should go to PSPS (I think) RufusTFirefly Jul 2013 #44

What's the answer to question #1 in your post? JoePhilly Jul 2013 #54

How could I know the answer to that? RufusTFirefly Jul 2013 #58

How specifically have they violated our Constitutional rights? JoePhilly Jul 2013 #68

Two-word answer: probable cause RufusTFirefly Jul 2013 #69

#15 was played yesterday.. frylock Jul 2013 #80

Indeed. And... RufusTFirefly Jul 2013 #81

shame we don't have a time machine to go back and rectify all those ills.. frylock Jul 2013 #82

There are two answers as to why they are doing this: truedelphi Jul 2013 #87

Yes. And the court makes law in its findings. freedom fighter jh Jul 2013 #29

All of them appointed by bobduca Jul 2013 #31

Exactly. ctsnowman Jul 2013 #30

Well, if that keeps us safe, why not? RC Jul 2013 #42

Maybe safe. Definitely hungry. truebluegreen Jul 2013 #53

I keep asking what laws were broken? gholtron Jul 2013 #35

Here nadinbrzezinski Jul 2013 #37

No. I won't let you abandon poor Ed. Y'all brung him to the dance.... msanthrope Jul 2013 #41

Actually Ed showed up on his own. RC Jul 2013 #45

Eddie didn't go stag to the prom. I am reminded of the House Managers..... msanthrope Jul 2013 #52

Which must mean you are adopting truebluegreen Jul 2013 #55

Nope...don't have a single post supporting them. I don't date strawmen. Eddie's msanthrope Jul 2013 #60

I don't have a problem with "Eddie". You do. truebluegreen Jul 2013 #61

Absolutely I do. And this OP, disclaiming him, tells me I'm on the right track. nt msanthrope Jul 2013 #63

I fear you have a problem with your reading skills. truebluegreen Jul 2013 #66

Not I. I didn't bring him, ergo no responsibility for taking him home or cali Jul 2013 #56

Et tu, cali? nty msanthrope Jul 2013 #62

You're just a racist Paulbot! backscatter712 Jul 2013 #49

It leaves us with the same bodies who Progressive dog Jul 2013 #65

well, no, it doesn't. There's been a lot of turnover in Congress cali Jul 2013 #75

Oh yes it does, we still have a Senate a President Progressive dog Jul 2013 #76

so what is the suggestion on how to improve the situation treestar Jul 2013 #70