General Discussion

randome

(34,845 posts)

73. They've fallen for Rumsfeld's 'unknown unknowns'.

Sun Jul 7, 2013, 01:43 PM

Jul 2013

It must be nefarious because...we aren't running it!

And S&G always leave out the other half of the story: the safeguards and restraints.

Why do they leave this part out? Because they don't know. It's always an incomplete picture with those two. Just the part they want to turn us against one another with.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font]
[hr]

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