Deranged Rhino Posted May 18, 2015 Author Posted May 18, 2015 McConnell Pushes the Fear Button, Courts be Damned: Earlier this month, such mass phone surveillance was ruled illegal by the US court of appeals. Under the USA Freedom Act, intelligence officials would only be able to search data held by telephone companies on a case-by-case basis. McConnell opposes that, instead seeking an extension of section 215 of the Patriot Act, under which the bulk collection of phone records has taken place, for a few months, while legislators took a closer look at the House plan. In their ruling on the matter, the appeal court judges said: “We hold that the text of section 215 cannot bear the weight the government asks us to assign to it, and that it does not authorise the telephone metadata program.” Nevertheless McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, appeared on ABC on Sunday and said he would like to see an extension. “The bill that passed the House does not require the telephone companies to keep the records,” he said. “I figure the House-passed bill will basically end the programme, and I want to reassure everybody, there are plenty of safeguards in this programme, and nobody at the NSA is routinely listening in to your telephone conversations in order to intercept any actual discussion on a telephone. They have to go to a court, get a court order.” http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/17/mitch-mcconnell-surveillance-nsa-usa-freedom-act
....lybob Posted May 19, 2015 Posted May 19, 2015 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5y-ok3l27k Gatorman I'd like you to watch this series, if after that you don't give a damn about loss of privacy then I'll give up on you.
Tiberius Posted May 19, 2015 Posted May 19, 2015 McConnell Pushes the Fear Button, Courts be Damned: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/17/mitch-mcconnell-surveillance-nsa-usa-freedom-act He makes sense. If there was an attack, or a suspect or something, they should be able to quickly trace who was talking to who, who was involved in the conspiracy and where all the bad guys are. What's wrong with that? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5y-ok3l27k Gatorman I'd like you to watch this series, if after that you don't give a damn about loss of privacy then I'll give up on you. Ok, later, I will. I promise
Deranged Rhino Posted May 19, 2015 Author Posted May 19, 2015 He makes sense. If there was an attack, or a suspect or something, they should be able to quickly trace who was talking to who, who was involved in the conspiracy and where all the bad guys are. What's wrong with that? Ok, later, I will. I promise Wait, I thought you were going to answer my question? You made a big stink about me not answering (even though I have, and always do) yet you don't answer (again). Come on, Gator, you're better than this. Summarize my "weak" position.
DC Tom Posted May 19, 2015 Posted May 19, 2015 Come on, Gator, you're better than this. No he's not. What possible basis do you have for this statement?
Deranged Rhino Posted May 19, 2015 Author Posted May 19, 2015 No he's not. What possible basis do you have for this statement? His other nom de plume.
Deranged Rhino Posted May 19, 2015 Author Posted May 19, 2015 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5y-ok3l27k Gatorman I'd like you to watch this series, if after that you don't give a damn about loss of privacy then I'll give up on you. He should have to watch all 7 parts, but he won't. This is good stuff. Thanks for it.
OCinBuffalo Posted May 20, 2015 Posted May 20, 2015 Why should this topic be any different? And no one will read it...because why should this topic be any different? And once again, anybody who is compelled to say this same thing, this many times? Well, the rest of us know why. If there was any force to the argument once, perhaps 2 times, since you are replying to gator, is enough. But it isn't, is it? Your number, years, I've had.
DC Tom Posted May 20, 2015 Posted May 20, 2015 And once again, anybody who is compelled to say this same thing, this many times? Well, the rest of us know why. If there was any force to the argument once, perhaps 2 times, since you are replying to gator, is enough. But it isn't, is it? Your number, years, I've had. See? You don't have to write novellas. You can ooze just as much narcissism in a short post.
Tiberius Posted May 20, 2015 Posted May 20, 2015 Was at the bank this morning and saw the little sign--next to the FDIC sign--notifying customers about the Patriot Act and explaining why you can't open an account without identification anymore. Sweet He should have to watch all 7 parts, but he won't. This is good stuff. Thanks for it. I won't? You are such an ignoramus. I watched your Dick pic video with Snowden. Anyway, here's something you guys might like: http://video.pbs.org/video/2365475451/
Deranged Rhino Posted May 20, 2015 Author Posted May 20, 2015 (edited) I won't? You are such an ignoramus. I watched your Dick pic video with Snowden. That was a 20 minuted video and it took you over a month to watch -- even then you watched it in pieces and didn't understand it. So, forgive me if I don't expect you to watch a seven part series on a topic you're so willfully ignorant about. By the way, I'm still waiting for you to answer my question. The one you promised you'd answer. Are we ever going to get to that, Mags? *********************************************************************************************** FBI Invokes National Security to Justify Surveillance of Keystone Pipeline Protesters: According to the Guardian, FBI files show it conducted an investigation into Tar Sands Blockade members in which the Bureau “collated inside-knowledge about forthcoming protests, documented the identities of individuals photographing oil-related infrastructure, scrutinised police intelligence and cultivated at least one informant.” The Guardian adds that “the documents connect the investigation into anti-Keystone activists to other ‘domestic terrorism issues’ in the agency and show there was some liaison with the local FBI ‘assistant weapons of mass destruction coordinator.’” And that “the FBI files appear to suggest the Houston branch of the investigation was opened in early 2013, several months after a high-level strategy meeting between the agency and TransCanada, the company building the pipeline.” Tar Sands Blockade members are attempting to stop the development of the Keystone pipeline, using non-violent tactics like locking themselves to pipeline equipment and climbing trees that must be cleared for construction. https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/05/19/fbi-invokes-national-security-justify-surveillance-tar-sands-protestors/ Edited May 20, 2015 by GreggyT
Tiberius Posted May 20, 2015 Posted May 20, 2015 That was a 20 minuted video and it took you over a month to watch -- even then you watched it in pieces and didn't understand it. So, forgive me if I don't expect you to watch a seven part series on a topic you're so willfully ignorant about. By the way, I'm still waiting for you to answer my question. The one you promised you'd answer. Are we ever going to get to that, Mags? *********************************************************************************************** FBI Invokes National Security to Justify Surveillance of Keystone Pipeline Protesters: https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/05/19/fbi-invokes-national-security-justify-surveillance-tar-sands-protestors/ Oh, I'm so sorry it took me a few days to watch your Dick Pics video. What a retard you are
Deranged Rhino Posted May 20, 2015 Author Posted May 20, 2015 Oh, I'm so sorry it took me a few days to watch your Dick Pics video. What a retard you are And the answer to my question? The one you promised you'd answer after claiming (falsely) that I refuse to answer yours? Please summarize my "weak" position. If you can't (which we all know you can't) then why are you so hostile?
Tiberius Posted May 20, 2015 Posted May 20, 2015 And the answer to my question? The one you promised you'd answer after claiming (falsely) that I refuse to answer yours? Please summarize my "weak" position. If you can't (which we all know you can't) then why are you so hostile? I did answer. You might not have liked it, but I answered
Deranged Rhino Posted May 20, 2015 Author Posted May 20, 2015 I did answer. You might not have liked it, but I answered No you did not. You quoted a response I made which outlined a WORST CASE SCENARIO as called for by your direct question. That's not my position, a position you call "weak". If you could restate my position it would demonstrate you've understood it and we could have a true discussion on the topic. So, again I'll ask: please summarize my "weak" position on this topic. If you can't, just admit you can't and we can move on.
Deranged Rhino Posted May 20, 2015 Author Posted May 20, 2015 ******************************************* Snowden sees some victories, from a distance. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/20/world/europe/snowden-sees-some-victories-from-a-distance.html?_r=0 (Snowden's Princeton talk)
OCinBuffalo Posted May 20, 2015 Posted May 20, 2015 See? You don't have to write novellas. You can ooze just as much narcissism in a short post. The irony of that eludes you. How hilarious, for me.
Tiberius Posted May 20, 2015 Posted May 20, 2015 No you did not. You quoted a response I made which outlined a WORST CASE SCENARIO as called for by your direct question. That's not my position, a position you call "weak". If you could restate my position it would demonstrate you've understood it and we could have a true discussion on the topic. So, again I'll ask: please summarize my "weak" position on this topic. If you can't, just admit you can't and we can move on. Yup, and I said your worst case scenario was pretty weak. I watched your video on dick pics and that it was a pretty weak explination of why I should be terrified. I posted on your Nazi Germany analogy and thought it was beyond silly and pointed out why. Weak!
Chef Jim Posted May 20, 2015 Posted May 20, 2015 Was at the bank this morning and saw the little sign--next to the FDIC sign--notifying customers about the Patriot Act and explaining why you can't open an account without identification anymore. Sweet http://video.pbs.org/video/2365475451/ That's hardly a recent requirement.
IDBillzFan Posted May 20, 2015 Posted May 20, 2015 (edited) That's hardly a recent requirement. They want you to have ID to give your money to a institution...but voter IDs disenfranchise people. Edited May 20, 2015 by LABillzFan
Recommended Posts