backtop


Print 144 comment(s) - last by Piiman.. on Jul 19 at 5:42 PM

"The truth will set you free"

The Obama administration has been put in another awkward position this week as a part of its doublespeak with respect to spying on its citizens and citizens in ally states.
 
I. Suppression of Free Speech, Freedom of the Press
 
Today the U.S. is the world's biggest spying superpower.  It records personal communications of nearly all Americans on a daily basis, taxing them to pay for this effort.
 
President Obama has repeatedly blamed Congress for the spying effort, despite the fact that his administration made expanding Bush-era spying powers a top priority.  His administration effectively admitted to spying on Congress.  Members of Congress have sued the Obama administration for using cybercriminal tactics to spying on "99 percent" of Americans.
 
NSA agents admit to breaking the law at least 3,000 times a year, but are exempt from prosecution as the Obama administration characterizes these illegal actions as "mistakes".  The U.S. is spending tens of billions of dollars on the programs, much of which is funneled to corrupt special interests.  Understandably, the Obama administration has made concerted efforts to keep the public uninformed about these actions.

NSA spying taxpayers
Today federal spying is low cost and focuses more heavily on U.S. citizens.  This all equates to more pork for paid of polticians to push. [Image Source: The People's Cube]

The Obama administration feigned surprise, claiming it was unaware of efforts by the UK government to suppress freedom of the press.  However, emails obtained by the Associated Press indicate that the administration was well aware of these tactics and its public comments were, in fact, lies.
 
That degree of disingenuous doublespeak in turn suggests what some suggested all along is likely true -- that the Obama administration was behind this effort in its ally state.
 
Last July, The Guardian (UK) -- the third most-read online newspaper in the world -- was subjected to threats from the British government over its decision to publish details of Orwellian spying by the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) and Britain's Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ).  Versus the U.S., where freedom of the press is ostensibly rigidly protected under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, in Britain freedom of the press is more of a gray area.
 
Rather than jeopardize the entire publication, The Guardian agreed to destroy hard drive and laptop computers containing hundreds of files leaked by former NSA contractor Edward Joseph Snowden, who obtained the documents using commercial-grade links-crawling scripts and login credentials of his less competent coworkers.

The Guardian
[Image Source: The Guardian]

The dramatic destruction was overseen by agents of the GCHQ.  The Guardian reported on the incident, recalling:

And so one of the more bizarre moments in the Guardian's long history occurred – with two GCHQ security experts overseeing the destruction of hard drives in the Guardian's basement just to make sure there was nothing in the mangled bits of metal which could possibly be of any interest to passing Chinese agents. "We can call off the black helicopters," joked one as we swept up the remains of a MacBook Pro.

Whitehall was satisfied, but it felt like a peculiarly pointless piece of symbolism that understood nothing about the digital age.

Dramatic videos of the destruction have since trickled out.


The thorough nature with which the hardware containing the files was pulverized is an astonishing testament of how much the NSA -- and its partner the GCHQ wanted to suppress the leaks.  

destroying hard drive
[Image Source: Corbis]

Memory chips literally were ground to dust against angle grinders.  Nothing was left in a salvageable state.

II. What Did the U.S. Government Know About the Hard Drive Destruction?

After the destruction was reported on, a journalist questioned White House spokesman Josh Earnest about its knowledge of the incident.  The conversation, as recorded by The Intercept went as follows:

Q: A last one on the NSA—The Guardian newspaper, following on everything that was discussed yesterday—The Guardian is saying that British authorities destroyed several hard drives, because they wanted to keep secrets that Edward Snowden had leaked from actually getting out.  They were stored in The Guardian‘s—they had some hard drives there at their offices.  British authorities went in there and destroyed these hard drives. Did the American government get a heads up about that the way you did about the person being detained?

MR. EARNEST:  I’ve seen the published reports of those accusations, but I don’t have any information for you on that.

Q: And does the U.S. government think it’s appropriate for a government, especially one of our allies, to go in and destroy hard drives? Is that something this administration would do?

MR. EARNEST: The only thing I know about this are the public reports about this, so it’s hard for me to evaluate the propriety of what they did based on incomplete knowledge of what happened.

Q: But this administration would not do that, would not go into an American media company and destroy hard drives, even if it meant trying to protect national security, you don’t think?

MR. EARNEST: It’s very difficult to imagine a scenario in which that would be appropriate.

Josh Earnest
[Image Source: Twitter/@jearnest]

To most, "the only thing I know about this are the public reports" would imply a direct denial of knowledge.  But to those who have followed the story carefully, we see the Obama administration playing its all to familiar game of hiding behind weasel words when it comes to unconstitutional spying.

III. Fool me Once, Shame on You...

Behind the scenes, though, the Obama administration was aware of the destruction even before it happened, which hints that it may have organized it.  

The hard drives were destroyed on July 20.  A day before the destruction occurred -- on July 19 -- the NSA's deputy director Richard Ledgett emailed NSA director Gen. Keith Brian Alexander.  The email obtained by the email states:

July 19, 2013
From: "Richard Ledgett"
To: "Keith Alexander"...
Subject: Guardian data being destroyed

Good news, at least on this front.

The next day Gen. Alexander replied:

July 20, 2013 [around the time of the destruction]
From: "Keith Alexander"
To: "Richard Ledgett"
Subject: Re: Guardian data being destroyed

Can you confirm this actually occurred?

Gen. Keith Alexander
Former NSA Director Keith Alexander [Image Source: DefenseTech News]

A few hours later, Lt. Gen. James Robert Clapper, Jr., then the U.S. Director of National Intelligence (DNI), emailed Gen. Alexander under the same subject line.

July 20, 2013 [around the time of the destruction]
From: "James Clapper"
To: "Keith Alexander"
Subject: Guardian data being destroyed

Thanks Keith … appreciate the conversation today.

James Clapper
Director Clapper, seen here with President Obama, had already admited to other misstatements under oath, but calls them "mistakes", not lies.  [Image Source: AP]

Here's the full email conversation, via the AP's post to Document Cloud.

Emails Indicate Obama Administration Suppressed British Freedom of the Press by jasonmick



Given that three senior level intelligence officials knew of the destruction, it's hard to believe the White House's claim that days later it was "only aware of" the destruction via press reports.
 
IV. More of the Same
 
Unfortunately for the Obama administration and its British cohorts, the effort broadly failed.  The Guardian continued to produce new leaked information and other top global newspapers like Germany's Der Spiegel also picked up the torch.
 
In a response to the AP, the White House acknowledged its agents were caught saying one thing internally while the White House implied a different truth to the public.  The AP writes:

The White House said Thursday the comment from Ledgett — then the head of the NSA’s Media Leaks Task Force — was confined to intelligence operations because it was "good news" that classified information was recovered and "didn’t reflect a broader administration view" on press freedoms.

Regardless, the implication here is that the U.S. pressured the GCHQ (which was partially acting in its own interests as well, given its material was also leaked) to try to bully the UK media into submission. 

Obama pointing
President Obama's administration has repeatedly been caught lying about spying on U.S. citizens.
[Image Source: Reuters]

The entire incident of the Obama administration suddenly remembering something it claimed it didn't is symptomatic of the administration's entire approach to handling the issue of spying on its own citizens.  In a speech President Barack Obama stated,

[As] I indicated in a speech at the National Defense University last May [May 2012] that we needed a more robust public discussion about the balance between security and liberty.
...
Our system of government is built on the premise that our liberty cannot depend on the good intentions of those in power. It depends on the law to constrain those in power.

Yet in essence that's the argument ("trust us, we mean well") that the administration has made time and time again.  And in common English, the administration had done everything to prevent a "robust" discussion before the Snowden leaks.
 
Not only had its appointees (e.g. Gen. Clapper) delivered misleading testimony to U.S. Congress about the spying programs, it had made every effort to keep the American taxpayer in the dark about the fact that their money was being spent not only on spying hundreds of millions of people in ally states like Germany and France, but also being spent to spy on Americans.

Rep. Peter Kin
Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) is among the pro-Obama members of Congress who have called upon the DOJ to charge journalists involved with reporting on NSA surveillance. [Image Source: CNN]
 
Sadly many members of Congress in both parties have looked to enable this behavior -- and help President Obama crack down on freedom of the press.  House Republican Rep. Peter King (R-New York) has been vocally demanding that the international authorities prosecute the journalists at The Washington Post and The Guardian who were involved in the leaks, opening investigations against them and their families.  Rep. King stated:

Actually, if [a reporter/reporters] willingly knew that this was classified information, I think action should be taken, especially on something of this magnitude.  I know that the whole issue of leaks has been gone into over the last month. I think something on this magnitude, there is an obligation, both moral but also legal, I believe, against a reporter disclosing something which would so severely compromise national security.

Other members of Congress on both sides of the aisle -- including Senator Randall Howard "Rand" Paul (R-Kent.), Sen. Ronald Lee "Ron" Wyden (D-Oreg.), U.S. Senator Bernard "Bernie" Sanders (D-Verm.), Sen. Mark Emery Udall (D-Colo.), Sen. Martin Trevor Heinrich (D-New Mexico), and Senator Patrick Joseph Leahy (D-Verm.) -- have fought such efforts to deny Americans and citizens in other nations freedom.  They have drafted legislation that would cut the funding of mass digital warfare campaigns against the American public.
 
V. The Defection
 
Many have criticized Mr. Snowden for leaking the information and for his decision to flee to Russia.  It is without question that Russia is a state with many anti-freedom policies of its own, a state that often acts as an enemy of free speech.
 
However, Mr. Snowden's critics should first consider that at the end of the day he provoked precisely the kind of discussion that the Obama administration claimed to be supporting, but in reality was duplicity suppressing.
 
Second, one must consider the issue of trustworthiness.  Repeatedly the Obama administration has made was appears to all but its most glowing supporters to be a clear and deliberate effort to mislead and deceive taxpayers -- and their elected officials in Congress -- about the NSA spying and its effort to cover up the leaks about that spying.
 
Third, in terms of Mr. Snowden's decision to flee to Russia, one must consider the lengths to which the administration went to, to unsuccessfully try to suppress the leaked documents.  From seizing and destroying newspapers hard drives and laptops, to detaining and harassing reporters and their loved ones, the administration has conducted a clear and deliberate campaign designed to try to suppress this information at any cost.

Edward Snowden
Edward Snowden was "too smart" to hire, says one former intelligence official.  When he caught wind of massive gov't spying and corruption he blew the whistle in a responsible way when a "dumber" employee might have stayed quiet, ignorant, and obedient . [Image Source: AP]

Throughout that campaign, one factor preserving an ongoing flow of information has been Mr. Snowden retaining his freedom.

Russia was the only country in the world willing to offer Mr. Snowden asylum.  And certainly it was one of the only countries to have the military might to preclude a U.S. military extraction effort.  What that means is that if Mr. Snowden had stayed in the U.S. or gone to any other country in the world other than Russia, his final destination would be in a U.S. prison cell, awaiting trial.

Had that happened, it is likely that the administration might have successfully limited the scope of the data releases.

We The People
Leaker Snowden says he's defending the Constitution.

And that in turn would have given it the upper hand in continuing to mislead the public.  After all, Mr. Snowden was implying that the administration was carefully conducting perhaps the biggest anti-freedom campaign in the world today, collecting data from literally a billion or more people daily.
 
VI. The Enemy of My Enemy is My Friend
 
That's a crazy claim, anyone would tell you.  And it is.  It is so much so that most rational people, including members of the media would be wise to doubt it -- were it not for the ongoing leaks, leaks which were only made possibly by Mr. Snowden's flight to Russia.  But thanks to those leaks we now have the truth, we now have the robust discussion of what U.S. taxpayer money is being spent on.
 
Mr. Snowden's critics are absolutely right in one regard -- in fleeing to Russia, he absolutely made a deal with the devil, so to speak.  But if we are to assume that evil is the suppression of freedom, then we must realize that there is not one evil in the world today, there are many.
 
Russia spies on its people, suppress free speech, and manipulates elections.  But there is no evidence to believe it ever achieved the astounding reach of the NSA's campaign to eliminate global privacy and spy on the world.
 
What Mr. Snowden did was clearly designed to preserve Americans' Constitutional protections against mass warrants (general warrants), and warrantless search and seizures, as well as to preserve freedom of speech.  And what he did was criminal because today in the U.S. there are no clear protections for those who violate secrecy laws in order to protect the Constitution.

NSA surveillance
Americans data is harested by the NSA under mass warrants.  [Image Source: ClimateViewer 3D]

Thus, while Russia stands against nearly every value that Mr. Snowden has come to believe in, he realized the truth in the old axiom that in the most extreme of circumstances sometimes "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".  Fleeing to America's biggest Cold War era enemy may seem patently unpatriotic, particularly for the generation who lived through the Cold War.  But when the U.S. government -- the most powerful government in the world -- is perverted to behave patently unpatriotically, to secretly commit mass robbery of Americans free speech and right to due process, sometimes an enemy is the only place to turn.
 
At the end of the day by preserving his own freedom, Mr. Snowden stifled the Obama administration's efforts to internationally suppress the dissemination of leaked NSA documents.  And that choice in turn allowed him to play David to Obama's Goliath.
 
VII. Traitor or Hero?  Snowden is Whatever You Say He Is
 
Today the deception is ongoing.  And Goliath is wounded, but far from dead.  But for those opposed to one government seizing virtually unchecked and unlimited power of surveillance, the tide this battle has shifted.  By sacrificing his own reputation in the eyes of some by making a deal with the devil to preserve his own freedom, Mr. Snowden has given the world the knowledge it needs to keep fighting for the freedom of billions.
 
Mr. Snowden is a traitor in the eyes of many now.  And if one day he's paraded through the courts, surely he'll be viewed as even more of a traitor.  But Mr. Snowden willingly chose to sacrifice everything -- his family, his friends, his citizenship, his reputation, possibly even his own freedom or very life itself -- for the Constitution, for liberty, and for freedom of billions living outside the U.S.

Snowden -- a hero?
A banner in Hong Kong thanks leaker Edward Snowden. [Image Source: AP]

The rapper Eminem once stated:

I am whatever you say I am.  If I wasn't, then why would you say I am?

Perception is reality.  So Mr. Snowden is both a patriot and a traitor, a whistleblower and a criminal.  Likewise President Obama and his cohorts are both liars and protectors, patriots and traitors alike.  But at the end of the day one party continues to show itself to be the steady deceptor, while the other continues to shed light on the dark secrets of what the money taken from taxpaying Americans is spent on.

Sources: AP [story], [emails]



Comments     Threshold


You know......
By dsraa on 7/14/2014 12:45:23 PM , Rating: 3
Anybody that posts a 'comment' to this is gonna be watched and investigated is the underlying message I get from this. Its a wonder what the real motive behind an article such as this really is. I mean its a nicely summarized piece of a bunch of different news stories that really doesnt bring anything new to the discussion of what we already know about Snowden and the general theme of what's going on. But I wonder - Is it to inform us on a bunch a news that already has been posted elsewhere to bring out the protesters who are going to comment on these acts by the NSA and CIA front and center so they are more easily identifiable? I do wonder.......




RE: You know......
By NellyFromMA on 7/14/2014 1:05:54 PM , Rating: 3
It's already been confirmed by source code leaks of pertinent NSA software that anyone doing anything as trivial as a Google search involving any degree of regard for privacy / the fourth amendment gets auto-flagged for "monitoring".

Sad state of affairs really. That this topic continues to be discussed today and hasn't fallen off the radar is highly encouraging though.

Keep talking about it.


RE: You know......
By BRB29 on 7/14/2014 1:54:31 PM , Rating: 1
Roughly 80% of the entire world's internet traffic has to flow through federal network where they can "monitor" you. You can make any conclusion you want but it's been this way since the creation of the internet.


RE: You know......
By NellyFromMA on 7/14/2014 3:21:46 PM , Rating: 4
The flow of traffic and the monitoring of its contents are two entirely different things, although one requires the other. They are not equal events. Especially the volume of traffic monitored via various complex filtering capabilities, and in real-time none-the-less.

I'm not really making any conclusion... I'm not really sure what you're getting at.


RE: You know......
By Reclaimer77 on 7/14/2014 1:18:01 PM , Rating: 4
It's one thing to lie and have everyone know it's a lie. It's another thing to be CAUGHT in a lie.

Sure we "knew" Obama has been lying about this, like he has every single issue. But now we KNOW it's officially a lie.

Do we really have to go through another 2+ years of this tin pot dictator and his totalitarian "administration"? Just impeach this guy now. And if they call you a racist for it, so what, who cares! You did the right thing and stood on the principles we were founded on, and this President erroneously swore on.


RE: You know......
By retrospooty on 7/14/2014 2:42:32 PM , Rating: 2
And put who in his place? Show me a different politician that isn't full of shit and doesn't lie through his teeth.


RE: You know......
By Reclaimer77 on 7/14/2014 2:57:23 PM , Rating: 2
Why is that relevant? He's guilty of pretty much every high-crime a President can be. Certainly he's MORE than guilty of being impeached. So we don't hold him accountable UNLESS someone "better" is ready to step in?

Just...wtf??

I know LOTS of politicians that didn't directly order every American to be spied on, retro....


RE: You know......
By Vertigo2000 on 7/14/2014 3:35:18 PM , Rating: 5
I'll preface this comment by admitting I'm not American.

That being said, I do agree. If any country's leader is guilty and needs to be removed then remove him. If you're worried about who takes his place, don't... remove him too if he/she screws up. Regardless if it a year or two into his/her first term, it doesn't matter, eventually these politicians should get the message that unless they work for the electorate they're job isn't safe.


RE: You know......
By OutOfTouch on 7/14/2014 11:09:26 PM , Rating: 2
Holy Crap...is that common sense? Or maybe logic...I haven't seen them in so long I kind of forget. Bless you kind sir.


RE: You know......
By Dorkyman on 7/15/2014 3:57:55 PM , Rating: 4
Like the little girl "Newt" said in Aliens (the best SciFi film ever made) "It won't make any difference."

The average American voter is clueless and knows less about these issues than the private lives of actors on reality TV shows. They just don't care. They elected Messiah because he was black and cool. The fact that he's incompetent and narcissistic never enters their head.

We will probably next elect a female Dem Prez because, well, it would be cool to have a woman President. That's all. That's the reason.

The citizens of the once-great USA will get the government they truly deserve.


RE: You know......
By room200 on 7/14/14, Rating: -1
RE: You know......
By GotThumbs on 7/14/2014 4:03:45 PM , Rating: 5
The president does not have the power to make/write law, that is congress and the senate, yet he has waived/suspended/ignored multiple parts of the ACA through use of his magical pen.

The ACA was sold as NOT being a tax, and the only way the Supreme Court could OK it as consititional was AS A TAX.

He has ordered selective enforcement of US Laws relating to Illegals within our borders. In effect, he has removed the blindfold of Lady Justice and is selectively applying US Law on certain individuals and not on others. That is a biased/prejudiced application of US Law.

Violation of the constitution (which he swore to uphold) is an impeachable offense.

Now I fully understand you will most likely choose to NOT recognize these facts, but I won't be surprised. The truth may not be pretty, but there is no denying the facts/statistics.

~Best wishes on keeping what you earned.


RE: You know......
By room200 on 7/15/14, Rating: 0
RE: You know......
By Dorkyman on 7/15/2014 4:02:12 PM , Rating: 3
Sir, plenty of constitutional scholars and lawyers from both sides of the aisle have said that Messiah has gone WAY over the line in his novel interpretation of his limits.


RE: You know......
By room200 on 7/15/2014 4:48:05 PM , Rating: 1
lol. Don't retreat now with that "That's what I heard ." Dispute what I posted.


RE: You know......
By Piiman on 7/19/2014 4:31:02 PM , Rating: 3
right and no other President has ever done that?! LOL idiot

Matter of FACT Obama has used his "Magic Pen" far less than almost every other President. SO stfu


RE: You know......
By atechfan on 7/14/2014 7:25:50 PM , Rating: 2
Would you people shut the hell up with the Black bit. His skin colour does not make him above the law. You want a list of his crimes? This is just a sample of many:

-Selling guns to Mexican drug cartels in order to attempt to frame legitimate gun shops, then trying to cover it up when those same guns were used to kill US border patrol agents.

-Allowing a US diplomat to die because he knew too much about Obama's involvement with terrorist groups.

-Participating in the overthrow of democratically elected governments and giving aid money to known terrorist groups.

-Using the IRS to harass potential political rivals.

-Trading terrorists for a terrorist sympathising army defector.

I could list dozens more, if you like.


RE: You know......
By room200 on 7/15/2014 2:16:56 PM , Rating: 1
"Would you people shut the hell up with the Black bit."

Not until "you people" shut the hell up with your racist crap. Don't get pissed when you get called out; just admit that you wear the sheet.


RE: You know......
By Dorkyman on 7/15/2014 4:04:26 PM , Rating: 3
Please, just go away. I couldn't care less about skin color. I care very much about competence and adherence to the Oath of Office he took.

Folks screaming "Racist!" are, ironically, the ones who are being racist.


RE: You know......
By room200 on 7/15/14, Rating: -1
RE: You know......
By Monkey's Uncle on 7/15/2014 2:35:01 PM , Rating: 2
You are saying that one single person is guilty of these things. If that is the case he can be brought up on charges, impeached and even thrown in prison today.

All you have to do is provide concrete proof that can be used in a court of law that Obama is guilty of any of these.

You are making the charges. Same U.S. Constitution that you are expecting your president to be bound binds you. By that constitution, you are responsible for providing the proof to back up your charges.

Good luck with that.


RE: You know......
By tamalero on 7/18/2014 1:56:15 AM , Rating: 2
ahem, wasn't bush guilty of all the same or of similar cases?

-The Bush family supposedly had relationships with the Bin Laden family.
-Cheney directly leaked a CIA name and ruined his life, then blamed it all on a smaller ranked guy (the libby scooter case)
-Participant of overthrowing democratically or other nation leaderships under the disguise of "terrorism war".
-Initiated the "Patriot Act" even after lying about the relationship of the 9/11 war to Iraq just to avenge his father.
-Abu Ghraib incidents.
-Total incompetence prior to the 9/11
-Paved the way to the biggest economic downturn of the United States since the great depression.

not trying to defend Obama. But honestly I feel like these presidents are pretty much puppetered by their sacred cows and "aides" with specialized agendas based on lobbying.


RE: You know......
By retrospooty on 7/14/2014 4:14:08 PM , Rating: 4
My point is that replacing him wouldn't change anything. We had the chance to put someone else in 2 years ago and we didn't change anything. Our entire political system is out of whack. if we Impeach Obama we just get Biden. Is that any better? Electing another Jackass isn't going to change a damn thing either. D's and R's blaming each other, lobbing grenades over the fence isnt change, its par. They are all in it together, giving you the impression you had a choice when you don't.


RE: You know......
By Reclaimer77 on 7/14/2014 4:27:51 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
My point is that replacing him wouldn't change anything


Bullsh*t. That would send a HUGE message!

And again, that's irrelevant. Stop making horrible excuses for this man. Crimes need to be punished, regardless of the consequences.

"Look I know the teacher fingered your 12 year old daughter, but hey, the only substitutes we have really suck. So I'm sorry, but there's nothing we can do about it"

That's basically your argument lol.


RE: You know......
By retrospooty on 7/14/2014 4:35:54 PM , Rating: 2
That would send a huge message to who? All it does just tell them next puppet they put in office to be more careful or he too would be replaced by a new puppet. The powers he answers to remain exactly the same.


RE: You know......
By Reclaimer77 on 7/14/2014 4:42:41 PM , Rating: 1
You're being a little child about this, really. Come back when you can think straight and be more mature. You are so wrong on so many levels, it's just amazing.

It's astounding the lengths you Obama voters go to make sure he's not accountable for ANYTHING. So now he's a "puppet" who answers to powers? How convenient, so nothing is his responsibility. He's just a patsy, a scapegoat. Amazing!


RE: You know......
By retrospooty on 7/14/2014 4:57:25 PM , Rating: 3
What ? I didn't say he wasn't accountable, I said replacing him makes no difference. See Jason's post below. He has more time to lay it out in detail than I. I will just repeat what I have told you before. "It's all part of "divide and conquer". They keep the left and right leaning people arguing about trivial crap while they all rob us blind." ... And you are right in line doing your part. Keep blaming and ignoring the real issues. Your anger isn't helping anything. It's all the left's fault. Meanwhile they blame the right and nothing changes because the people that run both sides are working together doing whatever the hell they want and getting filthy rich as hell while the sides keep arguing. Until more people realize that, nothing will change in this country. Hell, we just went from the rightest right to the leftest left president and they are almost exactly the same. That should tell you something.


RE: You know......
By Reclaimer77 on 7/14/2014 6:06:31 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Hell, we just went from the rightest right to the leftest left president and they are almost exactly the same. That should tell you something.


This tell me you have no clue about politics. Bush wasn't even a Conservative, he certainly was no "extreme right" politician.

quote:
Keep blaming and ignoring the real issues.


So it's not a "real issue" when a President commits impeachable offenses. Okay I would love to hear that explained.

quote:
I said replacing him makes no difference.


And again, that's irrelevant. I don't know, or care, whether or not a difference will be made. I just know a criminal sits in the White House, and the laws of this country, AND the oath he took, dictate Congress vote on his removal.

Take your apathy, your tin-foil hate conspiracy nonsense, and cram them. I'm not interested in hearing any argument for why we should have to suffer two more years of this!


RE: You know......
By retrospooty on 7/14/2014 10:22:56 PM , Rating: 2
"I'm not interested in hearing"

That part is true.

You get so caught up with your "right wing nut anger" you cant even have a reasonable conversation about anything related to politics.

"Bush wasn't even a Conservative, he certainly was no "extreme right" politician."

In the eyes of most he was, but you are missing the point. Bush did what Obama is doing. What they were sent to do (rob us blind). I am not condoning it, I am pointing it out, because you seem to not be getting it. Bush and Obama are so much the same because they are doing the same job for the same powers that be.

"So it's not a "real issue" when a President commits impeachable offenses. Okay I would love to hear that explained."

Are you taking ritual lessons on how to miss the point entirely, or is it just right wing anger again? That isnt what I said at all. NOT AT ALL. I am saying if we don't fix the system, replacing Obama with another politician from the same collective wont change anything. It will just be a new guy doing the same thing.

You disagree, that is fine. You can keep thinking everything wrong is this imaginary left with conspiracy, and those on the other side think its a right wing conspiracy and you both blame and get nothing done and make no changes. Just like congress. You just dont see it do ya?


RE: You know......
By Piiman on 7/19/2014 4:42:27 PM , Rating: 2
" You can keep thinking everything wrong is this imaginary left with conspiracy, and those on the other side think its a right wing conspiracy and you both blame and get nothing done and make no changes. "

This is what he doesn't seem to get.
Both Parties are the SAME they don't work for you or I anymore they work for whoever has the most $$$. THEY ARE THE SAME! CORRUPT LYING POLITICIANS!


RE: You know......
By Piiman on 7/19/2014 4:39:09 PM , Rating: 2
"So it's not a "real issue" when a President commits impeachable offenses. "

Name one.


RE: You know......
By atechfan on 7/14/2014 7:30:21 PM , Rating: 2
No child left behind, banking bailouts, etc. Maybe Bush was right wing by Washington standards, but he was hardly a conservative. I used to think he was, but his policies took a shift to the left the longer he was in office.


RE: You know......
By Monkey's Uncle on 7/14/2014 5:13:30 PM , Rating: 4
This is funny as hell reclaimer.

Doesn't matter who is in power - democrats or liberals - they are all puppets to the corporations and lobbyists that have the most money behind them to buy votes. There are no exceptions.

Doesn't matter who is in power - democrats or liberals - they will stomp all over the constitution to get what they want. There are no exceptions.

Doesn't matter who is in power - to that party's cheering section they can do no wrong. To the opposing party's booing section they can do no right. There are no exceptions.

Welcome to living in a 2-party democratic republic. It is a game of ping pong where nobody is accountable and whoever is on top at any given time does whatever they damn well please to whoever they damn well please. No exceptions. Get used to it as this is the New American Order. The constitution might as well have been written on a roll of toilet paper for all your top gooberment officials stand by it.

Don't like it? You can always move. Nothing stopping you unless you are on a no-fly list.


RE: You know......
By retrospooty on 7/14/2014 5:22:48 PM , Rating: 3
That is what I keep trying to explain. It's rigged. the United States government is the largest richest most powerful organization that has ever existed in the history of this planet. The people in charge arent about to give it all away on something as flighty as an election.


RE: You know......
By Reclaimer77 on 7/14/2014 6:01:15 PM , Rating: 2
How in the hell can we ever change anything if we don't hold leaders accountable when they break laws, their oath, or the Constitution?

Make no mistake, the apathy and the hopelessness that you and Retro are advocating here makes YOU part of the problem.

We get no better than what we deserve. And if millions of voters think like this, we ain't getting jack sh*t.


RE: You know......
By retrospooty on 7/14/2014 6:28:37 PM , Rating: 2
"How in the hell can we ever change anything if we don't hold leaders accountable when they break laws, their oath, or the Constitution?"

Now that is a good question. Well we know what doesnt work. The right blaming the left and the left blaming the right. We've had that in bulk for the past 20+ years and its gotten worse and worse. We need to start having the right conversations. We need to stop the reps vs dems pointless fighting and start identifying who the hell these people are that are pulling the strings, inactvterm limits for congress, and yes to go back to the Constitution. I wasn't implying that we shouldn't get rid of Bad politicians I'm saying we shouldn't keep replacing them with equally bad politicians like we have been in modern history.


RE: You know......
By Monkey's Uncle on 7/15/2014 2:47:52 PM , Rating: 2
The tough part is getting these policies in place. It would be really hard to do if the guy in power is constantly putting up roadblocks or poking loopholes into any policy that can possibly limit or lessen his power.

The thing about having power is that most people that have it want to keep it and if possible get more power. Those same people will fight to the last breath anything that takes power away from them. It is called ambition.

It takes a person with a very strong hunger for power to strive to be one of the most powerful people on the planet. You will not find such a person giving away any of that power once he has it without extreme opposition.


RE: You know......
By rlandess on 7/15/2014 6:27:48 PM , Rating: 2
Well said. There are very few politicians on either side that I can say I would be eager to vote for. And it's hard to not be skeptical about newcomers claiming to be against the establishment. The far left is horrifying, the far right is horrifying and all the reasonable people in between are being replaced by meat puppets.

At this point I would rather vote for a person with whom I share only a scarce few viewpoints so long as they seem like reasonable and principled people instead of a person who claims to share my interests but is obviously bought by lobbyists.


RE: You know......
By retrospooty on 7/15/2014 6:41:59 PM , Rating: 2
"it's hard to not be skeptical about newcomers claiming to be against the establishment. "

Yup, the last guy that did that (Obama), spoke out against lobbyists and the power they wield in his campaign and then did a total 180 as soon as he got into office. He turned right into the the greasiest insider I have seen in my life.

" The far left is horrifying, the far right is horrifying and all the reasonable people in between are being replaced by meat puppets."

Exactly. You said it best. It's simply horrifying. It's all bullet points and headlines and everyone is looking to snag a "Gotcha" moment for a soundbyte that will propel them into the limelight. Absolutely insane.


RE: You know......
By Monkey's Uncle on 7/15/2014 2:24:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
How in the hell can we ever change anything if we don't hold leaders accountable when they break laws, their oath, or the Constitution?


EXACTLY! And how do you do that? By voting? D's don't run things the way you want so vote them out and put the R's in. What happens when they turn around and do the same crap? Vote them out to teach them a lesson? Full circle. Wash, Rinse, Repeat.

How exactly do you propose we make any of them accountable when voting does no good? The idea is that the opposing party should be doing that. However with a two-party system, there is a majority and a minority. The guys in power always have a majority which means they can (and regularly do) ignore what their opposition has to say. Where is the accountability? There can be no accountability when the party in power has absolute power to do anything they want. The constitution is supposed to protect you from all that, but we can all see that it is a very thin shield.

I agree with you that apathy sucks, but when anybody with half a brain can see that no matter who is in power they keep getting the same treatment, there is not very much to be done about it. So apathy ensues.


RE: You know......
By retrospooty on 7/15/2014 2:54:45 PM , Rating: 2
"D's don't run things the way you want so vote them out and put the R's in. What happens when they turn around and do the same crap? Vote them out to teach them a lesson? Full circle. Wash, Rinse, Repeat."

That is exactly what we have. It's a virtual stranglehold we are in.


RE: You know......
By room200 on 7/15/14, Rating: 0
RE: You know......
By Piiman on 7/19/2014 4:44:15 PM , Rating: 2
BINGO
They just tag in and out ever 4 to 8 years to make it look like we have a choice.


RE: You know......
By atechfan on 7/14/2014 7:27:22 PM , Rating: 2
Unfortunately, that is pretty much what the school system does anyway. They have done more to protect the jobs of molesters than the Catholic Church has.


RE: You know......
By Piiman on 7/19/2014 4:33:09 PM , Rating: 2
You're a eff'ing loud mouth idiot


RE: You know......
By JasonMick (blog) on 7/14/2014 4:42:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
My point is that replacing him wouldn't change anything. We had the chance to put someone else in 2 years ago and we didn't change anything. Our entire political system is out of whack. if we Impeach Obama we just get Biden. Is that any better? Electing another Jackass isn't going to change a damn thing either. D's and R's blaming each other, lobbing grenades over the fence isnt change, its par. They are all in it together, giving you the impression you had a choice when you don't.
You get it, at least.

It's telling when the majority in Congress from BOTH PARTIES actually support spying on law abiding Americans via mass warrants.

There's a small minority that oppose it, but it's unlikely they will get elected. Rand Paul probably has the best shot, but without compromising his principles he will have a tough time rallying that national party behind him.

The (D) and (R) national parties' favorite issues are ones they can debate noisily about and then waffle back and forth on in terms legality to consume the public attention, while meanwhile they quietly cooperate to push through their underlying agenda.

Hurrican Katrina?
Benghazi?

Give me a break. These are made up "debates". The only reason we're talking about them is that Congress needs a circus show to distract the public from the truly important policy decisions like the bank bailout and mass spying under the 2006 renewal of the PATRIOT Act.

It's like a pack of robbers hire hooligans to throw eggs at the bank window and distract the security guards, while expert thieves burrow into the vault and make off with everyone's money.

It's all about the money. The reason spying has gotten so out of hand is that it provides ample opportunity to feed certain special interests (defense contractors). At the same time it could eventually become a tool to silence criticism over government corruption, as has consistently happened in other states (China, Russia, etc.) who spy on their own people.


RE: You know......
By retrospooty on 7/14/2014 4:52:02 PM , Rating: 1
"Give me a break. These are made up "debates". The only reason we're talking about them is that Congress needs a circus show to distract the public from the truly important policy decisions like the bank bailout and mass spying under the 2006 renewal of the PATRIOT Act. It's like a pack of robbers hire hooligans to throw eggs at the bank window and distract the security guards, while expert thieves burrow into the vault and make off with everyone's money."

Exactly... It's all part of "divide and conquer". They keep the left and right leaning people arguing about trivial crap while they all rob us blind.


RE: You know......
By Monkey's Uncle on 7/14/2014 5:33:47 PM , Rating: 2
Woot!

Thanks for showing those of us outside the U.S. that there ARE a few sane people there that "get it" and aren't gullible enough to accept the snow jobs put out by their favorite political affiliation. Bravo!

Too bad there are also a few folks here that so are taken in by the face value of a politician's carefully prepared speeches that they are blind to the big picture & what's going on behind the curtain. wouldn't be so bad if those those same folks were not so loud they tend to drown out that voice of reason.

Bravo


RE: You know......
By retrospooty on 7/14/2014 5:57:50 PM , Rating: 3
"Thanks for showing those of us outside the U.S. that there ARE a few sane people there that "get it" and aren't gullible enough to accept the snow jobs put out by their favorite political affiliation. Bravo! "

Thanks... I didn't participate in the mandatory fluoride swish that every classroom did while I was growing up. Maybe it madeca difference. LOL.


RE: You know......
By Piiman on 7/19/2014 5:10:16 PM , Rating: 2
Is that why you have no teeth? Just kidding :-)


RE: You know......
By ritualm on 7/14/2014 9:04:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Do we really have to go through another 2+ years of this tin pot dictator and his totalitarian "administration"? Just impeach this guy now.

Not a chance in hell. Obama won't be impeached, simply because the big corporate backers (read: the US military-industrial complex) that got him twice-elected will do anything to keep him until his 2nd term ends.
quote:
the principles we were founded on, and this President erroneously swore on

Nah. He paid lip service to an old piece of paper from 1776, while spreading his cheeks open to the guys that literally bought him the keys to the West Wing.

Unless you change the entire system - and that requires blood to be spilled, a.k.a. civil war - you won't change a damned thing. Get rid of Obama by impeaching him, and the public will manage to find someone even more terrifying to replace him.


RE: You know......
By Reclaimer77 on 7/14/2014 9:10:42 PM , Rating: 2
????

We have like the lowest military budget since forever. You think the IMC are huge backers of this clown??


RE: You know......
By ritualm on 7/15/2014 12:28:19 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
You think the IMC are huge backers of this clown??

They'd love to see you believe they aren't.


RE: You know......
By Dorkyman on 7/15/2014 4:08:54 PM , Rating: 3
Oh, brother. Another conspiracy. Problem with talking to a conspiracy junkie is that you can never convince them otherwise. They just broaden their conspiracy to account for the new facts.


RE: You know......
By ritualm on 7/15/2014 6:21:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Problem with talking to a conspiracy junkie is that you can never convince them otherwise. They just broaden their conspiracy to account for the new facts.

Even if you're made aware of all the under-the-table deals between NSA and Big Business, the chances of you not knowing everything you wanted to know are very high. There is nothing conspiracy about it.

This rabbit hole goes deeper than you and I think it does.


RE: You know......
By room200 on 7/15/2014 4:45:56 PM , Rating: 3
RE: You know......
By Piiman on 7/19/2014 4:27:22 PM , Rating: 1
"Do we really have to go through another 2+ years of this tin pot dictator and his totalitarian "administration"?"

why not we did it for GB and Darth Vader I mean Big Dick?

'Just impeach this guy now."

For what? Besides it would take two years to do so just might as well ride it out until the next liar is in office.


RE: You know......
By kattanna on 7/14/2014 2:30:57 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Its a wonder what the real motive behind an article such as this really is.


no.. its no wonder at all. its purpose is to drive page clicks and ad revenue.

so.. you get a mostly political topic.. on a "tech" website.


RE: You know......
By Piiman on 7/19/2014 4:16:30 PM , Rating: 2
oh oh you just posted....oh sh$t so did I.

Seriously though are you that paranoid?

Here's an idea everyone should start adding key words to ever email,internet search etc etc that you think will trigger monitoring. At least we can keep the distracted and basically make the system worthless by filling it with garbage.

Bad data in = bad data out.

Here I'll start
NSA sucks
Pressure cooker
Washington is corrupt
Allah is great!
LOL come get me NSA!


Sooooo.....
By retrospooty on 7/14/2014 12:19:51 PM , Rating: 5
"I was mistaken when I lied".

Bah. This whole thing makes me sick. History will show Snowden and a hero. Unless of course the "big brother" side wins, in which case history wont reflect Snowden at all.




RE: Sooooo.....
By Arkive on 7/14/14, Rating: 0
RE: Sooooo.....
By Spuke on 7/14/2014 1:59:25 PM , Rating: 5
F%$k all that! Release ALL that stuff. Put everyone on the frying pan.


RE: Sooooo.....
By retrospooty on 7/14/2014 2:40:47 PM , Rating: 2
"He may have been correct in releasing the information that showed the spying on Americans, but the the releases that showed the spying the US was doing on other countries has been devastating to our foreign affairs reputation"

Good. BS is BS, whether its ours, theirs or anyone else's.


RE: Sooooo.....
By Monkey's Uncle on 7/14/2014 5:36:58 PM , Rating: 2
No matter how you disguise it, BS stinks no matter who makes the pile.


RE: Sooooo.....
By FITCamaro on 7/14/2014 2:08:09 PM , Rating: 1
He was correct to release the info on the spying. All the other info he released was wrong and only helped our enemies.


RE: Sooooo.....
By Reclaimer77 on 7/14/2014 2:14:34 PM , Rating: 2
You can't make an omelet without....

Kind of hard to say Snowden "helped" our enemies when you have the President of the United States arming them and providing other support directly to them.


RE: Sooooo.....
By EricMartello on 7/14/2014 2:45:27 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
He was correct to release the info on the spying. All the other info he released was wrong and only helped our enemies.


I think Snowden is really just a shill for the obama admin and was all along. Nobody actually knows what information he actually obtained or what he did with it. In fact, nobody can be sure that he is who he claims to be or did obtain info (he may have been given talking points which he then presented as stolen secret info)...so there is no way to know if anything he supposedly did helped our enemies.

What did help our enemies immensely and without question was electing obama twice.


RE: Sooooo.....
By Reclaimer77 on 7/14/14, Rating: 0
RE: Sooooo.....
By retrospooty on 7/14/2014 4:19:49 PM , Rating: 1
What is it about politics that makes you put away your analytical brain and take out your angry childish brain and say ridiculous things like this. Really Muslims? Lol. You just jumped the shark bro.


RE: Sooooo.....
By Reclaimer77 on 7/14/2014 4:38:42 PM , Rating: 1
The guy who thinks impeachable offenses are cool because "nobody better" is in line, lecturing me about having an analytic brain.

Yeah that's rich.

Jumped the shark? I just illustrated how popular he is with our "enemies". They love the guy! That's entirely on topic.


RE: Sooooo.....
By retrospooty on 7/14/2014 4:46:12 PM , Rating: 2
Really I wasn't aware we were at war with the Muslim faith.

Come on put that analytical hat back on. The people we are at war with are to the Muslim faith the same way that the KKK and the Nazis are to the Christian faith. They are extremists, they are psychos, they are murderers. They are not the 1 billion Muslims that make up the Muslim faith. They are the lunatic fringe.

Anyhow Obama has been horrible. There are so many things, valid real things to attack him on. Calling him a Muslim or sympathetic to Muslim causes just changes the conversation from real issues to ignorance.


RE: Sooooo.....
By Reclaimer77 on 7/14/2014 6:14:06 PM , Rating: 2
OH of course you would use that same silly talking points. I'm clearly not saying all Muslims are 'the enemy', and I know we're not at ware with the Muslim faith. Just the HUGE number of them who we call "extremists".

And of course you pull out the "he's not a Muslim" card, even though I NEVER claimed he was.

quote:
They are the lunatic fringe.


A "lunatic fringe" would never have the necessary numbers to pull off a global conflict. Yes, GLOBAL. We're not talking a few hundred, a few thousand, or even a few hundred thousand. We're talking MILLIONS of people.

The President has a 43% approval rating with Americans, and a 72% approval rating among Muslims. And you DON'T think something is wrong with that. Just..LMAO!

Well, I guess someone likes him at least....


RE: Sooooo.....
By retrospooty on 7/14/2014 6:20:48 PM , Rating: 2
Dude you're cool, but honestly you are the perfect poster boy for exactly what the US government wants out of its people.

- Distracted by everything but the real issues.


RE: Sooooo.....
By atechfan on 7/14/2014 7:35:33 PM , Rating: 2
You don't think the fact that radical Islam has pretty much taken over the Middle East, North Africa, and parts of Asia, all with the help of Obama, is a real issue?


RE: Sooooo.....
By retrospooty on 7/14/2014 10:10:22 PM , Rating: 2
Nope... I dont think it is. Not any more than it always was. They have a whole lot of internal strife they need to deal with, but if the whole middle east was taken over by these nutjobs we wouldn't be dealing with Terrorists blowing up buildings, we would be dealing with armies. We need to get the hell out of hte Middle east, that is all.

And really? How did Obama help radical Islam do anything exactly? Unless you count killing Bin Laden and maybe making him a martyr in the eyes of the nutjobs.


RE: Sooooo.....
By atechfan on 7/15/2014 1:24:42 PM , Rating: 2
Supporting the Arab Spring, that really only turned these countries over to the Islamic Brotherhood. Arming the rebels in Syria, who recently joined ISIS. Try keeping up with the news, preferably not just MSNBC. Read news sources from both the right and the left, from inside and outside of America, and you will learn a lot more about what is really happening.


RE: Sooooo.....
By Reclaimer77 on 7/15/14, Rating: 0
RE: Sooooo.....
By retrospooty on 7/15/2014 8:50:43 AM , Rating: 2
Seriously? And you wonder why people get on your case about always completely losing it when debating.

You fly off the handle about all sorts of stuff I never said (such as "we can't hold politicians accountable, even when they break the law") lose the point (which was we cant just replace him with another candidate cut from the same cloth). I say I think you are distracted from the real issues (as you are lobbing grenades , talking about Muslims, and blaming it all on the left). And you say, f$%k you to me.

You know, we dont even freegin disagree on what is happening. We both hate what our govt is doing. You call is a left wing agenda, wasting money on social programs and other BS, I call it a systematic fleecing of our country, done on purpose by both sides, but in the end it's the same damn thing. - We are being robbed blind and our constitution is being crapped on by our govt. Rather than seeing that, you just get pissed.

You are so caught up in the "us vs. them" mentality and so aggro in general any time anyone disagrees that you get all worked up and the insults fly. You know what ? f%^k you too.


RE: Sooooo.....
By Reclaimer77 on 7/15/2014 10:42:56 AM , Rating: 2
I said nothing here about 'us vs them'. I said nothing here about Left wing anything. I simply said Obama is guilty of impeachable crimes, and I believe he SHOULD be.

I know all about the "real issues". What does that have to do with impeachment?

And you are being extremely insulting here. You're condescending me and talking down to me, when I don't believe you even have a leg to stand on. Flying off the handle? You have shown me zero respect on this, damn right I'm going to get angry.

quote:
I call it a systematic fleecing of our country, done on purpose by both sides, but in the end it's the same damn thing. - We are being robbed blind and our constitution is being crapped on by our govt. Rather than seeing that, you just get pissed.


What the...

I say that EVERY DAY here. Hell I've been called a radical anti-Government wacko. I've called for civil war. I've even went as far as to say there can be NO moral justification for a Government. Where do you see a single-sided "right wing" bias in those statements?

Yes, I believe the Progressive movement in America has done severe harm. That doesn't mean I believe it's our ONLY issue or there's only "one side" to blame.

But what in the hell does any of this have to do with your extreme knee-jerk whinefest when I suggested we should impeach Obama? Seems like a huge deflection.


RE: Sooooo.....
By retrospooty on 7/15/2014 11:54:57 AM , Rating: 2
"And you are being extremely insulting here. You're condescending me and talking down to me"

Dood, relax. You said impeach him, I said "to replace him with what" ? implying that the system is out of whack and we will just get another same/same tool in his place. My point with all that is that starting impeachment will just cause the left v right rift to widen and cause further distraction, and in the end, he would be replaced by another politician of the exact same BS system. In other words, the only effect would be to further divide us.

I apologize for getting snippy, but that is a 2 way street amigo.

Like I said, we don't even fundamentally disagree what is wrong here, we just define it differently.


RE: Sooooo.....
By ritualm on 7/15/2014 6:54:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I said nothing here about 'us vs them'.

"Us vs them" doesn't have to be Democrats vs Republicans.

Vivid example:
quote:
Can you guess which religious group gave Obama his highest approval rating by far out of all polled?

Muslims. Yeah, I'm sorry, but when out of every religious group polled in America, an American President rates highest with them? Something is extremely wrong with that.

But it makes perfect sense. Obama clearly has no love for Israel OR America.

Yours truly wrote that.
quote:
I simply said Obama is guilty of impeachable crimes, and I believe he SHOULD be.

And I'm saying he will never be impeached. The current political system works for him and the rest of Congress/Senate, not for us.

So what if Obama does get impeached and is kicked out of the White House? We get a snap election where we have to choose between two old-system candidates who bill themselves as "a vote for me is a vote for a new President with a fresh perspective". As in... we keep putting the same old guys in power.
quote:
And you are being extremely insulting here. You're condescending me and talking down to me, when I don't believe you even have a leg to stand on.

Says the guy who not only went off a tangent with racial overtones, but also kept spinning this as a Democrats vs USA gambit. Yeah, that's exactly what both the GOP and MSM want you to think, that the Dems are screwing us, that we should give the chickenhawks some love when 2016 rolls over.

Meanwhile, retro's arguing that it's not about Dems or Repubs, but rather everyone in the current political system screwing us. Not only do you argue why that sentiment is wrong - when it's actually what's happening right now - you call him all sorts of names just because he disagreed with your claims.

Troll calling others out for trolling.
quote:
I say that EVERY DAY here. Hell I've been called a radical anti-Government wacko. I've called for civil war. I've even went as far as to say there can be NO moral justification for a Government.

How do you run a country?

The reason why we have governments is because we want a SINGLE entity, not 300 million plus, to represent us and our interests on domestic and international matters. Calling for a dissolution of government, with no viable replacement alternative, is asinine and childish.
quote:
But what in the hell does any of this have to do with your extreme knee-jerk whinefest when I suggested we should impeach Obama? Seems like a huge deflection.

Whenever it seems as if you're losing an argument, you immediately deflect your opponents by changing the subject, while claiming they said something they NEVER did.

Troll calling others out for trolling.

Oh and by the way - USA is not at war with the Muslims. Just because Obama receives very high approval ratings from that one segment of the American population doesn't mean jack squat.

We are not at war with the Iranian people, we are hostile only towards their government and the ideologies it stands on. By framing it as a "us vs them" argument, you have indeed jumped the shark, bro.


RE: Sooooo.....
By atechfan on 7/14/2014 7:33:19 PM , Rating: 2
That's the problem, we try to pretend we are not at war with the Muslim faith, when their actions clearly show that they think they are at war with us.


RE: Sooooo.....
By retrospooty on 7/14/2014 10:12:26 PM , Rating: 2
/facepalm

OMG you are absolutely insane. We are not at war with a religion 1 billion strong. We are dealing with some radicval nutjobs that cant even muster up an army to face us. It's just terrorists, because they dont have enough people to fill the ranks. Hello!


RE: Sooooo.....
By atechfan on 7/15/2014 1:30:35 PM , Rating: 2
Why are the "moderate" Muslims not calling out these "extremists" then? Why is Jihad being taught in Mosques right in the USA and Canada? Where do you think these American and Canadians that are travelling overseas to join up with terrorist groups are being radicalised? Right in the so-called moderate mosques.

Any country that ignores the Islamic threat is in trouble. France has areas that are pretty much no-go zones for police now because of the Islamic takeover. Britain has just revealed a bombshell with the Parliament investigating the Islamization of the public school system. They are using our own dedication to tolerance against us.


RE: Sooooo.....
By retrospooty on 7/15/2014 4:13:40 PM , Rating: 2
"Why are the "moderate" Muslims not calling out these "extremists" then?"

As I recall, they did. I would like to have seen it much larger and louder, I am sure we all would like that, but they did.

"Why is Jihad being taught in Mosques right in the USA and Canada? "

I don't think you know what "Jihad" means, at least all of the meanings. It can be ones own personal struggle, or a holy war, or anything in the middle. Anyhow, where do you get the impression that regular moderate US and Canadian Mosques are radicalizing people? That is just silly. We have several of our own churches radicalizing people, Waco, Jonestown, Heavens gate, etc... It happens, but it's not the norm.

"Any country that ignores the Islamic threat is in trouble."

How do you sleep at night being such a coward? Does the boogyman scare you too?

Like I said, we are dealing with terrorists. Do you know why they are terrorists instead of an invading army? Because they simply don't have the following to be an army. It's just a group of nutjobs. Particularly dangerous because of the suicide aspect of it. But don't let it terrorize your life. That is what they want.


RE: Sooooo.....
By retrospooty on 7/15/2014 4:17:43 PM , Rating: 2
Abd BTW, I am not saying to "ignore" the threat. I am saying properly identify the threat, which is actually what we did after 9/11. We found OBL in Afganistan and ran his ass into hiding for nearly a decade then found and killed him. We also all but destroyed Al Qaeda's ability to wage terror. We actually did well with that, and we did not declare war on the entire muslim faith. Note, when we killed OBL, there was no backlash - zero. Why? No-one cared about him, other than the nutjobs.


RE: Sooooo.....
By Reclaimer77 on 7/15/2014 4:34:44 PM , Rating: 2
Wait, so if their numbers were larger they would form an "army"? Just...something about that logic seems off.

Why form an army that would have to organize and consolidate in one location and be affiliated with a nation state, when you can accomplish the same goal by being a WORLD WIDE terrorist network??

Also these are hunted people. Form an "army" and their leadership then becomes exposed that much easier due to the simple logistics of organization. Armies demand structure, structure demands personnel, so on and so forth. And all this costs money, which brings my next point.

The Arab nations who are funding state-sponsored terrorism can more credibly deny the actions of a few "insurgents". It would be hard to deny the actions of, for example, the ARMY OF ISRAEL don't you think??

Hell if only they WOULD form an army. That would make it pretty freaking easy for the combined might of America and whatever allies still have a spine, to sail over there and pound this "army" into last week's leftovers. Don't you think? Forming an army would be about the dumbest thing they could possibly do.


RE: Sooooo.....
By retrospooty on 7/15/2014 5:07:37 PM , Rating: 2
My point is the #'s aren't enough to form an army. It's not the 1 billion Muslims out to kill us, it's the extremists. Your basic average Muslim is just like anyone anywhere else. They wake up, go to work, raise their kids and live their lives and really don't spend much time at all thinking about "the infidels".


RE: Sooooo.....
By Reclaimer77 on 7/15/2014 6:09:02 PM , Rating: 2
Dude they don't WANT to form an army! That accomplishes nothing. Why do you assume they would just naturally form an "army" if they reached some arbitrary number of people anyway?

I just don't see this as being a solid argument imo.

quote:
Your basic average Muslim is just like anyone anywhere else.


Uhhh well no, they aren't, not exactly. Their religion, if they choose to follow it, prevents them from being "like anyone else".

But that doesn't mean we're saying ALL of them are terrorists. Not sure why you keep needing to hear yourself say that.

quote:
and really don't spend much time at all thinking about "the infidels".


Well except when they go to mosque or read their holy book, where (beheading) infidels are mentioned like a gillion times. But other than that....

Let me ask you something, when was the last time someone was murdered because they drew a picture or published one of Jesus Christ??

And I love how you, a non-Muslim, has appointed yourself to say all these things on their behalf. What makes you an expert again?


RE: Sooooo.....
By retrospooty on 7/15/2014 6:24:33 PM , Rating: 2
"Dude they don't WANT to form an army! That accomplishes nothing. Why do you assume they would just naturally form an "army" if they reached some arbitrary number of people anyway?"

Where did I say they want to form an army? Stop putting words in my mouth , aight? My entire point is that they dont have the #'s. It's a small minority of people that we are dealing with - the terrorists. If they had larger #'s they could do some damage, but they are forced into back rooms, and outlying places trying to con young men into a suicide run because they have no ability to truly do any real damage. Not enough to change anything. OK, 9/11 happened. It was unexpected and now look at Al Qaeda. Al what? Al where? Al they did was wake us up and let us know we need to snuff that mosquito. Anyhow The assertion above is that we are having an issue with the entire freegin religion and that us just bunk.

"Well except when they go to mosque or read their holy book, where (beheading) infidels are mentioned like a gillion times. But other than that...."

Have you read the old testament? It's equally brutal. It absolutely blew my mind when I went back as an adult and read it. Dood, try it some time, just to blow your mind how incredibly narrowminded it is. The "God" described in the old testament is a narrow minded spoiled rotten insecure child... All of it, was written by insecure primitive men. The people that have issues are those that take it too literally in the modern word. The extremists. What is your point? You think ordinary everyday Muslims think that way? Sorry, that just isnt the case.

"Let me ask you something, when was the last time someone was murdered because they drew a picture or published one of Jesus Christ??"

Do you really want to get into atrocities that humans have done in the name of Jesus? It's not the religion, its the people that pervert it. No difference there.

"And I love how you, a non-Muslim, has appointed yourself to say all these things on their behalf. What makes you an expert again?"

Uhh... Yes, somehow now I have "appointed" myself the spokesman, because I try to bring a touch of common sense into this thread.

There is no need or positive outcome of such vilification.


RE: Sooooo.....
By Reclaimer77 on 7/16/2014 11:13:26 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Have you read the old testament? It's equally brutal.


I agree.

Except Christians aren't acting out those horrible parts of their bible. Muslims most certainly ARE. Right now. Today.

I don't see much common sense here. You're just repeating the same Left-leaning nonsense about profiling people and trying to bury your head in the sand. Meanwhile dozens or hundreds of people are murdered every day in the name of this religion.

A handful of "extremists" funded, organized, and carried out 911? A handful of "extremists" run a WORLD WIDE terror network? Think about it, WORLD WIDE. On every continent, nearly every country, these acts are committed or have been. Seriously you think that's just some random group of people?

You say these are normal people, just like me and you. How does a normal person become a SUICIDE BOMBER for a religion? Please help me out with that one. Why don't we have Christian suicide bombers, or Hindu, or Mormon etc etc? Please help me understand why on a planet of zillions of religions, only ONE has a world wide terrorist network killing people EVERY GODDAMNED DAY!

You say we aren't at war with Islam? Fine, if that makes you feel better, I'll go along with that.

I'm saying we SHOULD be.


RE: Sooooo.....
By retrospooty on 7/16/2014 11:28:05 AM , Rating: 2
"Except Christians aren't acting out those horrible parts of their bible. Muslims most certainly ARE. Right now. Today."

Some are yes, that doesnt mean you can lump them all together and vilify the entire religion.

"A handful of "extremists" funded, organized, and carried out 911? A handful of "extremists" run a WORLD WIDE terror network? Think about it, WORLD WIDE. On every continent, nearly every country, these acts are committed or have been. Seriously you think that's just some random group of people?"

Not sure what your point is here... Yes, A handful of "extremists" funded, organized, and carried out 911. OBL was a multimillionaire with connections and experience funding. He was literally a criminal mastermind. No it wasnt a random group of people, it was a group of radical fundamentalist psyho's.

"the rest of your post"

Look, you clearly have the need to vilify the other side. You always have. The left, the dems, the Apple fans, the Canadians, the Europeans, and yes the Muslims. I don't even disagree with what you are saying about the radical fundamentalists. They ARE the enemy, but you are painting 1 billion people with a very broad brush. What part of that aren't you getting. 1 Billion is a HUGE #. That is how many Android users there are.

How many muslims do you even know? I know several. I actually sat at work with a few of them on the morning of 9/11 and watched their eyes fill with tears as mine did at what we were watching. Your broad brush simply doesn't apply. You are wrong here man, we aren't at war with Islam. We are dealing with a small minority of dangerous people.

"You say we aren't at war with Islam? Fine, if that makes you feel better, I'll go along with that. I'm saying we SHOULD be."

Just... wow. /facepalm


RE: Sooooo.....
By Reclaimer77 on 7/16/2014 12:01:29 PM , Rating: 2
Please, say "one billion" a few more times. Cause really, I haven't heard that enough.

Nobody here is saying 1 billion people are terrorists. We're saying Islam itself IS the problem. Can't put it any simpler than that.

Even Bill Maher, hero of libs everywhere, has had enough of you Muslim apologists.

And so have I.

quote:
How many muslims do you even know?


Why should I know any? I'm an American and a atheist. Their religion not only offends everything about the American freedom/rights based culture I hold so dear, but as an Atheist I find Islam to be the ultimate representation of EVERYTHING that's so wrong with organized religion.

So let me ask you a question, how many people who died in 911 did you even know?


RE: Sooooo.....
By retrospooty on 7/16/2014 12:10:18 PM , Rating: 2
You just dont see the "painting" with a broad brush thing do ya?

It's just like saying, that alot of Italians are in the mafia, so you and I are the problem.

The world and it's history is full of people committing horrible atrocities in the name of religion. You cant just blame the religion. Maybe you can, but if you do, then you have to put Christianity up as the worst of the worst as more people have died in it's name than any other.

Also, "1 billion". :P


RE: Sooooo.....
By Reclaimer77 on 7/16/2014 3:54:07 PM , Rating: 2
All groups of people get painted with a "broad brush". Get the F over it.

If they don't like it, maybe those "one billion" people should do something about it? How can a supposed minority stand against a BILLION people!?

Pretty sure if the Pope said they should behead, anally rape, and otherwise torture non-Catholics, he wouldn't be pope for much longer. The people of that faith wouldn't stand for it.

However in the Islamic world, people who say these things are LEADERS who are worshiped!!!

Oh but I know what's coming, let me guess:

"But Reclaaaaiimmerr, that's only a very small minorityyyyyy. Don't stereotypeeeeee-"

Bullsh*t man. Go sell your wares somewhere else, I'm not buying that apologist nonsense anymore.

quote:
Also, "1 billion". :P


Okay that got a LOL :)


RE: Sooooo.....
By retrospooty on 7/16/2014 4:08:10 PM , Rating: 2
"However in the Islamic world, people who say these things are LEADERS who are worshiped!!!"

I am not sure who you are referring to that gets "worshipped" for saying things like that. The most vocal, famous and outspoken leader on the Islamic fundamentalist side was Osama Bin Laden by a long shot. He wasn't worshiped by anyone other than his nutjob following. When we killed him, who rose up? No-one. Because no-one gave a crap about him. There was zero backlash from the muslim world.

Look, they are bassackwards, I agree. They are far more bassackwards than Christians (which I believe are mostly bassackwards). No argument there. If my wife and I were to die and we had to choose between Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu and Buddhist families to raise her, you bet your ass Muslim would be last on that list, but you still cant say we "should be at war with Islam".

Let me put it this way. After 9/11 , even ding dong Bush and shoot first ask questions later Cheney got it right. They identified the real culprits and used our law enforcement and military to find and destroy them and their ability to wage terror. They did not do it against a religion, they did not do it against a country. They did it against the correct entities - Al Qaeda and the Taliban. So in their place you would what? Just declare war on the entire middle east and part of southeast Asia for being predominantly of the same religion as those nutjobs? Dood, before you can even get to "us vs. them" you need to correctly identify who the hell "they" are.


RE: Sooooo.....
By Reclaimer77 on 7/16/2014 4:39:03 PM , Rating: 2
Osama Bin Laden wasn't even a religious leader. WTf are you talking about? I'm talking about people with actual positions of power within the religion, spewing crazy crap about the West and calling for rape and torture.

See what I mean? You have this ridiculous idealistic Walt Disney view Islam and the people who follow it.

Did you not see those rallies after 911? MILLIONS of people clogged the streets cheering. Cheering horrible acts of violence, done in the name of their chosen religion!! Hello? They didn't seem like they had a big problem with that to me.

What's it going to take to get through to you? World-Wide terror!! NOT just a handful of people.


RE: Sooooo.....
By retrospooty on 7/16/2014 4:54:48 PM , Rating: 2
"I'm talking about people with actual positions of power within the religion, spewing crazy crap about the West and calling for rape and torture."

Who? What religious leader is doing that? If they are, its not like a global thing, it's an individual nutjob.

I dont have a "Walt Disney" view on it, IO know they are backward assed people, I just said that in the post above and int he post yesterday... But being backwards assed does not equal murderers. That is a separate group of highly nutty fundamentalists. I just think you have an issue identifying who the real enemy is here.

Look, we aren't going to agree on this and that is fine. I am just grateful Bush and Cheney didn't have the problem ID'ing the actual enemy, or my son would probably be over there now fighting a war we started against people who didn't even do anything to us at all.

I mean seriously. What are you actually suggesting we do?


RE: Sooooo.....
By Reclaimer77 on 7/16/2014 11:36:58 PM , Rating: 2
The fact that over a billion people belong to this insane backwards religion doesn't scare the crap out of you?

What should we do? Good old fashioned Western-styled imperialism, that's what.

See the Middle East today is a lot like America was before whitey came. There's an indigenous population of savages living there with some semblance of a culture, but they war with each other constantly. They're all, you know, savage and ignorant about things. They need us to come over, kick their asses a bit, and civilize the place up. Seriously, mankind is never going to progress when like a freaking fifth of it's entire population is Islamic!!

So once we have them all rounded up in concentration cam - ooops - I mean "reservations". We can start teaching them about how dumbass they've been, how stupid their beliefs are, and how everything we do and say is better. Oh and they speak English!! None of this camel tongue crap!

That's it. We gave them thousands of years to get civilized, and they still look and act like stupid savage people from ancient times. Times up!! They're a threat to world peace, time to act.

quote:
I just think you have an issue identifying who the real enemy is here.


Well that's the thing about terrorists, aren't they? You can't TELL who the enemy is until they blow some crap up and murder people! THEN ITS TOO LATE!!!!!!!

I swear it retro, if we see ONE more women having to cover her face. One more stupid rocket attack on Israel. ONE more suicide bomber.....

wait for it...

NUCLEAR OPTION! Yup, it's on the table!

hmm maybe not visit DT after this much bourbon...

fuk it /post


RE: Sooooo.....
By retrospooty on 7/17/2014 8:29:52 AM , Rating: 2
"The fact that over a billion people belong to this insane backwards religion doesn't scare the crap out of you?"

Nope. Not at all, but I don't live my life in fear, it's simply not part of me. I do see the fear in others, alot of it is causing the "nanny state" mentality. I just cant buy it.

As for the rest of your post: "Wholly drunken rants Batman!"

But it's awesome. If you still feel that way when you wake up that is kind of scary though ;)

I hope you aren't hurting too much today. LOL.


RE: Sooooo.....
By Piiman on 7/19/2014 5:42:20 PM , Rating: 1
"Nope. Not at all, but I don't live my life in fear, it's simply not part of me. I do see the fear in others, alot of it is causing the "nanny state" mentality. I just cant buy it."

The guy has fallen for it HOOK LINE AN SINKER. He's scared to death of Muslim terrorist. Sadly he doesn't seem to see that it's this very fear that they play on and use as an excuse to take more and more rights on us.

It's the very thing they use to justify spying on everyone. "It's to keep us safe! LOL

Stop being a chicken shit that's afraid of the boogie man open your eyes the boogie man is in your backyard and his name is NSA.

For a guy that seems fairly intelligent you have to wonder some times.


RE: Sooooo.....
By ritualm on 7/15/2014 7:04:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
My point is the #'s aren't enough to form an army.

Agreed, and #'s alone do not translate to military success. Otherwise, there is no other way to explain how Russia (nukes, entire army divisions and modern weapons) can lose to Chechnya (small groups of rebels with AK-47s and other relatively primitive weaponry).


RE: Sooooo.....
By retrospooty on 7/15/2014 8:24:15 PM , Rating: 2
That has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the vast majority of Muslims are just normal people, not terrorist but thanks for the input.


RE: Sooooo.....
By Any14Tee on 7/16/2014 12:27:28 PM , Rating: 2
You can't kill Muslim fundamentalist/extremist with guns and bullets, you can only kill it with the truth - a suicide bomber is easily replaced with another. Hamas fires primitive rockets into Israel kills none, Israel reacts disproportionately kills many hundreds - this madness will never end.

I sometimes think it's in their DNA. 99.9% of people who follow Islam are peace loving and abhorrent with their religion being defaced by the followers of Jihad and I'm at lost why the leaders of the Muslim community cannot do more to bring about peace in the world.


RE: Sooooo.....
By Reclaimer77 on 7/16/2014 2:38:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm at lost why the leaders of the Muslim community cannot do more to bring about peace in the world.


The Muslim religion has NEVER been a religion of peace. If you read the Qaran, which I've done fair bit of, you'll notice one consistent theme.

Peace is only mentioned under the context of EVERYONE becoming a Muslim. Peace is never offered to the Jews, Christians, or any other faith or walk of life.

And while most religions threaten the "nonbeliever" with some form of punishment, it's usually reserved for the afterlife. Islam is the only religion that has a 'holy book' that so often and consistently dictates to it's followers that violence, torture, and murder be done to others on gods behalf in THIS life.

Which is why we have the mess we have today. Live and let live in peace? No. Islam is literally all about join or die.


RE: Sooooo.....
By ritualm on 7/16/2014 3:04:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The Muslim religion has NEVER been a religion of peace. If you read the Qaran, which I've done fair bit of, you'll notice one consistent theme.

Peace is only mentioned under the context of EVERYONE becoming a Muslim. Peace is never offered to the Jews, Christians, or any other faith or walk of life.

And while most religions threaten the "nonbeliever" with some form of punishment, it's usually reserved for the afterlife. Islam is the only religion that has a 'holy book' that so often and consistently dictates to it's followers that violence, torture, and murder be done to others on gods behalf in THIS life.

Which is why we have the mess we have today. Live and let live in peace? No. Islam is literally all about join or die.

Funny, because the Bible does, word for word, the exact same thing as the Qu'ran. There can only be one "god", every other so-called "god" is a heretic, and their followers shall be punished - with death, not persuasion, mind you.

Many of the Christian followers believed their religion was more righteous than others. The result was the Crusade - their attempt in overtaking Jerusalem from the Arabs, claiming that it was the fabled Holy Land - and it utterly failed.

The folks in power are also those that interpret parts of the Qu'ran too literally, that's partially why the West is at loggerheads with Islam. Most everyone else who follows Islam is not going to kill you on sight just because you don't worship their "god".

Do you seriously believe every passage in the Bible? I don't - in fact, I saw more terrorism out of that book than a banned-from-circulation CIA sabotage manual. My sister, who does follow the Bible's teachings to the letter, regularly breaks at least half of the Ten Commandments daily .

You have no freaking clue what the hell you're even talking about.


RE: Sooooo.....
By Reclaimer77 on 7/16/2014 3:45:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Funny, because the Bible does, word for word, the exact same thing as the Qu'ran. There can only be one "god", every other so-called "god" is a heretic, and their followers shall be punished - with death, not persuasion, mind you.


The difference is the Christian god will punish you after you die. I don't give a crap that someone wrote in a book that my "soul" will be eternally damned. That doesn't affect my life at all.

The Qu'ran tells it's followers to BE the punisher. Beyond that, you'll actually be REWARDED for doing it.

Again, I'm an atheist, so don't act like I'm putting one religion over the other. However it's simply factually wrong to claim the "Bible" has the same moral code as the Qaran. Not even close.

quote:
My sister, who does follow the Bible's teachings to the letter, regularly breaks at least half of the Ten Commandments daily .


I don't give a flying fu*k about so-called "sins" or what your sister does. However I seriously doubt she's ever beheaded anyone, or thought people should be raped or tortured for if they didn't believe what she did. And she's probably never sent people death threats over it either.

quote:
The folks in power are also those that interpret parts of the Qu'ran too literally


People don't take power, they are GIVEN it. Ask yourself why these people are in power. How did it happen?

You and retro keep reminding us over 1 billion people are Muslim. And yet look at who they choose to speak on their behalf...


RE: Sooooo.....
By ritualm on 7/19/2014 2:25:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The difference is the Christian god

Hold it right there, bruh.

There is no such thing as a "god", Jesus Christ, the Lord Almighty, etc. Christian god? Hahaha. You're delusional.
quote:
will punish you after you die

... and you have never committed a crime in your entire life, so when you die you'll ascend to this so-called "heaven"? What a stretch of logic you're making here, son.
quote:
The Qu'ran tells it's followers to BE the punisher. Beyond that, you'll actually be REWARDED for doing it.

By whose interpretation does it say that? Oh right, you're bullsh*tting as usual. The Bible can be twisted to say what you claim the Qu'ran says, don't fool yourself.

Look at the Bible for what it is: a tome of fable written by people who want to control others by encouraging them to rest their faith on an always-right spiritual entity.
quote:
Again, I'm an atheist

You're a liar.
quote:
so don't act like I'm putting one religion over the other

Then leave Muslims and Islam alone. Too bad you cannot do that.
quote:
However it's simply factually wrong to claim the "Bible" has the same moral code as the Qaran.

Then you haven't actually read the Bible in its entirety. Many of its passages are just as damning as, if not more than, the Islam version.
quote:
People don't take power, they are GIVEN it. Ask yourself why these people are in power. How did it happen?

Because in 1953 the UK and USA forcibly replaced Iran's democratically elected prime minister with the Shah and his western-friendly dictatorship.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution

You reap what you sow. 61 years and counting.
quote:
You and retro keep reminding us over 1 billion people are Muslim. And yet look at who they choose to speak on their behalf...

Right, because the Christians will never kill anyone just because they don't believe in Jesus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades

Epic.
Fail.


RE: Sooooo.....
By EricMartello on 7/15/2014 2:01:05 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Really I wasn't aware we were at war with the Muslim faith.


Considering that they've declared a jihad on the infidels, as well as an "anal jihad" on each other, I'd say we're fighting a war on multiple fronts...or rears.

quote:
Come on put that analytical hat back on. The people we are at war with are to the Muslim faith the same way that the KKK and the Nazis are to the Christian faith. They are extremists, they are psychos, they are murderers. They are not the 1 billion Muslims that make up the Muslim faith. They are the lunatic fringe.


Not that I'm going to get into defending christians, but neither the KKK nor Nazis are a fringe of that particular faith. Nazis were essentially liberals with absolute power, aka fascists.

America was founded on judeo-christian principles, and while our first amendment allows citizens to practice any religion they want, it does not give them the right to marginalize one faith in lieu of another. When was the last time christians crashed jetliners into fully-occupied office towers in a major city?

To this day there has been no public denunciation of 9/11 or any of the follow up atrocities committed by those "sensible" muslims we keep hearing about. Sharia law is a great, and very real, example of just how twisted and backwards muslims are. The things they do to their women in this day and age is pretty fcked up.

Another thing to consider is that a lot of those "1 billion" muslims you're pointing at are forced to be members of that 'faith'. Didn't the daily show or colbert report tell you the hilarious story of the woman who tried to change from islam to christianity?

If you wanted to be analytical, your whole "lunatic fringe" and silly KKK/nazi comparisons have no merit here. Muslims who want to be muslims are generally "radical" in their views...the fact that billions are forced to be practitioners of the faith may dilute the figures, making it seem like jihadists are a minority, but it doesn't change the fundamental fact - that jihad is a part of the muslim beliefs.

quote:
Anyhow Obama has been horrible. There are so many things, valid real things to attack him on. Calling him a Muslim or sympathetic to Muslim causes just changes the conversation from real issues to ignorance.


You're going to have to get with the idea that there are multiple valid issues that are worth addressing. Our foreign policy matters; we do not live in a vacuum and what happens in other countries can affect us. If we ignore it and wait to react to something, by that time, it's usually too late.

The middle east has been the scourge of humanity for centuries and trying to write it off as "internal squabbles" that do not affect us is definitely going to come back to ram us up the anus.


RE: Sooooo.....
By retrospooty on 7/15/2014 10:13:53 AM , Rating: 2
"America was founded on judeo-christian principles, and while our first amendment allows citizens to practice any religion they want, it does not give them the right to marginalize one faith in lieu of another. When was the last time christians crashed jetliners into fully-occupied office towers in a major city?"

When was the last time one group systematically tried to wipe a whole group of people from the planet? I am not saying that what the NAzi's did was a Christian belief at all, but you get my point. You cant take the horrible acts of one group and apply it to all.

I am not going to disagree that they are backwards. To me the whole judeo-christian-muslim religious branch is backwards. Of the 3, clearly Islam is the farthest backwards by a longshot. But the people committing acts of terror are the minority. They are extremists and not the norm. And I disagree that they are involved. Putting these acts of terror on the rest of them is exactly like putting the KKK, Nazis or McVeigh or such on Christianity. It's just not right, but whatever.

"The middle east has been the scourge of humanity for centuries and trying to write it off as "internal squabbles" that do not affect us is definitely going to come back to ram us up the anus."

I agree. Lets even just look at Iraq. Old Babylon is not 100 miles from present day Baghdad. That area has been at war basically since history began. It has been forcibly taken over by various armies 100's and 100's of times, literally since history began. And now today it's under threat of it again. That is going to happen no matter what. If we got out 2 years ago, next year, 10 years from now or 100 years from now, no matter what it will happen, and happen again after that, and again, as it always has. We need to be the hell out of there. Let them kill each other. There is nothing we can do to stop it. It's a sad state of affairs, but it is not our business, and not our fault. Us being there just creates targets out of us.


RE: Sooooo.....
By EricMartello on 7/16/2014 11:20:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
When was the last time one group systematically tried to wipe a whole group of people from the planet? I am not saying that what the NAzi's did was a Christian belief at all, but you get my point. You cant take the horrible acts of one group and apply it to all.


Muslim jihadists are using their relgious beliefs as the basis for their attacks. They are not terrorists who also happen to be muslims, they are terrorists BECAUSE they are muslim. I'm not saying that all muslims are going to participate in terrorism but I am saying that the ones who do (and don't) have no real qualms about it as true believers of that religion.

quote:
I am not going to disagree that they are backwards. To me the whole judeo-christian-muslim religious branch is backwards. Of the 3, clearly Islam is the farthest backwards by a longshot. But the people committing acts of terror are the minority. They are extremists and not the norm. And I disagree that they are involved. Putting these acts of terror on the rest of them is exactly like putting the KKK, Nazis or McVeigh or such on Christianity. It's just not right, but whatever.


As I said before, the people who live in these middle-eastern countries do not enjoy religious liberty. They are basically forced to become practitioners of the muslim religion whether they like it or not.

The point is that those who voluntarily choose the muslim faith do not oppose the idea of jihad - waging a "holy war" against anyone who does not conform to their views and way of life (sound familiar?).

By forcing all people in the country to become muslim, they make the true believers seem like a minority - but it is not, because the the true muslim believers are not opposed to terrorism as the primary method of advancing their influence.

Add to that the fact that most middle eastern countries are theocracies of sorts, where the clerics have political influence and can carry out various forms of punishment under sharia law for any people that step out of line...again, sound familiar? Welcome to 1,000 years ago.

quote:
I agree. Lets even just look at Iraq. Old Babylon is not 100 miles from present day Baghdad. That area has been at war basically since history began. It has been forcibly taken over by various armies 100's and 100's of times, literally since history began. And now today it's under threat of it again. That is going to happen no matter what. If we got out 2 years ago, next year, 10 years from now or 100 years from now, no matter what it will happen, and happen again after that, and again, as it always has. We need to be the hell out of there. Let them kill each other. There is nothing we can do to stop it. It's a sad state of affairs, but it is not our business, and not our fault. Us being there just creates targets out of us.


I don't think we should have a massive military occupation over there, but I also disagree with pulling out and turning a blind eye altogether. While the US mainland may not be in immediate danger from any of their terrorist attacks, countries we are allied with - mainly Europe and Israel - are at high risk.

We also want the oil production to continue in that region...and just to dispel the notion that we "depend on foreign oil", I'd point out that oil is priced as a commodity on a global market. That means the price per barrel is what you'd pay regardless of who supplies it, and if the supply in the middle east is reduced or cut-off entirely, the price per barrel will rise globally.

Middle eastern countries have been fighting amongst themselves just as long as other outside forces have been fighting with them and there is no sign of that ever fading.

A possible solution could be creating some kind of chemical agent that does not kill, harm or cause illness, but instead induces sterility. Deploy this as a chemical weapon to "peacefully" thin out their ranks and then after a few generations are spared the daily war lifestyle, the middle eastern countries may become more amicable to playing nice.


RE: Sooooo.....
By EricMartello on 7/15/2014 1:36:39 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Can you guess which religious group gave Obama his highest approval rating by far out of all polled?

Muslims. Yeah, I'm sorry, but when out of every religious group polled in America, an American President rates highest with them? Something is extremely wrong with that.


I remember hearing about some judge in a US court considering to allow sharia law to trump US law during a case involving some muslim guy. Don't think it ever happened, but the very idea that a US court official would even consider entertaining that idea shows how pervasive liberals' and their identity politics have become.

The real "kicker", if you will, is that liberals are still a minority in America. The constant spewing of left-wing propaganda over all media (TV, movies, radio, print) makes it seem like liberalism is larger than it really is...the problem is that rift between those who consider themselves conservatives and republicans is allowing them to gain power.


RE: Sooooo.....
By Any14Tee on 7/16/2014 12:10:34 PM , Rating: 2
"Obama clearly has no love for Israel OR America".
But he clearly loves Osuma Bin Laden lol.


By letmepicyou on 7/14/2014 2:23:43 PM , Rating: 2
Can we assume he feels bound himself by the same policy?




By bigboxes on 7/14/2014 2:59:06 PM , Rating: 2
Bullcrap. If one of our citizens wants to hide in the mountains plotting against America then I have no problem sending them a drone as a gift. Now, if you're suggesting that the CIA (and just about any other spy org in the world) has taken out rogue agents, I really don't think this is an "Obama thing". It's been going on since the dawn of our creation.


By Reclaimer77 on 7/14/2014 3:01:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Bullcrap. If one of our citizens wants to hide in the mountains plotting against America then I have no problem sending them a drone as a gift.


Wtf really?

You support a citizen being murdered for doing NOTHING? Someone "plotting" is now a rogue-agent??

You're talking about the removal of his/her basic civil rights and all due process!


By NellyFromMA on 7/14/2014 3:48:10 PM , Rating: 2
Plotting / planning to kill people en masse isn't "nothing".

I'm not saying that in simplistic terms I support the governments ability to kill a citizen without due process per se (I'm also not against it in the EXACT RIGHT circumstance).

If you plan to do harm, you absolutely can be arrested for it domestically. We aren't talking thoughts in your head no one knows about, we are talking a plan. Effort applied. That is a crime, it has been for some time.

For example, a kid puts together a hit list. That is a crime. Same concept.

If you happen to roll with some real dangerous people who have a known track record for planning and EXECUTING these awful attacks, and be on the run from your due process in a country known to harbor said dangerous crew (because lets face it, if this guy gave a crap about his due process because he was innocent, he'd have turned himself in the most public way possible) then yeah, I think that's not exactly a slippery slope policy-wise.

American citizens must be afforded due process. However, someone who has that status, but goes overseas to plot on and instruct others to kill Americans and happens to be killed in pursuit.. With undeniable proof of such things... I don't lose any sleep over that guys due process what-so-ever.

That's on-the-record.


By Reclaimer77 on 7/14/2014 4:08:12 PM , Rating: 2
Arresting someone for plotting a crime is ENTIRELY different than murdering someone for the same thing. I'm sure you see the difference.

In one example the rights of the citizen to due process is respected. In the other example, we're venturing into Minority Report "pre-crime".

Also where is the concistency exactly? So on one hand, this Administration says they'll murder you if you join an extremist group and plot against Americans. Even if they just think you are with no actual proof.

Then the next thing you know, they're calling Bowe Bergdahl a hero and exchanging 5 of the worst scumbags on Earth for his release. A man who DID run off with an extremist group and plot against Americans, going AWOL in the process!!

Speaking of inconsistencies...how exactly can the same President who defends the murder of Americans with no due-process, go on TV and say all terrorists should "have their day in court"? I mean...

This is so fu*#E$ed up!!


By NellyFromMA on 7/15/2014 2:41:15 PM , Rating: 2
Suspects get killed during the process of apprehension often.

I'm saying, if that kid was on the run from the police after the hit list was found and got killed during apprehension, that would be a lot more in line with the scenario in question, and the distinction becomes that much more blurred.

As to whether the gov "just thinks" you plot terrorist attacks or whether they have proof, well, that's a really important distinction. As I said, I am not saying I support the scenario, nor am I saying I don't. I am willing to think on it though, and so I am coming up with the best Apples-to-Apples comparison that I can in order to do so. There won't be a complete match, I presume, but getting as close as possible is crucial to assess the REAL differences.

As for Bergdahl, I don't know a whole lot about that situation. What I gathered was that he was a suspected deserter who was captured by terrorists while deserting. I don't think he was "running off" and cooperating with them, but that's where I become uninformed and it probably just treads into speculation anyways. He could have ran into their arms. Idk really, but that's not what I thought.

I think the worlds just too complicated to not be willing to entertain the full-picture, as perceived through as many different perspectives as possible.


By JasonMick (blog) on 7/14/2014 4:27:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm not saying that in simplistic terms I support the governments ability to kill a citizen without due process per se (I'm also not against it in the EXACT RIGHT circumstance).
Okay, but it's one or the other, right? You either hand the government ambiguous power to decide when to kill people without trial or you don't.
quote:
For example, a kid puts together a hit list. That is a crime.
Wait are you suggesting that a student who generates a "hit list" perhaps just as a fantasy or cry for help is a potential case where they should be "taken out" preemptively?

You are aware of how many school threats there are versus actual school shootings? My high school had at least two students caught with "hit lists" ... in neither case did they represent any real threat as far as authorities could determine.
quote:
However, someone who has that status, but goes overseas to plot on and instruct others to kill Americans and happens to be killed in pursuit.. With undeniable proof of such things...
Umm how can you have "undeniable" proof without a trial. That's the whole point of a capital punishment trial -- to determine if the proof is overwhelming enough to warrant the death penalty.
quote:
I don't lose any sleep over that guys due process what-so-ever.
Well that makes you antithetical to the principles this nation was founded on.

Your ancestors rebelled, in part, when they were given only "partial"/selective due process by the UK government.

While I don't agree with much of his policies, I feel John Garamendi (a Calif. politician) put it aptly when he wrote:
quote:
Anyone can be falsely accused of a crime. Everyone accused of a crime deserves a fair trial.
It's one thing to kill someone in the process of attack. It's another thing to dole out ambiguous powers to kill anyone you think *might* be planning an attack, at home and abroad.


By NellyFromMA on 7/15/2014 2:29:52 PM , Rating: 2
Where do I even start with this barrage of seemingly antagonistic responses.

quote:
Okay, but it's one or the other, right? You either hand the government ambiguous power to decide when to kill people without trial or you don't.


My comment clearly says I am not committing to a stance. So, why are you getting me to commit to one? I DID state I am open to thought in the EXACT RIGHT CIRCUMSTANCE. I am open to it, as in, not close-minded to the possibility. Again: In. The. Right. Circumstance.

I'm allowed to listen to both sides, aren't I? Or, must I choose a side RIGHT NOW for you? Neither you or I know the entirety of the facts in order to make an informed decision. So stop treading on my open-mindedness, perhaps?

quote:
Wait are you suggesting that a student who generates a "hit list" perhaps just as a fantasy or cry for help is a potential case where they should be "taken out" preemptively?


I'm not really sure why you are trying to frame me as some crazy that thinks killing kids because they have issues is ok. Of course I'm not saying that simply if a kid is "crying out for help" in the totally wrong way that is qualifying enough to execute him. I am a REALLY rational person, so its even a little insulting to pose that question to begin with.

However, it IS illegal for them to create said hit list, even if they don't carry it out. If that persons hit list was found, and they ran away being harbored by other people known to have interest in killing and the kid was killed during apprehension attempts, that's a REAL possibility and the kid bears a burden of responsibility there. If he chooses to run, they are somewhat not making a very good case for innocence and its hardly likely those attempting to apprehend will assume they won't meet resistance. That's what I am saying. In that situation, I highly doubt many if any besides family would cry foul over the kids right to trial being denied. Some amount of responsibility by the offender should be felt, no?

quote:
Umm how can you have "undeniable" proof without a trial. That's the whole point of a capital punishment trial -- to determine if the proof is overwhelming enough to warrant the death penalty.


When we are talking about people planning acts that can lead to massive casualties, even AMERICAN casualties, if the person who gets to make the decision feels the evidence before them is undeniable and chooses to make the decision to take the target out, I am not NECESSARILY IMMEDIATELY AGAINST THE CHOICE. I am WILLING TO HEAR ALL SIDES, which seems substantially less than what you are willing to do.

quote:
Well that makes you antithetical to the principles this nation was founded on.


You are actually wearing my nerves a little thin at this point. Above all else, the principles of this nation enable me to THINK FOR MYSELF. That you try and trivialize that by telling ME where I stand based on your perception of the priority of the principles of our founding fathers is a little asinine, frankly.

You may not agree with my willingness to understand the decision making process behind these actions and not to outright condemn them, but it seems like you're trying to call me out and you're just sort of making yourself look poorly IMO.

I was saying that these people weren't killed for nothing and elaborating on it.

I'm all for other people having their opinions, but I demand the same in return.

For an editor at DT, it seems your reading comprehension could use some work. Re-read my post. You clearly think its an endorsement when it isn't, and at the same time you've managed to insult a reader with a poor choice of words, repeatedly. Simply comprehending my previous post would avoid a lot of your misunderstanding.


By bigboxes on 7/16/2014 12:32:39 AM , Rating: 2
The drone comment was for the al qaeda types that hide beyond our reach. If you are beyond our jurisdiction and plotting against America then yes, I do support sending a drone your way. Hiding amongst children and other civilians should not save you. Being an American citizen should not save you. Want to come home and stand trial? Be my guest.

As far as Snowden, he's a traitor. Good lord, I don't want my government spying on everything I do. However, it wasn't Snowden's duty to do what he did. He was a coward and then aided our enemies. I'll volunteer to put the bullet in his head. Of course he's not the first or the last to do what is bad for our country. Doesn't mean he shouldn't stand trial.


By letmepicyou on 7/14/2014 4:17:26 PM , Rating: 2
Seee, this is how you find the folks who work at homeland who sit at their desk trolling comments sections on popular websites. No reasonable American citizen believes it's ok to kill someone without a trial, unless their boss is monitoring the posts they make while they try to sway public opinion to pro-big brother. I'm callin you out, goon. Your bosses may think it's ok to circumvent the constitution in the guise of made up ficticious "national security" concerns. But people don't sit around in the mountains plotting against America. They sit around plotting to take America BACK. Take it back from people like you and those you work for.


By atechfan on 7/15/2014 1:35:56 PM , Rating: 2
Sadly, I think it will come to this. I think America is only a couple years away from another civil war.


Phony outrage
By room200 on 7/14/2014 5:49:14 PM , Rating: 2
Hey Jason, where's your article about the phony Iraq war? It cost 190,000 lives and about 2.2 trillion dollars. And Cheney said he has no regrets.

https://news.brown.edu/articles/2013/03/warcosts




RE: Phony outrage
By atechfan on 7/14/2014 7:40:49 PM , Rating: 2
You mean the war that both sides voted to start? It is easy to say it didn't work in hindsight. But the reasons for going, the issue of WMDs, was not made up. Just last week, the Iraqi government was complaining that ISIS had captured an old chemical weapons store. If Saddam never had them, as the Left tries to claim now, then what exactly did ISIS capture?


RE: Phony outrage
By room200 on 7/15/2014 6:05:44 AM , Rating: 2
ISIS captured NOTHING. Reuters who originally published the story saying that ISIS had found this stuff published a follow up saying that the stuff was useless and could NEVER be made into a bomb, and couldn't even be made into a dirty bomb.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/07/10/iraq-secu...


RE: Phony outrage
By atechfan on 7/15/2014 1:37:31 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, it was useless because it was old, dating from Saddam's rule. Which means that Saddam had the very weapons that the US went in looking for.


RE: Phony outrage
By room200 on 7/15/2014 2:03:27 PM , Rating: 2
Absolutely, because everybody knows the half-life of Uranium is 5 years.


RE: Phony outrage
By Reclaimer77 on 7/15/2014 4:41:23 PM , Rating: 2
Uranium?

What part of CHEMICAL WEAPONS did you not understand?


RE: Phony outrage
By room200 on 7/16/2014 10:41:12 AM , Rating: 2
Because what he said was not true. The article talks about ATOMIC weapons which were the types of weapons that Bush claimed were there. There were none. Period.


By NellyFromMA on 7/14/2014 1:29:29 PM , Rating: 2
I really think this is the most important domestic issue we have in our country today, even if it isn't widely understood.

However, this article makes a couple of assertions it probably shouldn't.

Sometimes, what isn't said is more powerful than what is, if those things can't be backed up.

For example, we don't know that the US was involved in the UK Guardian data destruction. There is a LOT of unknown there where making this assertion cannot reasonably be done.

It's incredibly important, IMO, when discussion this topic to not give in to the desire to veer off into assumptions and vagueities. Doing so invites the other side of the table to categorize the conversation as one had by "tin-foil hat wearers" compiling base-less conspiracies. We have to be more responsible than that in order to win the debate.

This conversation HAS to happen based on 100% merit or it loses it's meaning fairly quickly.

Otherwise, you distract us from what we SHOULD be talking about (American violation of the fourth amendment, at least) and allow critics and naysayers an opportunity to discredit privacy advocates valid points.

Sure, we could guess that perhaps the US was involved. Maybe it was. But, in this conversation, again IMO, maybe isn't enough.

Sticking to the facts is key here if you want to exact any real change. There are enough facts that we can confirm without inviting non-facts to detract from the core conversation.

Also, it isn't reasonable to assume that what the WH press secretary knows must be equal to what leading figures in the NSA know. The press secretary likely would NEVER be informed of controversial details or topics internally for deniability purposes. This does NOT equate to a lie, even if deception is orchestrated from any point higher up.

These assertions really have to be thought out a bit more before being placed in a widely-read article...




RE: Noble topic, slightly sensation article however.
By bah12 on 7/14/2014 3:13:47 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed. Very sensational, but maybe it needs to be. We need this crap to stay in the light, otherwise the public will get bored and forget it.

I'd suggest everyone watch the PBS Frontline title Unites States of Secrets. It really does a good job of outlining the events.

Jason paints it as a pretty big Obama fail (and it is), but make no mistake this crap all started under Bush/Cheney. And long before the patriot act mind you, that was just the official tool to "legalize" it. Mind you I tend to hate Obama more for it, since at least Bush/Cheney were semi-transparent in that they intended to spy and spy hard. I don't think many would be shocked that they did. But Obama partially ran on an anti-spying campaign, only to flip flop and vote yes to the Patriot Act, and expand on the powers. Both sides sicken me, but I hate bold faced liars most of all and Obama is just that. I'll take ignorant Daddy's boy(Bush), over a silver tongued liar (Obama) any day. Though I wish we had better options.


By NellyFromMA on 7/14/2014 3:36:57 PM , Rating: 2
Perhaps. It's a topic I feel pretty strongly about, admittedly. It's always encouraging to hear people talking about it, even writing about it.

It's just time-and-again I have watched debates take place and when a side I generally support starts getting caught up in emotion and going off-the-tracks, so-to-speak, credibility is often lost and with it the cause debated.

This movement can not afford that IMO. 100 Valid points can be easily overshadowed by a small handful of poorly thought out claims or assertions that are based on assumption rather than fact. We cannot in good faith ask the government to act responsibly if we won't hold ourselves to the same standard.

As for Obama vs Bush, I won't really go there. Each has made costly mistakes, and has achieved some degree of success on their Presidential career. They have each alienated many but did greatly care for the American people.

I suspect what you see happening with each of these presidents you will see in our next, and in each generation thereafter in some sense. They have access to more information that we can fathom, clearly. The choices they make are from a perspective we will never understand; an immense responsibility.

Each President should be respected IMO, especially while sitting in office. Obama hasn't made these poor choices because he hates the American people, it's highly likely it has to do with his genuine interest to keep us safe, as Bush had done before him.

Our job, however, is to LOUDLY but CIVILY express that when it comes to our liberty and freedom, we covet those above security, within reason. It is not within reason to sacrifice that which our country is proudly founded on to prevent something that maybe might have happened if we hadn't. And even then, there are no incidents of "maybe" to cite for all we have given thus far..


RE: Noble topic, slightly sensation article however.
By M'n'M on 7/15/2014 12:43:07 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Our job, however, is to LOUDLY but CIVILY express that when it comes to our liberty and freedom, we covet those above security, within reason. It is not within reason to sacrifice that which our country is proudly founded on to prevent something that maybe might have happened if we hadn't.

Alas I'm not sure your, my, belief is in the majority. Far too many people are willing to sacrifice their "liberty for (perceived) security". They just haven't seen the lesson history would teach them. Instead they see the hyperbolic headlines on every "news" show. They'll ignore the danger that driving a car presents while hyper-acting to the dangers of terrorism.


By NellyFromMA on 7/15/2014 2:33:38 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed. However, if the people do not value it, then its their liberty to lose I suppose. Still, the more the topic stays on the forefront, the more informed the public can potentially be.


The currency of lies
By EricMartello on 7/14/2014 2:38:42 PM , Rating: 2
Let's just call this what this is - buying power with lies and getting away with it. There are a few elements that make this work.

Pretty much every single thing obama promised while campaigning was either a lie or a misrepresentation - and along with a liberal-leaning news media it got him into the top position of American leadership and influence. This was only possible largely because of collusion among the media, public education and wealthy elites that use their money to tie up any loose ends.

Isn't it just great that we're suffering through the 6th year of an administration that should NEVER have been in power in the first place? I am being generous when I call obama voters complete morons - but AT LEAST some of them realized the error of their ways and are now just partial morons.

The very core of this problem is over-centralization of the US government. The only reason it can have this much power with virtually no accountability is due to its size and the fact that the power is concentrated in DC. This is exactly the situation that our country's founders wanted to avoid and that's why they give STATES the majority of the governing power.

BTW when is the NSA going to release Lois Lerner's emails and chat logs to congress? Or did it conveniently miss those communiques.




RE: The currency of lies
By retrospooty on 7/14/2014 4:31:39 PM , Rating: 2
"The very core of this problem is over-centralization of the US government. The only reason it can have this much power with virtually no accountability is due to its size and the fact that the power is concentrated in DC. This is exactly the situation that our country's founders wanted to avoid and that's why they give STATES the majority of the governing power"

You are absolutely right on this part. The US government is immense, out of control, and way WAY too powerful.


Too Late
By room200 on 7/14/2014 3:50:39 PM , Rating: 4
I don't know if Jason believes he's a political reporter or what, but if you say politicians on both side of the aisle are guilty, why is the headline "Obama Administration". It seems that the entire government knows about what's going on.

Liberals have been complaining about this for YEARS, and it didn't stop when Obama came into office. We hoped he would stop a lot of the stuff that Bush began, but he didn't. We have always been pissed off about it. I didn't see any of you phonies who are so outraged NOW complaining about this crap happening back then. Now, it's a problem?

I've got news for you, when you all decided to go around waving flags during 9/11 and not questioning the government, you gave up your right to be outraged. This is one of the consequences of allowing fear to govern common sense. So many Americans were terrified of terrorism and Bush's phony red, green yellow terror alerts, that they gave up complaining about losing their rights in the interest of "national security". It's too late now. Get over it.




What is this?
By Dug on 7/14/2014 4:21:55 PM , Rating: 2
Is this just a summary of how you feel?
There really isn't any point as there is no clear subject.




RE: What is this?
By bsd228 on 7/14/2014 6:25:02 PM , Rating: 2
> There really isn't any point as there is no clear subject.

yes, I see at least two separate articles here - one about the destruction of the Guardian drives (and yes, if you wanted to ensure the data was destroyed, you would grind it up), and a separate one about Obama. Jason needs to get away from these massively rambling epics interlaced with too many GD images splitting it up. Gives flashbacks to MySpace.


By CharonPDX on 7/15/2014 5:13:40 AM , Rating: 2
Unlike most of the author's material on here, which is thinly-disguised heavily-biased editorial.




By audioheaven on 7/16/2014 6:54:10 AM , Rating: 2
Obama is a criminal, only the ignorant would argue otherwise. But so is every other president we have ever had. Impeachment is not the answer. We don't have access to all the information he does, so we cannot know what is or was the right thing to do. Blaming him or another politician for our situation is the coward's way out. Nothing is easier than finding fault. Man up and suggest a solution.
Here is my suggestion: promote moderate politicians who will work together to actually solve problems.




Who are you?
By Scootie on 7/14/14, Rating: -1
"Nowadays, security guys break the Mac every single day. Every single day, they come out with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally. I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine." -- Bill Gates














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki