backtop


Print 60 comment(s) - last by michael67.. on Dec 13 at 12:40 PM

Obama is trying to protect himself from criticism from allies abroad and civil-liberties advocates on U.S. soil

The U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) has been attacked all year for its spy programs, which were revealed by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden -- and the agency could use some love from President Barack Obama. 

According to The Washington Post, the NSA's morale has taken a beating ever since the Snowden revelations, and many former officials say that current NSA employees are disappointed that Obama hasn't stopped by to provide some encouragement. 

“The agency, from top to bottom, leadership to rank and file, feels that it is had no support from the White House even though it’s been carrying out publicly approved intelligence missions,” said Joel Brenner, NSA inspector general from 2002 to 2006. “They feel they’ve been hung out to dry, and they’re right.”

Other former NSA officials, who have asked to remain anonymous, said morale is "bad overall" and that many employees are asking to have their résumés wiped of any surveillance programs in order to gain employment elsewhere. 

“The news — the Snowden disclosures — it questions the integrity of the NSA workforce,” said a former NSA official who chose to remain anonymous. “It’s become very public and very personal. Literally, neighbors are asking people, ‘Why are you spying on Grandma?’ And we aren’t. People are feeling bad, beaten down.”

Some former officials have even mentioned that former President George W. Bush visited the NSA in January 2006 after the New York Times reported that the agency engaged in a counterterrorism program of warrantless surveillance in the U.S. 


Obama has sent top White House officials to the NSA to speak for him in an effort to offer encouragement. But many believe he hasn't made the trip himself because he needs to protect himself from criticism from allies abroad and civil-liberties advocates on U.S. soil. In addition, internal and external reviews of surveillance activities have not yet been completed. 

Obama has said that the NSA’s surveillance is lawful in June of this year, and showed interest in preserving the intelligence programs. However, he's also mentioned making some changes so that there's greater transparency.

Snowden blew the cover on the NSA's surveillance programs earlier this year, which consisted of bulk data collection from sources like phone records, where the government took on a "collect now, filter later" approach. The agency has said that the bulk data collection was meant to identify terrorist threats, but it's been discovered that the data of Americans has been collected without any clear evidence of terrorist links. 
 
In August, reports said that the NSA admitted to touching 1.6 percent of total globe Web traffic. Its technique was to filter data after harvesting it, which led to over-collection on a major scale. It was later revealed that Snowden conned between 20 to 25 NSA employees to give him their login credentials and passwords while working at the NSA regional operations center for a month in Hawaii last spring. Snowden reportedly told the NSA employees that he needed their passwords in order to do his job, and after downloading secret NSA documents, he leaked the information to the media.
 
Many top tech leaders, like Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Google Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt, have spoken out against the NSA's programs along with civil-liberties advocates, U.S. citizens and even other countries that had the NSA peeping in their window. 

Just yesterday, it was revealed that the NSA and its UK sister agency GCHQ sent agents into the virtual worlds of the Xbox Live network, World of Warcraft, and Second Life to find acts of terrorism. 

Source: The Washington Post



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

This is why we can't have nice things
By chµck on 12/10/2013 7:20:15 PM , Rating: 5
The NSA is looking to the president for support, when instead they need to realize that us citizens pay them and we control the government, or used to. The government is becoming a rogue entity looking out for itself instead of the people.




RE: This is why we can't have nice things
By michael67 on 12/11/13, Rating: 0
RE: This is why we can't have nice things
By Reclaimer77 on 12/11/2013 12:45:22 AM , Rating: 1
Yes of course, Fox news is the problem. Not the 60+ years of completely Liberal dominated media and newspapers....

quote:
If i would be offered to go back in time, but i could go only once, and had to pick between killing a young Hitler and Murdoch, it would be a hard pick, but i would pick Murdoch.


......

wow!

Do you know how crazy that sounds? The Holocaust killed 6+ million people, ON TOP of the body count from his war of conquest.


RE: This is why we can't have nice things
By michael67 on 12/11/13, Rating: -1
RE: This is why we can't have nice things
By Reclaimer77 on 12/11/2013 1:29:16 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah silly me but I kind of think genocide is pretty damn evil, yeah. Ranks just a bit higher on the evil list than running a news network.

Comparing Hitler to Murdock is just extremist insane babble. Seek help, you sound crazy.


RE: This is why we can't have nice things
By michael67 on 12/11/2013 9:01:33 PM , Rating: 1
I am not saying its not evil, i am saying that the man destroyed journalism for the biggest part.

And with that, polarized the world, what is the reason that:

- Politics is out of control and in the pockets of the banks and corporations is.
- America started the second Gulf war.
- The division between the west and Muslims is bigger then ever.
- Journalism has become extreme polarized.
- His journalist just plain out twist and lie about the truth.

Good journalism is one of the biggest pillars of the checks and balances of our leaders and what corporations do in the world.

And he destroyed it completely, and he is one of the biggest reasons the world is in the mess it is today.

What the Nazis did to the world was like a bad broken bone, but after it was over, the world got healthier, This never again!
Murdoch on the other hand is like a cancer, he is rotting the world from the inside, and he is bin doing it for decades, and there seams no cure for what he is doing.

So imho the impact of what Murdoch's News Corp is doing on the world is worse then what the Nazis did, or are you going to say you like the world you live in today, because he is one of the biggest architect of that world


RE: This is why we can't have nice things
By ClownPuncher on 12/12/2013 11:28:36 AM , Rating: 1
You seem to be ignorant of history.

Politics has always been in the pocket of banks, since always.

Hearst did more to fuck up journalism than Murdoch ever will.
The US started the Spanish American war based on his propaganda.

The division between the western world and the Muslim world is actually smaller than it has been throughout most of history. Remember WWI? Remember Moorish Spain? Remember the Crusades? Remember the fall of the Byzantine Empire?

In short; you have no idea what you're talking about. You've based your political ideologies on ignorance. Get an education.


RE: This is why we can't have nice things
By michael67 on 12/12/2013 4:55:45 PM , Rating: 1
You are correct if you look at the history in your time span.

But after WWII news organizations starting to do there job right, Murdoch fucked it up even more then its was before.

And ware there even in the time of the Spanish American war descent newspapers, and if so what good would they have done if 90% of the people cant even read!

I am talking modern history from WWII till now.

quote:
The division between the western world and the Muslim world is actually smaller than it has been throughout most of history.


Actually after WWII that division was a lot smaller, and i remember when in the 80s over problems in the middle east there also in the newspapers historical reasons ware given about problems in the middle east, now a days the news is more and more polarized.

I should have none better, most people cant seem comprehend what damage the destruction of good news outlets means for the world, because how can people make good educated opinions if even the source of there information is polymerized bias crap.


RE: This is why we can't have nice things
By ClownPuncher on 12/12/2013 5:48:19 PM , Rating: 2
If you choose to ignore good news sources, that's your own fault. I also find Murdoch to be a bad influence, but nowhere near as destructive as a Hitler, a Stalin, a Mao, a Pol Pot, an Obama ;p and so on. Not even close.


By michael67 on 12/12/2013 8:39:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you choose to ignore good news sources, that's your own fault.

You right, but the sad part is, the mass is mostly ignorant, not because they don't wane be, but because they are followers, and they follow the people that make them feel best, so even do there are people that know better we are out numbered 50 to 1 or so.

quote:
but nowhere near as destructive as a Hitler, a Stalin, a Mao, a Pol Pot, an Obama

Do you know what all those people have in common?

Bad working news outlets!

Murdoch is the new propaganda prime minister for his buddy's the rich and the scrupulous.


RE: This is why we can't have nice things
By boeush on 12/12/2013 8:41:52 PM , Rating: 2
I don't understand why it's Murdoch's fault that his faux "news" networks have done so well.

His networks and tabloids would not exist, were it not for the stupid/demented consumer base that actually prefers Murdoch's toxic sludge over objective journalism. The people simply don't want to be made to think or learn: they just want to kick back with a can of beer and passively suck up Murdoch's nocturnal emissions, and for these people such a thing constitutes fun or enjoyment or whatever.

If reasonable people boycotted Murdoch's swill, and if reasonable people were the overwhelming majority, then Murdoch would be in the poor house. So don't blame him; blame your fellow humans. We collectively get what we ask for, and what we deserve -- in journalism and politics alike.


By michael67 on 12/13/2013 12:40:05 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with you on that, but Murdoch's toxic sludge, could also be just truthful sludge.

Even do i prefer dumbed down infotainment news, but even infotainment can be truthful, Murdoch's toxic sludge leaves really noting truthful left if it is not in his interest.

And he just spreads FUD and hatred in the world, just to benefit him and his rich buddy's, because dumb masses are easier to control.

That's why imho Joseph Goebbels is a amateur compared to what he dose to the world.


By ClownPuncher on 12/11/2013 11:11:50 AM , Rating: 2
Haha! Not very rational, are we? (I would have picked Stalin, btw)


By nafhan on 12/11/2013 11:22:38 AM , Rating: 2
It actually sounds like your definition of evil is Rupert Murdoch. I'd disagree and say there's worse.


RE: This is why we can't have nice things
By rpsgc on 12/11/13, Rating: -1
RE: This is why we can't have nice things
By Reclaimer77 on 12/11/2013 8:54:05 AM , Rating: 2
Wow a holocaust denier too? This is bringing out ALL the crazies!


By bitmover461 on 12/11/2013 10:48:20 AM , Rating: 2
Trampling Constitutional rights must be viewed as an extremely serious abuse of government. "I'm just doing my job" is no excuse, same as Nazi soldiers where were also "just doing their job". The outcome of our abuses are less tragic, but not by much. The ideals of the founding fathers are for the most part just quaint phrases in history books.


RE: This is why we can't have nice things
By nafhan on 12/11/2013 11:18:43 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
has been disproved by, wait for it, serious historians
The Nazi's weren't stupid and did their level best to hide this stuff. Pretending there's a single number that's absolutely correct is... ridiculous. It's not hard to find many, many "serious historians" that would support a much higher number. The citations section of the Wiki article links to a few, and finding more is not difficult, either.

Giving one reference, saying it's the absolute truth, and then comparing anyone who disagrees with you to a flat-earther makes someone look ignorant... and it's not the person you were disagreeing with.


RE: This is why we can't have nice things
By ClownPuncher on 12/11/2013 11:21:01 AM , Rating: 2
6 million... 3 million... even if it's somewhere in between, how is it not worse than just publishing halfassed journalism?


RE: This is why we can't have nice things
By nafhan on 12/11/2013 11:26:36 AM , Rating: 2
Yikes... I was arguing with his assertion that he knows the absolute truth about the Holocaust thanks to an old encyclopedia article.

The Holocaust is MUCH worse than half assed journalism. In a rational discussion, no one would even be comparing them.


RE: This is why we can't have nice things
By ClownPuncher on 12/11/2013 11:43:16 AM , Rating: 2
Yea, I was agreeing with you.


By nafhan on 12/11/2013 11:49:58 AM , Rating: 2
Ah... sorry.


RE: This is why we can't have nice things
By retrospooty on 12/11/2013 12:09:35 PM , Rating: 6
"So where are the other 3+ million alleged deaths?"

You do realize those are just the large camps right? Many were killed on the spot and by other methods. In total, after it was done, there were appx 6 million less Jews in Europe.


RE: This is why we can't have nice things
By Reclaimer77 on 12/11/2013 5:55:17 PM , Rating: 1
And about 3 million people of color, no less tragic.


By boeush on 12/12/2013 8:49:45 PM , Rating: 2
Right, it always irks me that the Holocaust is somehow a Jewish-only tragedy when in point of fact it also involved the Gypsies, the homosexuals, anyone with a birth defect, the Communists, as well as anyone with a skin that wasn't quite white as a baseline. The Jews were a majority of the slaughtered -- and also the noisiest group of survivors -- but they were far from the only group targeted or severely devastated...


By KCjoker on 12/11/2013 6:51:33 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, I seriously hope you're trolling. If not you are just plain ignorant.


By ie5x on 12/11/2013 6:23:28 AM , Rating: 2
That's a no surprise.


RE: This is why we can't have nice things
By Motoman on 12/11/2013 12:07:39 PM , Rating: 2
The government should be afraid of the people...not the other way around.

If the NSA is feeling "beaten down," they should be. Too bad it's not legal to give them an actual beatdown though. The entire f%cking enterprise needs to be declared illegal, and everyone who ever had anything to do with domestic surveillance should be fired and barred from ever holding anything more than a minimum-wage job.


RE: This is why we can't have nice things
By Argon18 on 12/11/2013 12:52:20 PM , Rating: 2
Why put this on the lowly workers? They're just doing their job and following orders. Obama's orders. He approved this thing, just like he approved warrant-less wire taps, expansion of the Patriot Act, and even drone strikes against American citizens. Obama is the criminal behind all of these, hold him accountable.


RE: This is why we can't have nice things
By Motoman on 12/11/2013 1:37:32 PM , Rating: 2
...and here's your sign.

It doesn't matter who you think is giving the orders. If you are ordered to do something in the course of your employment that is inethical and/or illegal, these are your only correct choices:

1. Report it to an appropriate authority and refuse to comply.
2. Quit your job. And report it.
3. Or at the very least, quit your job.

Complying with the demand to carry out inethical and/or illegal activities is *not* a valid option...so even if you're just a "lowly worker" you're not off the hook. Hence the fact that the world is trying and convicting the lowest-level people for having been Nazis...because they were Nazis, and they went along with the inethical and/or illegal orders they were given.


RE: This is why we can't have nice things
By Spuke on 12/11/2013 1:53:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
because they were Nazis, and they went along with the inethical and/or illegal orders they were given.
The Nazi's were tried for ILLEGAL activity as they should have been. No one was tried for inethical activity. NSA employees, as far as they were concerned, were operating within the law (the NSA has lawyers too). Were their activities inethical? I think so but they can't be held criminally responsible for violating ethics. OUR job as citizens here is to ensure that the NSA and other parts of government can't operate like this under the law PERIOD. No grays areas should remain here.


By Motoman on 12/11/2013 4:12:48 PM , Rating: 2
Nah. The Nazis were the government...and the government made what they did legal.

Back in the day when it was legal to force black people to sit in the back of the bus...it was still inethical. And if you were a decent human being who happened to get a job as a bus driver, you'd refuse to make the blacks sit in the back of the bus. Because it was inethical...even if it was legal.

The relationship between what's legal and what's ethically/morally correct is, at best, a very tenuous correlation.


By King of Heroes on 12/11/2013 3:02:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
They're just doing their job and following orders.


That's no excuse. The people giving the orders and the ones executing them are all equally responsible.


RE: This is why we can't have nice things
By Argon18 on 12/11/2013 12:49:27 PM , Rating: 2
NSA is looking to Obama for support, because Obama is the one who signed off on the spying. Obama approved it. He wants to distance himself from it however, to preserve his political "image". Essentially, he is throwing the NSA under the bus. He approved the spying, then he acts like a coward and won't take responsibility for it. Idiot in Chief.


By Spuke on 12/11/2013 1:54:18 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
He approved the spying, then he acts like a coward and won't take responsibility for it. Idiot in Chief.
X2


By retrospooty on 12/12/2013 2:52:21 PM , Rating: 1
"The government is becoming a rogue entity looking out for itself instead of the people."

Becoming? Sorry, its been that way since at LEAST WW2


By flatrock on 12/13/2013 10:28:33 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The NSA is looking to the president for support, when instead they need to realize that us citizens pay them and we control the government, or used to. The government is becoming a rogue entity looking out for itself instead of the people.


Yes the NSA works for the American people. They get their direction from the President and Congress who are elected by the American people. The NSA is looking for support from those that directed them to do as they have been doing, and have provided oversight of their efforts, and have generally approved of them in the past.

No that their efforts have been made public with a good bit of fact and a larger amount of speculation fanned by a media that loves the attention stirring people up brings, the politicians who have been happy with their efforts before now are now hanging them out to dry (while not making any meaningful changes to the direction they have provided the NSA).

The NSA is looking out for the American people, but they are doing it in such a way that poses serious risks to our personal rights. They have created systems with tremendous potential for abuse. They gather massive amounts of data, that is only supposed to be accessed in very restricted ways, but while the data remains in the hands of the government the potential and temptation to abuse it persists.

It is not the role of the NSA to draw the line between doing their job effectively and protecting the rights of those they serve. That is for Congress and the courts, and to some extent for the executive branch to direct them within the rules set out by the legislative and judicial branches.

For a group of people as large as the NSA and the contractors that work with it, and the type of collection they are doing, the number of times that over-collection occurs accidentally are small. It is extremely, extremly rare than the rules the NSA is given are broken in bad faith.

The NSA isn't a government agency that is out of control. It is a government agency that a large portion of the American people are unhappy with the direction the agency has been given.

The NSA can't just change their policies on their own based on public popularity polls, especially when the public is poorly informed at best, and can't really become well informed. The public can become better informed than they have been in the past, but transparency and intelligence operations simply don't work together beyond giving the public a basic understanding of the types of operations going on.

The people who are supposed to be making informed decisions are our elected officials, and if you look at what they do rather than just what they say, most of them aren't trying to make significant changes to how the NSA operates. That means the NSA shouldn't be making significant changes. The lack the authority to do so on their own.

So either we have made poor choices in our elected officials, or our officials are making decisions based on information we lack. There may well be some of both going on. Such things are rarely simple. We also tend to have trouble getting good elected officials to vote for and have to choose the ones we disagree with the least, and even then all the other less enlightened voters foolishly vote for the other guy.

Alexander is politically appointed. It's part of his job to get beat up for following the orders of his President. However, if the administration doesn't step up and take some responsibility the NSA and the contractors that support them are going to lose a lot of talented people with specialized skills that will be extremely hard to replace.

The administration and Congress needs to get their heads out of their rear ends and step up and do something. They either need to publicly make changes, or they need to publicly stand behind their decision to not make changes. Trying to deny knowledge and accountability will do long term damage to our intelligence community because we will lose the capability to be as effective. If we are going to reign in the NSA, and to some extent we need to do so, we need to make sure they are as effective as possible at what they are directed to do.


Kidding me?
By Movieman420 on 12/10/2013 9:37:10 PM , Rating: 1
NSA whining and cryin' to Obama? After all the shit they've pulled? They need to lie in the bed they maid...some nerve.




RE: Kidding me?
By stm1185 on 12/11/2013 12:03:04 AM , Rating: 2
They as in the Commander in Chief and his National Security Agency.

Obama should be taking the flak for this. If he believes it is right, he should be out there front and center championing the work being done and the people doing it.

If Obama believes it is wrong, he should order them to stop and remove them if they don't.

It's like a team looking at their coach to defend the plays he called and the coach hiding in the locker room.


RE: Kidding me?
By Reclaimer77 on 12/11/2013 12:25:01 AM , Rating: 2
Why don't you get a clue?

Obama knew about this. Hell he ORDERED the NSA to do this.

Yet because he's Obama, and he never stands up for his actions and show any leadership, he publicly threw the NSA under the bus and pretended he had nothing to do with it.

Only the morons who voted for this jackass twice could possibly believe this has been going on without the direct blessing of the President and his Administration.


RE: Kidding me?
By The Von Matrices on 12/11/13, Rating: 0
RE: Kidding me?
By ClownPuncher on 12/11/2013 11:14:54 AM , Rating: 2
You... you think Obama... might lie sometimes? Maybe?


RE: Kidding me?
By JDHammer on 12/11/2013 1:16:25 PM , Rating: 2
Well, yea...i mean

"Everybody Lies" -House


RE: Kidding me?
By Argon18 on 12/11/2013 12:55:51 PM , Rating: 2
Facts: Obama approved warrant-less wiretaps against American citizens. Obama approved extension and big expansion of the Patriot Act. Obama approved drone strikes against American citizens. Obama tripled the number of drone strikes against foreign targets as compared to GWB.

These are all public knowledge, while the NSA program wasn't. But you honestly believe Obama did not approve the NSA's spying program? Lmao. Wake up.


RE: Kidding me?
By Spuke on 12/11/2013 1:57:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
These are all public knowledge, while the NSA program wasn't. But you honestly believe Obama did not approve the NSA's spying program? Lmao. Wake up.
For something large scale like this you bet your a$$ he knew about the scope of this program.


RE: Kidding me?
By euclidean on 12/11/2013 12:55:29 PM , Rating: 2
Should be noted...Bush ordered the NSA to do this as well...technology has just improved since those years, so they're able to do more.

Laying blame to any of this on just 1 person totally ignores the problems caused by everyone else (including the congressmen who've voted for the Patriot Act, which allowed much of this NSA spying to happen in the first place).


Boohoo
By JasonMick (blog) on 12/10/2013 6:48:20 PM , Rating: 5
Maybe they can form some sort of support group with Hillary Clinton for officials who carried out Obama's mandates, then got thrown under the bus when the public scandal hit.

NSA Employee:
"Every day, I pour my heart out, spy and spy on little Jimmy's World of Warcraft account with no breaks to try to stop the next terrorist attack."

Hillary Clinton:
"I know how you feel... I mean granted I'll probably still become President because the voters are THAT dumb... but I mean, I thought Obama had my back. I thought we were friends... how do I make this pain go away?"

NSA Employee:
"I know, I mean if he doesn't have our back NOW, how can I trust that he'll have our back when news of our monitoring of American supervisors' sexual relations with their interns ... er, in the name of terrorism... leaks."

Hillary Clinton:
"Exactly... WAIT WHAT?!?"

NSA Employee:
::looks side to side:: "Oh, awkward... About that... you might want to stay offline for a little while."




RE: Boohoo
By UnauthorisedAccess on 12/10/2013 8:01:19 PM , Rating: 2
...and the text under your post just happen to be:

quote:
"My sex life is pretty good" -- Steve Jobs' random musings during the 2010 D8 conference


In Other News
By ebakke on 12/10/2013 6:41:20 PM , Rating: 5
World feeling "betrayed", "abused" after surveillance program revelations, wants NSA to GTFO




Double standard
By opy on 12/10/2013 8:38:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
many employees are asking to have their résumés wiped of any surveillance programs


So its okay the NSA keeps information on other people without their knowledge and permission?




Calling things by their right names...
By FaaR on 12/11/2013 3:16:51 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
“They feel they’ve been hung out to dry, and they’re right.”

This is called 'deflection'.

quote:
"Literally, neighbors are asking people, ‘Why are you spying on Grandma?’ And we aren’t.”

This is called 'astroturfing'.

Product labels are required by law to be accurate when it comes to things such as food, hygiene products, cosmetics and so on, but spying...? Not so much. So here is some handy guidance! ;)




Never Fails, have to mention Bush
By bobcpg on 12/11/2013 9:38:55 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Some former officials have even mentioned that former President George W. Bush visited the NSA in January 2006 after the New York Times reported that the agency engaged in a counterterrorism program of warrantless surveillance in the U.S.


Why, how does this even fit into your article? Its Obama's problem. But 5 years later still tring to get the Bush name in there.




Well, then ...
By danjw1 on 12/11/2013 9:49:35 AM , Rating: 2
Well, then they may want to think a bit on the oath they swore, to "Protect and defend the Constitution of the United States". Yep, that is the oath. Not to defend the United States, not to defend the administration, but the to defend the Constitution. Maybe a little reflection on that would do them some good.




vanishing integrity
By Chaser on 12/11/2013 10:24:52 AM , Rating: 2
Had Snowden not revealed these practices the NSA wouldn't be whining for a redemption hug. Instead they would be standing proudly on their "important mission for the service to our country."

But this issue is a reflection of many people and the U.S. government in general. Personal integrity and accountability has been all but lost in our society replaced by "I'll do whatever I like or am told until we get caught".




Spying on Grandma
By Schrag4 on 12/11/2013 11:26:36 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Literally, neighbors are asking people, ‘Why are you spying on Grandma?’ And we aren’t.


In the voice of Russell (David Spade) from Rules of Engagement: "You kinda are!"




Thanks!
By jihadjoe on 12/11/2013 1:44:08 PM , Rating: 2
THANKS, OBAMA! --NSA




Awwww
By Ammohunt on 12/11/2013 2:37:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
“The agency, from top to bottom, leadership to rank and file, feels that it is had no support from the White House


Now they know how most of the American people feel! Join the club NSA!




JOBS REQUIRED........
By debracra435 on 12/11/2013 4:33:46 PM , Rating: 2
Argently jobs required... Its simple home based job are u intrested or if u need a job for more detail contact this site.... No experience needed too

JOBS61.¢øm




dear Mr Obama and NSA Staff
By wombatinaus on 12/11/2013 10:32:12 PM , Rating: 2
Spaying on this scale is just one 'price' that the citizens of USA and other countries will pay and enduare. USA government has not changed its policy approach since the end of WWII and cold war with USSR. They are blind to the cost and waste of money this program brings. The outcomes are mostly negative. USA CITIZENS need to wake up,think independently and not vote for these corrupted reps in the congress etc. PS : NSA directors and staff can get stuffed, period.




"I modded down, down, down, and the flames went higher." -- Sven Olsen














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