• Home
  •  » High Street
  •  » The Bush-Obama-Trump Whitehouse - Your privacy down the shitter

#26 2013-06-10 10:14:37

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/6/9/1370794034126/NSA-Kids-books-001.jpg
~Clicky~

Extra credit.

"Horton Hears Every Goddamn Thing You Say"

Last edited by whosasailorthen (2013-06-10 10:18:13)

Offline

 

#27 2013-06-10 11:10:47

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/dwarf_fortress.png

Offline

 

#28 2013-06-10 13:26:24

Johnny_Rotten wrote:

I wonder what Em's take on this will be? Given that Snowden claims to have carefully sorted through what he would release to avoid harming people but outing the most essential methods of our war efforts. Does that make him different than Manning? Does such document dumps become justified by applying such consideration. What about this would make Snowden a hero vs Manning a traitor?

Em thinks the jury is still out on this one.  Again, unlike Ellsberg, he does not seem to be a stable individual however at the same time this program was pre-assumed by most of us and is rehensible in concept.

Offline

 

#29 2013-06-10 15:54:58

If so many of you believe the whole world knew all along that our government was listening in on every email, phone, cell, and social media communication, then it wasn't much of a secret.  I suspect the terrorist networks are at least as informed as our High-Street heads.  Therefore, what has Snowden done except out a poorly kept secret?  Manning, on the other hand, turned over tactical and strategic information which had life and death consequences to our troops and our informants.  Notwithstanding the expressed consequences for a soldier who turns over military secrets.

Offline

 

#30 2013-06-10 17:17:53

phreddy wrote:

Manning, on the other hand, turned over tactical and strategic information which had life and death consequences to our troops and our informants.

Name one.

Offline

 

#31 2013-06-10 18:23:28

Tall Paul wrote:

phreddy wrote:

Manning, on the other hand, turned over tactical and strategic information which had life and death consequences to our troops and our informants.

Name one.

Here is a list.  The prosecution has already stated they will present the details of actual damages he caused at the penalty phase of his trial.

Were he not a young gay kid, his support would be minimal.

Offline

 

#32 2013-06-10 18:36:04

phreddy's list wrote:

Did I read your statement correctly? Did you actually say that the prosecution of Bradley Manning is justified because evidence of guilt will only be presented after his conviction? Way to promote truth, justice and The American Way, Superman!

Last edited by Tall Paul (2013-06-10 18:47:00)

Offline

 

#33 2013-06-10 18:49:19

Emmeran wrote:

Again, unlike Ellsberg, he does not seem to be a stable individual

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Ell … g_break-in

Guess we'll never know.

Offline

 

#34 2013-06-10 19:04:17

Tall Paul wrote:

Did I read your statement correctly? Did you actually say that the prosecution of Bradley Manning is justified because evidence of guilt will only be presented after his conviction? Way to promote truth, justice and The American Way, Superman!

No Paul, you did not read my statement correctly, which is not unusual.  I said evidence of the damage his crimes have caused will be presented at the penalty phase of his trial.  You probably don't know that proving damage caused by his actions is not needed to convict him of aiding the enemy.  However, after he is convicted, the judge takes those damages into account when deciding his fate.  This is why you always see the family of the victims testifying during this phase.  I hope this was helpful and enlightening for you.

Offline

 

#35 2013-06-10 20:29:41

phreddy wrote:

Tall Paul wrote:

Did I read your statement correctly? Did you actually say that the prosecution of Bradley Manning is justified because evidence of guilt will only be presented after his conviction? Way to promote truth, justice and The American Way, Superman!

No Paul, you did not read my statement correctly, which is not unusual.  I said evidence of the damage his crimes have caused will be presented at the penalty phase of his trial.  You probably don't know that proving damage caused by his actions is not needed to convict him of aiding the enemy.  However, after he is convicted, the judge takes those damages into account when deciding his fate.  This is why you always see the family of the victims testifying during this phase.  I hope this was helpful and enlightening for you.

You're right, I didn't know that proof of guilt was not required to prove guilt, Comrade.

Last edited by Tall Paul (2013-06-10 20:30:04)

Offline

 

#37 2013-06-10 21:00:50

Stands to reason, all those immigrants and all, plus the old red connections.

Offline

 

#38 2013-06-11 03:10:41

With PRISM leaker Ed Snowden now presumed missing, here's the ballerina he left behind. Click image.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/06/10/article-0-1A3FA56E000005DC-15_634x632.jpg

Last edited by choad (2013-06-11 03:12:33)

Offline

 

#39 2013-06-11 05:36:22

While I do think this is the most important (and expected) exposure in the last hundred years and she does appear to be smoking hot I also must remind everyone that one man's junk is another man's treasure.

Offline

 

#40 2013-06-11 11:40:28

omaha.com wrote:

The U.S. Congress may look into the NSA leaks. That's good news. We should have some answers by March of 2039.

To get some privacy, President Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping went for a walk alone in the California desert. Fortunately, the NSA had placed a microphone inside a salamander, so part of their conversation was recorded.

The federal government barely knows anything about China's activities these days. It's too busy monitoring the Verizon records of a fry cook in Moline.

***Linked for attribution only***

!!!!What have I done wrong here - this type of linking normally works!!!!

edit: linking stalls at line breaks

Last edited by choad (2013-06-11 12:05:25)

Offline

 

#41 2013-06-11 12:19:44

Thanks To Fnord For This:

Last edited by Dmtdust (2013-06-11 12:21:05)

Offline

 

#42 2013-06-11 12:33:09

Dmtdust wrote:

Thanks To Fnord For This:

For Democrats, it's all a matter of politics.  It's OK to trample your civil rights so long as a Democrat doing the trampling. 

Democrats now view the NSA’s phone surveillance as acceptable by 64% to 34%. In January 2006, by a similar margin (61% to 36%), Democrats said it was unacceptable for the NSA to scrutinize phone calls and emails of suspected terrorists.

And don't tell me the Republicans have flipped too, because back in 2006 we were told monitoring was only of known terrorists.  This was and is fine with Republicans today.  Dems, on the other hand, were dead set against it back then, but now monitoring every American is just fine.  Hypocrites!!!

Offline

 

#43 2013-06-11 12:47:13

Good for you phreddy. You found another reason to make yourself feel superior. But the fact is, and was, that ALL phone calls and emails were being monitored for key words or phrases. I clearly recall seeing lists of terms which would flag your calls for review.

So keep telling yourself the lies and believing them. (sarcasm) It will make you a better person in the end. (/sarcasm)

Offline

 

#44 2013-06-11 13:06:40

Essential reading: The NSA's infrastructure for monitoring every communication in the USA

The former NSA official held his thumb and forefinger close together: “We are that far from a turnkey totalitarian state.”

Last edited by lechero (2013-06-11 13:08:31)

Offline

 

#45 2013-06-11 13:56:27

phreddy wrote:

Dmtdust wrote:

Thanks To Fnord For This:

For Democrats, it's all a matter of politics.  It's OK to trample your civil rights so long as a Democrat doing the trampling. 

Democrats now view the NSA’s phone surveillance as acceptable by 64% to 34%. In January 2006, by a similar margin (61% to 36%), Democrats said it was unacceptable for the NSA to scrutinize phone calls and emails of suspected terrorists.

And don't tell me the Republicans have flipped too, because back in 2006 we were told monitoring was only of known terrorists.  This was and is fine with Republicans today.  Dems, on the other hand, were dead set against it back then, but now monitoring every American is just fine.  Hypocrites!!!

Er.... no.

Offline

 

#46 2013-06-11 14:18:05

Keep playing that dems vs. repubs card Phreddy.  It's worked great so far, and has been 100% accurate....

Offline

 

#47 2013-06-11 14:45:56

I thought we were done with that version of the game.

Offline

 

#48 2013-06-11 16:35:54

XregnaR wrote:

Keep playing that dems vs. repubs card Phreddy.  It's worked great so far, and has been 100% accurate....

I hope you noticed that I was simply responding to Dusty's nasty little snipe at Bush.  I really don't give a shit who started all this invasion of privacy, I just want it to stop.  And, doing so will require the majority of Dems to revert to their previous position of believing it is a violation of civil rights.

Offline

 

#49 2013-06-11 16:52:53

phreddy wrote:

XregnaR wrote:

Keep playing that dems vs. repubs card Phreddy.  It's worked great so far, and has been 100% accurate....

I hope you noticed that I was simply responding to Dusty's nasty little snipe at Bush.  I really don't give a shit who started all this invasion of privacy, I just want it to stop.  And, doing so will require the majority of Dems to revert to their previous position of believing it is a violation of civil rights.

G. Washington started this little game here in America - good luck at ending it.

Offline

 

#50 2013-06-11 20:27:11

phreddy wrote:

XregnaR wrote:

Keep playing that dems vs. repubs card Phreddy.  It's worked great so far, and has been 100% accurate....

I hope you noticed that I was simply responding to Dusty's nasty little snipe at Bush.  I really don't give a shit who started all this invasion of privacy, I just want it to stop.  And, doing so will require the majority of Dems to revert to their previous position of believing it is a violation of civil rights.

I give a shit that the man ignored all of the ample warnings about Bin Laden's plans, and then used a ruse to invade Iraq to pay back some supposed slight that Bush Sr. had from Saddam.  Several thousand dead American & British forces died for that asswipes lies, plus countless Iraqi's, the majority of them civilians for that little perves transgressions.  Stand Trial?  I want to see him, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Blair & Condie swing from a gibbet for their war crimes.

That man started the fucking run away train of the NSA shitting down our collective throats, and you think that was a nasty little swipe?  I was being generous to that fucking war criminal.

Offline

 
  • Home
  •  » High Street
  •  » The Bush-Obama-Trump Whitehouse - Your privacy down the shitter

Board footer

high-street.org