General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI'll admit it - I'm tired.
I'm tired of trying to argue facts and logic against people who ignore such things. I nore or less expect that of RW ACTIVISTS, but I was surprised to find the same thing here.
I came here looking for some honest debate and some facts - instead, I find people spreading lies and speculation and presenting them as fact.
What I also found was people trying to split our party. Although DU's rules specifically restrict anyone from advocating a non-Democratic candidate, because of our desire to allow free speech this site has allowed criticism of a candidate's policies. Although this rule is well-intentioned, it has allowed many who may or may not have have ulterior motives to post here to discredit Democratic interests and discredit Democratic candidates.
Nobody's perfect.
What really chaps my ass is that many of these people do not present facts or relay backup to their views, but rely on Rovian techniques. This includes speculation such as "the NSA is spying on all Americans" when in fact they present no evidence, and indeed the evidence indicates the opposite.
I am not calling out anyone, but if you are guilty of such techniques you should know who you are.
But even as tired as I am, I am not going anywhere. As long as you continue to post BS, I will be here to call you on it. I don't care how many you recruit to call me out, or what names you call me -
I stand for TRUTH and the FACTS.
And I, like so many others, will stay here to call out the BS and LIES.
You can't win when TRUTH is against you.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Skittles
(153,174 posts)if you notice, more and more their silly OPS are echo chambers for them alone
Kinda like the OP.
Skittles
(153,174 posts)
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)STATEMENT OF VICE ADMIRAL MICHAEL McCONNELL,
USN (RETIRED), EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT,
NATIONAL SECURITY BUSINESS, BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON
As an intelligence officer, I'm often asked to make
predictions. I want to make three predictions for you:
The first is, we will not mitigate this risk. We'll talk
about it, we'll wave our arms, we'll have a bill, but we will
not mitigate this risk. And as a consequence of not mitigating
the risk, we're going to have a catastrophic event. In our
wonderful democracy, it usually takes a forcing function to
move us to action. And it is my belief, having followed this
from the early 1990s, it's going to take that catastrophic
event.
Now, my second prediction is, the Government's role is
going to dramatically change. It is going to be a very active
role in the future of telecommunications in this country and,
in fact, in global telecommunications.
My third prediction is, we're going to morph the Internet
from something that's referred to, generally, as ``dot-com'' to
something I would call ``dot-secure.'' It will be a new way of
communicating. Because when transactions move billions of
dollars, or when transactions route trains up and down the East
Coast or control electric power or touch our lives in the way
they do at such a significant level, the basic attributes of
security must be endorsed. And the first attribute of security
is not a scrambled text to protect a secret. The first
attribute is authentication; who's doing this transaction. If
it's a $10-billion transaction, don't you need to know for sure
who's conducting the transaction? The second attribute is data
integrity. You didn't move that decimal. The third is
nonrepudiation.
...
So, we're not going to do what we need to do. We're going
to have a catastrophic event. The Government's role is going to
change dramatically, and then we're going to go to a new
infrastructure.
...
I'll finish with just an example. Nuclear weapons are easy
to imagine, because there's the mushroom cloud and the
shockwave. When nuclear weapons happened, this Nation took
action to put the government in charge. There was a joint
committee of Congress to oversee it and fund it, and the law
said only the government could own things that were nuclear.
Now, that's mitigated over time. That committee was determined
to be unconstitutional, and we created the Department of
Energy, and it has gone on. We've got commercial nuclear energy
and so on. So, we learned over time to adjust to that.
If you take telecommunications and the Internet, it's
almost entirely in the private sector, and it's going in the
other direction. But, it has become so important and so
potentially significant, in my view, it rivals nuclear weapons,
in terms of potential damage to the country.
So, the government was hands-off to start. And if you look
at the evolution of the 50-year cycles, whether it was building
canals or textile machinery or railroads or automobiles, that
cycle repeated, where the government had a greater role when it
affected more people. And we're reaching that point now. So,
either we have a forcing function through a catastrophic event
or, hopefully, your bill will be law and we can have the
forcing function to deal with this in the way we must deal with
it. We must develop a deterrence policy, and we're probably
going to have to figure out how we engage in preemption, where
those that wish us harm cannot be deterred.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-111shrg57888/html/CHRG-111shrg57888.htm
jazzimov
(1,456 posts)As evidenced by his first quotation:
"I want to make three predictions for you"
Now, his testimony may carry more weight than others, but it is still just Speculation based on his opinion.
After that, his speculations become harder to swallow because of his hyperbole.
randome
(34,845 posts)A perfect example of what you said.
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font]
[hr]
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)MR. LITT: So I think I’m going to not answer the first question, just because I think as posed, it’s really too vague to admit of an easy answer.
What I can do is talk a little bit about process again, which is to say that we think about these issues all the time. The FISA court thinks about them when we go for FISA court applications. We have – in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, we have a Civil Liberties Protection Officer who thinks about these issues all the time. The President’s Intelligence Advisory Board and the PCLOB think about them all the time, and the Congress thinks about them all the time. And I think they’re worth talking about and thinking about.
Kate raised the question of whether the standard Fourth Amendment law about no expectation of privacy in information that you voluntarily expose to third parties, whether that law ought to continue. That’s a debate that’s worth having. It is the law now, however, and we make use of that authority.
....
KATE MARTIN: Well, I’ve known Bob for many years, and I’m sure everything he said was correct, but I do disagree about the significance of the authorities and the programs that he laid out. And I want to start maybe by making the provocative comment that, you know, the American people shouldn’t be treated as idiots. If what Bob has just laid out had been told to the American public at the time when Congress was debating what the scope of surveillance powers should be, it might well be that we would have less public distrust of the government, and maybe even Snowden wouldn’t have done what he did and made such a big splash.
I think there are two separate issues raised by the revelations. The first set of issues goes to the question of First Amendment protections and the requirement that I think is a constitutional one, that the public has a right to know what its government’s doing and that we don’t operate under a system of secret law. The second set of issues are about the privacy rights of Americans.
And I’ll just make a couple of comments about the first. I think that the basic issue raised by the disclosure on the First Amendment side of the 215 program – which is a program that Bob described as collecting all of the telephone metadata of all domestic phone calls in this country – is that we didn’t know that the law had given the government the authority to do that. I’ve been involved in these debates for longer than I would really care to think about, and we were worried about that. And in 2006, when the secret NSA spying programs were first revealed by The New York Times and then by follow-up news stories, what happened after that is that in the next two years, Congress sat down and said, do we need to change the law in order to authorize some of this, in order to prevent some of this? What do we need to do? And in that debate, the government was conspicuously silent about the fact that it had decided that Section 215 would allow it to collect – to do this bulk collection program of telephone metadata.
mick063
(2,424 posts)If each and every individual's Face book page isn't properly authenticated, a mushroom cloud will kill millions.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Do you not get that whole wars will occur (and are already starting to occur) over dominance of the Internet? Espionage in that effort has taken on a whole new facet. Yes it is about power.
mick063
(2,424 posts)money, oil, political ideology, borders, lies, fear, nuclear capability, military buildup, weapons of mass destruction, terrorism, and now we can finally include the internet.
Thank you.
I feel enlightened now.
I grew up during the Cuban Missile crisis. As a child, I was terrified listening to my parents discussions. For some reason, I'm not exactly terrified about internet wars.
Corporate moguls will tell us that the reason they can bathe in vaults of gold is because they take great risk. It seems to me, they wish for me, the taxpayer, to cover that risk at great cost. This is what internet wars are about. Correct? Protecting corporate risk? Thirty years ago corporations were actually doing quite well without the internet. Perhaps they could assume less risk and go back to the old ways?
If lost internet assets cost them billions, perhaps a withdrawal from the Cayman Islands might cover it? Or perhaps they can hire their own contractor to provide such services? This is the world of privatization. There are certainly specialists that can provide all the help they need. Why should I pay for it?
As for myself, I can't eat an ipad, but I certainly can be marketed with it.
What kind of military would become so reliant on the internet, that it couldn't function without it? We spend more than the next ten countries combined and a coordinated group of hackers can stop us in our tracks? I ask this because I'm trying to figure out how the internet can be used as a tactical or strategic weapon. Many years ago, when I was in the Navy, we had folks work solutions with pencil and paper, just in case an automated system became inoperable. The military has given up on that concept? We have no means of carrying on without the internet? Who made that brilliant command decision?
So how are our efforts with the Chinese Cyber War going lately? Are we winning?
I wanna know because we happen to be sending factories, jobs, and a whole lot of money over there. I hope they don't get accidently shut down by a rogue US government contracted hacker. I wouldn't have the vast selection of cheap merchandise at Walmart if it happened.
nolabels
(13,133 posts)They cannot make their money if you are not, so be very scared please 
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Whether it's from the media or bloggers.
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)Yet the Fourth Amendment is clearly not always at issue when NSA or another intelligence agency acts, and the FISA surely never sought to encompass all activities of the NSA within its coverage. Rather, the definitions of the term "electronic surveillance" contained in the statute have always affected just a portion of NSA's signals intelligence mission. Indeed, by far the bulk of NSA's surveillance activities take place overseas, and these activities are directed entirely at foreign countries and foreign persons within those countries. All concerned agree, and to my knowledge have always agreed, that the FISA does not and should not apply to such activities. When NSA undertakes surveillance that does not meet any of the definitions of electronic surveillance contained in the FISA, it does so without any resort to the court and without reliance on a showing of probable cause.
...
Because of the way the definitions of "electronic surveillance" contained in the current statute are constructed, the answers to several questions are relevant to the determination of whether a FISA order is required in order for NSA to engage in electronic surveillance. These questions concern the nationality of the target, the location of the target, the means by which the target is communicating, and the location from which the surveillance will be carried out. We believe that the truly significant question on this list is the one that gets to the heart of the applicability of the constitution- the location of the target of surveillance. The other questions reflect a common sense approach to 1978 technology that worked well in 1978, but that today appears to have unintended effects.
...
The legislative history makes clear with respect to that definition that when the communications of U.S. persons located in the United States are targeted, the surveillance is within the scope of FISA irrespective of whether the communications are domestic or international and likewise irrespective of where the surveillance is being carried out. 2 The same legislative history regarding that first definition of electronic surveillance makes equally clear, however, that the statute does not regulate the acquisition of communications of U.S. persons in the United States when those persons are not the actual targets of the surveillance. 3
We think these principles, clearly and artfully captured in parts of the legislation and in the legislative history, should extend to all surveillance under the FISA. The need for a court order should not depend on whether NSA's employees conducting the surveillance are inside the United States or outside the United States, nor should it depend on whether the communications meet the technical definition of"wire communications" or not. These factors, never directly relevant in principle but once relevant in the context of yesterday's telecommunications infrastructure, are today utterly irrelevant to the central question at issue - who are the people requiring protections.
...
In addition to changes to the definition of electronic surveillance, other changes in the bill are important as well. First, and most crucially, the Government must retain a means to compel communications providers to provide information to the Government even in the absence of a Court Order. The Bill would authorize the Attorney General to require such cooperation, and would also insulate from liability those companies that assist the IC in preventing future attacks on the United States.
More here:
http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/speeches_testimonies/26july06_dirnsa.shtml
jazzimov
(1,456 posts)That's from 2006! when Bush was illegally wiretapping without warrants.1 The law was completely changed in 2008.
See what I mean, everyone? Some people will LIE to make you believe something is true that isn't true. Or, i'll give them the benefit of the doubt, maybe they're just too stupid to follow history.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)the FISA Bill, retroactively, so blatant it made all of us sick, BACK THEN, by adding an Amendment not requiring Warrants until AFTER THE FACT. BS, it was then and it is NOW.
And we watched as Congress passed an Amendment whose whole purpose was to save Bush and his telecom law breakers from prosecution. Iow, they mad LEGAL what was clearly ILLEGAL and against the Constitution. Their Amendment is STILL anti-Constitutional and no amount of back tracking NOW can change that.
When did you come to support that travesty? Was it when they saved Bush from what you JUST SAID, acting illegally? Or was it later?
Lots of laws have been passed, bad laws, that later went down in history as the stain on this country that they were. THIS is one of them. One day we will see those who are using it now as a bludgeon to protect anti-Constitutional crimes, the same way we see those whose angry faces have become synonymous with the ugliness of bigotry, touting the LAW that allowed them to behave they way they did at that time.
Because sooner or later these wrongs are righted as history shows.
But to see anyone using that piece of trash Amendment to defend exactly what Bush was doing back then, is simply disgraceful, on a Democratic forum.
stupidicus
(2,570 posts)once they "get it".
They remind me of rightwingnut flat earthers who either simply don't make the effort or that are utterly incapable of understanding the science, and prefer to just take the word of those who really don't have their interests in mind. In this instance you have to believe that all this BS is designed for and intended solely for catching terrorists -- despite the abysmal track record it has for doing so.
Why they could be reading this as I type it
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57589495-38/nsa-spying-flap-extends-to-contents-of-u.s-phone-calls/
this claim of "no facts" is about as ridiculous as all those "racist" claims a couple of weeks back.
if anybody is like and "debates" like a rightwingnut around here, it's...
These "rally" posts get more amusing by the day.
Amonester
(11,541 posts)We're not biting.
sheshe2
(83,846 posts)That's from 2006! when Bush was illegally wiretapping without warrants.
Excellent, jazzimov!
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)ever that weakened the FISA Bill by making what Bush did LEGAL. And Democrats across the land condemned that blatant and unprecedented act by the US Congress to protect a felon in the WH from prosecution for his treasonous crimes.
And the people were told that if only they would vote for Democrats, (many of whom VOTED for that POS Admendment) they would 'fix' that travesty of an Amendment.
Fast forward to the year 2008, the people, some of whom had their faith a little shaken when THEIR candidate, having condemned the blatant Congressional attempt to save a felonious President from prosecution, shocked them by voting FOR it, did what was asked of them, they threw out Republicans across the land and voted in Democrats in the WH and both Houses of Congress.
Everyone breathed a sigh of relief, the felon, no not a felon thanks to the retroactive 'bill' rushed through Congress, was GONE. Hope was in the air, hope that finally the Rule of Law could be applied and the sham of an Amendment rescinded.
But before long the people were told that we were not going to 'look back, we were going to look forward' and the felonious president and his partners in crime, were not going to be prosecuted after all.
Fast forward again to the year 2013 when a number of leaks revealed a massive surveillance program of the type discovered back in the year 2006 and a surprising thing began to happen.
Some of the very same people who had loudly condemned the crimes committed by Bush, made Legal by Congress with an infamous Amendment passed with the sole purpose of saving Bush from prosecution therefore having ZERO credibility as laws go, was suddenly pulled from its dusty hiding place and waved aloft in DEFENSE of what it had been passed to protect.
The Amendment was a sham back then and it is still a sham. Bush's illegal acts you are talking were made LEGAL by that pos Amendment. They are STILL illegal no matter what Congress did, and what is going on today is illegal, because all of it violates the REAL LAW of the Land.
It's amazing to see anyone say that what Bush did was illegal. NO, it was made LEGAL by the very law you are using to defend it now.
Facts won't sway them though.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)In particular, to realize... "It's amazing to see anyone say that what Bush did was illegal. NO, it was made LEGAL by the very law you are using to defend it now."
This is what happens when even 10 years is too long a period to look back on. Perhaps the biggest frustration was the way we were supposed to have forgotten the avalanche to weaken civil rights by "looking forward". This is what happens when you forget to look back and not learn by history, but repeat it.
Thank you for the reminder to pay attention to what was once a cry against the crimes committed by Bush and Company.
Yavin4
(35,445 posts)then turn right around and worship Greenwald and Snowden.
jazzimov
(1,456 posts)"Sure, I knew you could".
The problem is that such hypocrisy simply doesn't register with them, and they can't conceive themselves as being hypocritical.
That would require an awareness of the limitations of their egos. And, for some reason, many of them can't allow themselves to admit that,
Well, they could be "wrong". It would destroy their ego.
think
(11,641 posts)and many others high ranking officials were wiretapped illegally by the NSA under Bush?
He claims also that the Supreme court justices , activists, journalists, members of the state department lawyers and law firms were also wiretapped.
Russ Tice is the whistle blower who exposed the illegal wiretapping under Bush:
Military & Defense More: NSA Surveillance Barack Obama Spying
ORIGINAL NSA WHISTLEBLOWER: I Saw The Order To Wiretap Barack Obama In 2004
Russ Tice worked as an offensive National Security Agency (NSA) agent from 2002 to 2005, before becoming a source for this Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times article exposing NSA domestic spying.
This week he appeared on the Boiling Frogs Show and detailed how he had his hands "in the nitty-gritty, the nuts and bolts" during his 20 years as a U.S. intelligence analyst.
Tice claimed that he held NSA wiretap orders targeting numerous members of the U.S. government, including one for a young senator from Illinois named Barack Obama.
~Snip~
"The abuse is rampant and everyone is pretending that it's never happened, and it couldn't happen. ... I know [there was abuse] because I had my hands on the papers for these sorts of things: They went after high-ranking military officers; they went after members of congress — Senate and the House — especially on the intelligence committees and the armed services committees, lawyers, law firms, judges, State Department officials, part of the White House, multinational companies, financial firms, NGOs, civil rights groups ..."
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-nsa-spied-on-barack-obama-2004-russ-tice-2013-6#ixzz2YPmkGu8a
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)think
(11,641 posts)It's not old news. Russ Tice, Sibel Edmonds, Thomas Drake and other whistle blowers should be able to testify before congress with their gag orders lifted.
So please don't brush off these allegations and tell me things are all better now when 22 sitting Democratic Senators have signed a letter asking the NSA if they are still breaking the law because they don't know.
randome
(34,845 posts)Tice has done his reputation a disservice by blabbing about stuff he says he saw. What's next? A bona-fide 'vision' of a UFO?
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font]
[hr]
jazzimov
(1,456 posts)
As I stated before, many of us worked HARD to change the policies in 2008. to ignore that is insulting to all of us who actually WORKED to change the policies and instill some LAWS.
think
(11,641 posts)How about you let him and the other whistle blowers testify in front of congress without any gag orders and let congress investigate his claims?
Comparing Russ Tice, the whistleblower who exposed the Bush illegal spying to a UFO nut is lame. Just lame...
'intellectually dishonest' would be more accurate.
think
(11,641 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Exactly what I said! These Snowden/Greenwald minions keep going on and on about things these people "SAY" and counting that as proof!
jazzimov
(1,456 posts)which helped lead to the 2008 Law.
Those of us who fought vehemently for those changes which resulted in the 2008 Law greatly take offense to those who DARE to compare the two policies.
We worked HARD to change the wiretapping laws in 2008. For you to compare the 2 is insulting.
think
(11,641 posts)and you are blowing if off as an insult?
If these allegations are true then it means all 3 branches of govt were illegally wiretapped NOT META DATA and the American public was NEVER informed!
That is what you should be outraged at. But feel free to be outraged at me for bringing it up....
jazzimov
(1,456 posts)If he was talking about Bush's illegal wiretapping (which is the info I have) then I have to wonder WHY DID HE WAIT SO LONG?
The information he is giving is old news that we've already acted on and has no relation to the current situation.
Yes, I find it very insulting to those of us that actually ACTED on the info that he is just now releasing and pretending that it is "new".
Wouldn't you?
think
(11,641 posts)Seriously your answers lack any facts and then when presented with facts you have the audacity to feign insult.
Fact Russ Tice exposed illegal wire tapping under Bush
Fact Russ Tice wanted to testify before congress but congress claimed they weren't cleared to hear the testimony because it is CLASSIFIED!
On January 5, 2006, The Washington Times reported that Tice wants to testify before Congress about electronic intelligence programs that he asserts were carried out illegally by the NSA and DIA. "I intend to report to Congress probable unlawful and unconstitutional acts conducted while I was an intelligence officer with the National Security Agency and with the Defense Intelligence Agency," Tice stated in letters, dated December 16, 2005 and disclosed by the Times.
In a letter dated January 10, 2006, Renee Seymour, Director of the NSA Special Access Programs Central Office, warned Tice that members of neither the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, nor of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence had clearance to receive the classified information about the SAP's that Tice was prepared to provide. An article by Chris Strohm in Government Executive says that some Congressional staffers believe that Tice "comes with baggage".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russ_Tice
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=2268\
You might want to do some research before you make opinionated posts that lack any factual references.
Russ Tice risked everything to expose the illegal wiretapping and you completely dismiss his actions and testimony as irrelevant without any discussion or doing any research.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Facts require PROOF!
think
(11,641 posts)because they didn't have clearance to hear him because his testimony was CLASSIFIED
Can you grasp that? Seriously!
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)can YOU grasp that?
think
(11,641 posts)Seriously if you cared about the truth you'd quit deflecting and discuss the facts based on their merits.
But instead you act like whistle blower testimony and congressional inquiries are not worthy of discussion.
So quit with your condescension and stick with some facts.
If you cared you'd want Tice, Drake, Sibel Edmonds and other whistle blowers to testify before congress without gag orders so we could get tot he bottom of this.
Any more deflections or do you have some facts you'd care to share?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)You keep saying that word....but I don't think you understand its meaning
think
(11,641 posts)means
Let the whistle blowers testify WITHOUT gag orders.
And you are still being condescending without responding in regards to letting the whistleblowers testify so we can get to those facts you claim to desire so badly.
But hey just keep screaming WHAT FACTS while ignoring the reasons why these whistle blowers can't provide these facts because they fucking classified.
your constant barrage of empty rhetoric is quite tiring....
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)how do you not get that? Talk is cheap....Show me that this happened!
think
(11,641 posts)What don't you understand about Russ Tice not being able to testify due to the truth being classified?
Go ahead and dismiss Tice again as lacking evidence while all you do is try to discredit the whistle blower who exposed the illegal wire tapping to begin with....
RC
(25,592 posts)Aren't there penalties for doing that? Why would he openly volunteer and admit he wanted to lie to Congress?
If what he wanted to say, under oath before Congress, were facts and truth, would that not be in itself, proof?
I would think so. Testifying under oath is a common way to get at the truth.
Can YOU grasp that?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Can YOU grasp that?
think
(11,641 posts)and expect your deflection of his previous deeds to dismiss his current allegations.
You've been told he couldn't testify before congress because congress isn't authorized to hear his testimony. So secret law trumped his ability to tell the truth.
And that doesn't even seem to phase you....
think
(11,641 posts)and prefers to reply by making a dubious assumption about a reliable source.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)jazzimov
(1,456 posts)
zappaman
(20,606 posts)The inability to stay focused on the message?
The annoying sound of drums beating out or rhythm?
Take your pick...
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)zappaman
(20,606 posts)Is that what they say?
HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)Curse Sir Walter Raleigh, why don't you, you stupid git?
jazzimov
(1,456 posts)I'm guessing that you are quoting from John Lennon, from the White Album.
And the reference to Sir Walter Raleigh was a a reference to Walter Raleigh cigarettes, which were poplular at the time and was also a reference to the previous line;
"...I'll have another cigarette,
and curse Sir Walter Raleigh,
he was such a stupid get....
You'd say, I'm putting you on,
but it's no joke, it's doing me harm
you know I can't sleep...'
Thanks! I'm going to have to go listen to that CD now!
HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)the video sometime. It's very cool.
Enjoy!
jazzimov
(1,456 posts)video of the entire IMAGINE album - which was really awesome! My personal favorite was OH, MY LOVE which emphasized them floating in a canoe on the river. Still one of the most beautiful love songs of all times.
But it also contained one of the worst vids I've ever seen, Yoko doing her "primal scream" thing while they played chess and hid the pieces in their boots.
OK, you've done it - I'm off to find I'm So Tired and play it.....
and curse Sir Walter Raleigh, while I smoke another cigarette.....
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)
more likely the criticism of sir walter was because he was one of the people who introduced & popularized tobacco use in britain.
1600: ENGLAND: Sir Walter Raleigh persuades Queen Elizabeth to try smoking
1618-48: ENGLAND: SIR WALTER RALEIGH, popularizer of tobacco in England, is beheaded for treason. Upon Ralegh's tobacco box, found in his cell afterwards, is the inscription, "Comes meus fuit illo miserrimo tempo." ("It was my comfort in those miserable times."
http://archive.tobacco.org/resources/history/Tobacco_History17.html
CakeGrrl
(10,611 posts)for someone to back up the claim that
"The Government/White House is spying on us"
The 'us' presumably meaning Joe Average U.S. citizen.
And if someone has it, drop it off to Congress. Darrell Issa is just waitin' to impeach.
jazzimov
(1,456 posts)They can't.
If they had a case, chances are that the Republicans would have pounced on it by now in order to impeach.
If they didn't for whatever reason (McCain? Seriously?), someone would have sued the government by now. Even if they didn't have any money, they would have been backed by the ACLU.
Regardless, we shouldn't have to wait for this to happen Perhaps it is time to re-visit this. The last time was in 2008, and I think it is time. But let's discuss it rationally - not with our hair on fire.
CakeGrrl
(10,611 posts)what are the odds when a baffling number of people appear to firmly believe that
** The "Government/Establishment/NSA/Obama" will kill Snowden if the U.S. apprehends him
** Snowden has committed NO crime, and even if he did, WALL STREET!!!!
** If you believe Snowden is anything other than a heroic whistleblower, then you hate him and support the Surveillance State. Period.
The extreme logic of the GOP/MSM being all over any Obama wrongdoing if there were any to be found? It falls on totally deaf ears.
There is no room for rational discussion here. It's all fueled by emotion and speculation.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)
freshwest
(53,661 posts)
Amonester
(11,541 posts)turnout (like they were in 2010), to the point the Repukes would not only end up keeping the House, but also gaining a super majority in the Senate, they will probably do everything they can get away with to twist the facts, just like the Obama bashers do here and worse, to impeach not just Obama, but Biden also!
We Know How Good (or bad) They Are At Spinning stuff, right?
So, thanks to these burning hairs, we would end up with their dream team of idiots: orangeman/turtleman...
That's the(ir) ticket!!!11!!111 
mick063
(2,424 posts)Can we tear down the building that stores the data already?
Since you seem to be "in the loop", explain the justification for storing it.
In my mind, storing the data is equivalent to spying. Storing it is the "showstopper" for me.
Convince me otherwise. I'll lend an open ear.
Start your rational discussion.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)And as you define it.
And I would suppose the collection of your meta data is not spying right?
So is it OK with you if I have a record of all the web sites you went to in the last 5 years or so....and who you called and where you were when you called and how long you talked?...would you find that a bit creepy....but it is not spying?
That is the beauty of re defining words...you can make them say what you want.
Cha
(297,503 posts)DU needs your voice and many others so the Echo Chamber isn't left all by them lonesomes.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Why you are no better than Stalin!
I'm with you!
jazzimov
(1,456 posts)of the Cult of Personality unable to think for yourself!
sheshe2
(83,846 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)There was nothing of value coming back in the conversation 99% of the time.
jazzimov
(1,456 posts)but for some strange reason I kept hoping that those I wanted to ignore could be "converted to the light" and actually look at the facts.
Pretty naive, huh?
SunSeeker
(51,646 posts)And no, I never was given that link.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3181955
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)lol
SunSeeker
(51,646 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)jazzimov
(1,456 posts)currently following the link to the original article.
But, I deal with databases all the time and one thing I know is that just because info is downloaded into a db doesn't mean that it is accessed. Indeed, most data in a db is never accessed.
And that is where the rub seems to be - although the data is "collected" and loaded into a db doesn't mean that anyone actually sees it - much less uses it. And there are many controls that were also "leaked" (see the Minimization FISA commandments that were "leaked" to the Guardian and published by the same) that are in place to avoid "spying on Americans" as has been claimed so many times on this very site.
Yes, access to such information requires Warrants, which so many of us here on this very site fought for and frankly find it insulting that some people claim that our efforts and our victories were for naught.
Therefore, thank you for the NYT article but it doesn't outline anything new that those of us with open eyes didn't already know and FOUGHT SO HARD to implement in 2008.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)1. If I tap your phone, or place bugs in your home, you would not consider that to be spying until someone listened to the data? What if it was analyzed by a computer?
2. How does hoovering up metadata and all kinds of other stuff align with "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized"?
3. From the very beginning, Snowden made it clear that the process on paper called for a warrant to be issued before "content" could be reviewed, but there was no technical barrier to content being reviewed, even to folks like him who were low on the totem pole. Do you have evidence that he was wrong? If he's telling the truth, how do you feel about that?
jazzimov
(1,456 posts)good try, but strawman arguments all around.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Seems right on to me, but perhaps I'm missing something.
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)think that "straw man" are magic words that make an argument they don't want to have go away.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Amonester
(11,541 posts)Does that mean you don't have evidence he's telling the truth?
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)his prosecutors are admitted liars.
Amonester
(11,541 posts)I also agree his prosecutors don't have a clean record.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,347 posts)Part of the problem is you define 'spying' as 'acting on the information they collect', whereas the people you criticise define it as 'collecting the information'. I think they're right.
Access to the information does not require warrants - it requires an authorised person in the NSA to OK it, not a FISA judge:
“Only 20 analysts and NSA and their two managers, for a total of 22 people, are authorized to approve numbers that may be used to query this database,” Inglis testified. Mueller quoted the same figure: “You have just 22 persons who have access to this to run the numbers against the database—20 analysts and two supervisors.” Alexander elaborated:
“Could somebody get out and get your phone number and see that you were at a bar last night? The answer is no, because, first, in our system, somebody would have had to approve, and there's only 22 people that can approve a reasonable, articulable suspicion on a phone number. So, first, that [phone number] has to get input. Only those phone numbers that are approved could then be queried. And so you have to have one of those 22 [people] break a law.”
...
4. Does the NSA have to get prior court approval for each query?
No. Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., asked, “Every time you make the query, does that have to be approved by the court?” Cole answered, “We do not have to get separate court approval for each query. … We don't go back to the court each time.” Cole noted that the judges, up front, “set out the standards for us to use,” including the “reasonable suspicion” standard. But “we don't give the reasonable suspicion to the court ahead of time.”
Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, didn’t like the oversight gap Schiff had exposed. Rogers has repeatedly assured Americans that the data are kept in a “lockbox.” To shore up this story, Rogers stepped in with a friendly question for Cole: “My understanding, though, is that every access is already pre-approved; that the way you get into the system is court-approved. Is that correct?” Cole replied: “That's correct. The court sets out the standards which have to be applied to allow us to make the query in the first place.”
In other words, the court categorically pre-approves all queries that meet the “reasonable, articulable suspicion” standard. The NSA then applies that standard as it sees fit. No presentation of evidence to the court is required.
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2013/06/warrantless_searches_the_court_oversight_of_nsa_phone_surveillance_is_a.single.html
And since we now find this out:
The National Security Agency's ability to gather phone data on millions of Americans hinges on a secret court ruling that redefined a single word: "relevant."
This change—which specifically enabled the surveillance recently revealed by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden—was made by the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, a group of judges responsible for making decisions about government surveillance in national-security cases. In classified orders starting in the mid-2000s, the court accepted that "relevant" could be broadened to permit an entire database of records on millions of people, in contrast to a more conservative interpretation widely applied in criminal cases, in which only some of those records would likely be allowed, according to people familiar with the ruling.
In interviews with The Wall Street Journal, current and former administration and congressional officials are shedding new light on the history of the NSA program and the secret legal theory underpinning it. The court's interpretation of the word enabled the government, under the Patriot Act, to collect the phone records of the majority of Americans, including phone numbers people dialed and where they were calling from, as part of a continuing investigation into international terrorism.
"Relevant" has long been a broad standard, but the way the court is interpreting it, to mean, in effect, "everything," is new, says Mark Eckenwiler, a senior counsel at Perkins Coie LLP who, until December, was the Justice Department's primary authority on federal criminal surveillance law.
Read more: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323873904578571893758853344.html
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014530031
We see that the NSA, as a body, can 'legally' spy on millions of Americans, entirely on its own decision as to what is 'relevant'. Even with your definition of 'spying'.
SunSeeker
(51,646 posts)It gives the two authors opinion that the data mining the NSA is doing is illegal, even though no court has found that to be the case. Hence, it is not "criminal." Overbroad, maybe. But that does not make a catchy Op Ed title.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)that "the NSA is spying on all Americans" .
Can we stick to that topic for now?
SunSeeker
(51,646 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Bonus question: how would you have felt about enforcing the Dred Scott decision?
SunSeeker
(51,646 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)whenever we want... Then I'm guilty.
SunSeeker
(51,646 posts)
Galraedia
(5,026 posts)Example: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023137494
If Snowden was interested in the truth he wouldn't be making false claims and exaggerations.
jazzimov
(1,456 posts)were made by Greenwald. Let's attribute the misleading statements to those who made them.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)abuse their power when time and again all throughout history our government has proven other wise. The reason we have the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the three branches of government is to protect against corruption. Our founding fathers knew there would be abuses of power. Otherwise they would never have set up the government the way they did.
jazzimov
(1,456 posts)On the contrary, some of us worked HARD to see that there was proper oversight.
Prior to the 2008 Law that so many of us fought hard to implement there was no oversight and no warrants. Outraged, those of us who DIDN'T trust our government as your post implies helped to implement the FISA warrants and Congressional Oversight.
Now, perhaps it is time to revisit those Laws and policies. But running around like our hair is on fire is not the way to do it - we need to have a logical, reasonable discussion.
Are you ready for an Adult discussion?
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)but if you think there's really sufficient Oversight why, under this Law you're so proud Of, has the incidence of rejected requests for Warrants gone DOWN since 2008? From 2008-2012 only 2 requests were denied. About 1/5 the rejection rate of the previous five years. This, mind You, while the number of requests has Steadily increased.
SunSeeker
(51,646 posts)There must be lots of them since they have made you tired. Please, just one link of a DUer saying "our government is trustworthy and would never abuse their power." Certainly the OP doesn't say that.
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)I have to wonder, are those that can be supportive of an unchecked government even be liberal?
oldandhappy
(6,719 posts)Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)You'll never have anyone challenge your assumptions and everybody is just nice.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)SunSeeker
(51,646 posts)lumpy
(13,704 posts)The truth is sometimes hard to find with many factors entring into it. It's time for m to take a break and smell the flowers I know.
slipslidingaway
(21,210 posts)millions of boomers would be moving to Medicare. Who could have guessed that would happen and that it would have put a strain on our finances. 
If there ever was a time for the Dems to make a stand for a national HC system it was when most eyes were focused on the topic, instead they let the lobbyists have front row row seats. From the the initial WH summit to the WH townhall meeting, to the backroom meeting ... the big guys had the seats!
Do not remind me who had the microphone at that time and who was allowed into the WH gates and who was left standing outside.
As far as the NSA. Feingold said years ago, people and members of Congress will be shocked at what is being done in their name when they learn the truth.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)nolabels
(13,133 posts)of their own. They presume to think they know what is best for all in places that they should not. Then again if they are sociopaths, they probably didn't give a crap what happened anyway. They are getting what they wanted, why worry about anybody else
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)people would actually read what's involved we wouldn't have the hair-on-fire and hand wringing that's so enveloping DU these days.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)complaints of 'illegality' or 'no legal oversight or process' are overblown and incorrect.
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)Q -- Congressman Sensenbrenner, who is the co-author of the Patriot Act, says the FISA order related to telephone calls is not consistent with the Patriot Act, as he understood it. And Senator Udall said, while the law itself has been public, the ways it's interpreted has been secret until now, and he says the law should be reopened. Does the President agree that the law should be reopened and this is an opportunity to do that?
MR. CARNEY: The President made clear on Friday that he believes that it is entirely appropriate to debate these matters. As we find the appropriate balance between our national security interests -- our security interests, on one hand, and our privacy interests on the other, he also made clear that you cannot have 100 percent security and 100 privacy, or zero inconvenience, and that he believes we are achieving an appropriate balance; that he believes these programs are effective when it comes to protecting --
Q Would you welcome --
MR. CARNEY: Let me finish -- when protecting --
Q -- efforts to reform the Patriot Act?
MR. CARNEY: Again, he believes, as he said on Friday, that we are finding that appropriate balance. But he welcomes a debate. And certainly, if that debate were to lead to building a consensus around changes, he would look at that. Because, again, I think the President has been very clear that he takes the concerns about these issues very seriously, because he thinks these are broad matters -- broader in some ways than the specific instances that we’re talking about.
And, as I alluded at the top, in the age that we live in, with the technological innovations that we see constantly, this is an issue that will be with us as a nation and a world from this time forward. So it’s something that we need to constantly assess and debate. But it is also true that we need to be very mindful of the fact, as the Director of National Intelligence has said and others, that these programs exist in order to protect the United States and its citizens from attack by --
...
Q Part of the defense from the administration has been that you're not targeting individual Americans and that this is a broad brush; you're just looking at phone numbers. So what I'm trying to get at, is that part of the defense, that it’s such a broad --
MR. CARNEY: It’s not a defense. These are issues -- this is a matter --
Q But there are people who disagree with that and say actually you are targeting them.
MR. CARNEY: Well, that's just not the case. As has been amply discussed by Director Clapper and others, the way this program works -- as well as by members of Congress -- is that when you're talking about the Section 215 program, again, part of the Patriot Act, it involves telephone numbers and the duration of phone calls; it does not involve individuals or the content of phone calls. Any further investigation would require court approval. And again, all of this -- all activity like this is subject to the oversight regime that's in place.
...
All throughout the press conference was the idea the President thinks the whole issue is something we should be debating and discussion more about. There is no denying that the meta data was collected (as can be seen elsewhere) but not seen as illegal because of how some chose to interpret 215.
Would there be a debate on this had it not been for snowden? That question was asked...
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/06/10/press-briefing-press-secretary-jay-carney-6102013
Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)How do these arguments work out in real life for ya? People who constantly mention their fact-basedness and their hold on reality raise red flags; 99% of the time it is simply a substitute for real argumentative content. There's at least 3 posters on DU that never post anything other than declarations of their fact- and reality basedness. If they only knew how stupid that looks. It is the weakest, and weirdest perversion of an argument from authority that I've ever seen.
burnodo
(2,017 posts)"Discuss politics, issues, and current events. No posts about Israel/Palestine, religion, guns, showbiz, or sports unless there is really big news. No conspiracy theories. No whining about DU."
Isn't this thread whining about DU?
liberal N proud
(60,339 posts)That has all changed in the last year of so, there has been a large influx of posters who are here to push their agenda and nothing else. It has caused many good member to leave the site, leaving the propagators.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)poutrage and downright cowardice the appeasers and apologists show every time they post one of these. The "truth" as you call it has been posted, literally, HUNDREDS of times here on DU, in GREAT detail, but since it doesn't glorify some party that sold you and I out 30 years ago to the 1%, all claims must be met with dismissal and ridicule.
Because of blind partisanism, the world to you is black/white, up/down, good/evil, right/wrong when in fact the world is much more complex. But that's too hard. It takes thinking and researching and an open mind. All of which you are required to suspend when you choose blind allegiance to a party/person.
I would think the Blind Loyalists would want to go to a site like Democrats.com or something -- one in which everyone is required to goose-step to the party line and no dissent is ever heard. But you guys CHOOSE to post here where there are actually people who DO think and DO research and DO have an open mind and because it doesn't fit into your binary/partisan world, it must be rejected and dismissed and ridiculed.
DU is not a blind partisan board. Read the TOS. They WELCOME debate. But what they're looking for, I'm sure, is INTELLIGENT and INFORMED debate. This rah-rah blind partisan, party-before-country diatribe brings this site down.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)
Apophis
(1,407 posts)+10000
Eddie Haskell
(1,628 posts)I'm always on the look for the truth. Who do you read or listen to?
Mosaic
(1,451 posts)When you are fighting scoundrels it is best to remember your values while at the same time have the moral courage to fight fire with fire! Take my advice, or continue to diminish in power!
bemildred
(90,061 posts)It takes a lot of energy to defend what is wrong. The Truth needs no defense.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)"Speaking truth to power" is what's tiring, and the RW has the power.
polichick
(37,152 posts)Politicians count on that to keep their owners in profits.
Even the science of climate change is disputable.
Everything is smoke and mirrors - and that goes for what passes as Democratic Party policies and beliefs.
What is this party anyway? What does it stand for? If we think it stands for one thing, but our leaders do something else, have we changed what it stands for? Did it ever stand for what we thought in the first place - or has it always been smoke and mirrors?
