General Discussion

jazzimov

(1,456 posts)

50. Just as I thought - much ado about nothing.

Reply to JaneyVee (Original post)

Sat Jun 8, 2013, 07:14 PM

Jun 2013

Also seeing articles in USA Today, Time, and CNET on Google News.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

136 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Obama Administration Declassifies Details On “PRISM,” Blasts “Reckless” Media And Leakers. [View all] JaneyVee Jun 2013 OP

This is a fascist program, sig-line protests to the contrary notwithstanding DisgustipatedinCA Jun 2013 #1

I suggest you look up fascist in the dictionary. phleshdef Jun 2013 #7

My statement stands. DisgustipatedinCA Jun 2013 #10

...corrected. phleshdef Jun 2013 #17

proving you do not live in a fascist state arely staircase Jun 2013 #20

lol so true treestar Jun 2013 #91

It's evident that neither of you knows what fascism is. GoneFishin Jun 2013 #104

What is it? treestar Jun 2013 #106

Where did the poster claim they lived in a Fascist state? SomethingFishy Jun 2013 #101

Yeah, history has so many examples of politicians following the law Vinnie From Indy Jun 2013 #34

Yet none of that has a damn thing to do with what I said. phleshdef Jun 2013 #36

What you offer is true! Vinnie From Indy Jun 2013 #47

Yes it does treestar Jun 2013 #93

It dosen't bother them that they Cha Jun 2013 #61

Your panel of Judges could be 11 mannequins Jesus Malverde Jun 2013 #75

The judges aren't secret. phleshdef Jun 2013 #90

lol treestar Jun 2013 #92

The Washington Post Responds. Xipe Totec Jun 2013 #2

Did not see that coming! randome Jun 2013 #18

That won't matter. MADem Jun 2013 #3

The terms target, collect, US person, foreign, intentionally, oversight are all used contrary to leveymg Jun 2013 #11

When you get in your car, you're tracked. Your cellphone tracks you, too. MADem Jun 2013 #16

Responsibility for this rests in all branches of gov't, both political parties, Administrations and leveymg Jun 2013 #25

Do we want the Supreme Court to rule that the law is unconstitutional...that is the question. MADem Jun 2013 #59

There is a gigantic difference between companies doing this and the government. BlueCheese Jun 2013 #30

OMG...the dreaded domestic drone thing again? Sheepshank Jun 2013 #37

I'm saying that personal information in the hands of the government is much more dangerous... BlueCheese Jun 2013 #39

Actually it's not comforting at all that capitalists know your fears, Sheepshank Jun 2013 #44

They can SELL your information, though. MADem Jun 2013 #60

Are you dizzy yet? GeorgeGist Jun 2013 #84

How very "pithy," yet apropos of absolutely nothing! nt MADem Jun 2013 #89

And in March, Clapper claimed to Congress that they didn't muriel_volestrangler Jun 2013 #49

Congress did it and it was signed by Bush treestar Jun 2013 #96

Thaaaattt's RIGHT! They gather and store it ALL, but they don't "target" Americans UNLESS Th1onein Jun 2013 #69

Using terms like "poutrage" and "foot stomping" to describe those who disagree with you... BlueCheese Jun 2013 #22

Well, the tone is pretty well toasted, and it was way before I got here. MADem Jun 2013 #62

Thank you for the information, anyway, MADem.. I appreciate it. Cha Jun 2013 #64

"But the reporting from Glenn Greenwald and the Washington Post has been shoddy and misleading." MADem Jun 2013 #65

Why, and I had someone on here just today telling me Cha Jun 2013 #66

Supposedly, we've had some form of data collection for, what, eight years or more? MADem Jun 2013 #67

WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE IF THAT IS TRUE? Th1onein Jun 2013 #70

Yes, I do. MADem Jun 2013 #72

I'm sorry. I've read the entire thing. I'm not convinced. And for some very good reasons. Th1onein Jun 2013 #76

It's down to sources and methods. You know that "metadata" is collected where you might not have MADem Jun 2013 #99

Now you're changing the subject. You can't defend what Obama is doing. Th1onein Jun 2013 #108

Now YOU'RE changing the subject--power of the veto? Hello!!!! MADem Jun 2013 #111

It's the Jesuit logic..... Th1onein Jun 2013 #117

Obama did not make any specific promises. He said he'd close GITMO and he wouldn't spy on MADem Jun 2013 #120

"And this program, which requires warrants to access the material, targets foreighners, not US Th1onein Jun 2013 #121

Look, you keep telling me I'm lying, but I'm getting this from a link YOU provided. MADem Jun 2013 #122

No one, and certainly not me, is telling you that YOU are lying. Th1onein Jun 2013 #124

You need to read this: MADem Jun 2013 #125

Oh come on! Really? Th1onein Jun 2013 #126

Fine. Disbelieve and dismiss. Read this. MADem Jun 2013 #127

So WHAT? Th1onein Jun 2013 #128

You've told me all I need to know. Thanks for clearing that up! nt MADem Jun 2013 #129

That's right, MADEM, I'm just a bad, bad person because I don't agree with you. Th1onein Jun 2013 #130

You should write fiction! You're great at making things up and putting words MADem Jun 2013 #132

Last and best resort when you can't win an argument: AD HOMINEM ATTACK Th1onein Jun 2013 #135

Good move. nt MADem Jun 2013 #136

I think it's time for YOU to come back down to Earth. Read this: Th1onein Jun 2013 #77

The key bit, though... MADem Jun 2013 #100

NOPE, you're wrong, MADEM. Th1onein Jun 2013 #107

I'm not wrong--that's from YOUR source. MADem Jun 2013 #114

I say again, you're wrong. Th1onein Jun 2013 #115

Your link says otherwise--they aren't "storing the material." Per your link. MADem Jun 2013 #116

They ARE storing the material. In the unit, and then accessing the unit. Th1onein Jun 2013 #118

If by unit, you mean internet provider, well, the internet provider does that as well. MADem Jun 2013 #119

Just about everyone on DU objected to it when Bush started it eridani Jun 2013 #78

Same old thing adapted to new technology treestar Jun 2013 #95

Yes. A drone is an airplane. The pilot happens to be some distance away. MADem Jun 2013 #97

that too, I'm all for transparency but have a practical streak treestar Jun 2013 #102

Cool! n/t ProSense Jun 2013 #4

This is perfectly legal and morally sound, with a shit load of oversight. phleshdef Jun 2013 #5

There is no way we know enough to say that. BlueCheese Jun 2013 #23

Senators can't (didn't) talk about this shit in public because of the nature,of you know, security Sheepshank Jun 2013 #40

I stand by my comment that we don't know enough to declare that the program is sound. BlueCheese Jun 2013 #42

Of course you do n/t Sheepshank Jun 2013 #45

Absolutely untrue. Th1onein Jun 2013 #71

Declassifies "SOME" details. woo me with science Jun 2013 #6

No, ProSense Jun 2013 #8

Brazenly false. Again. Shame on you. woo me with science Jun 2013 #12

You made a stupid statement. There is no "some" in the original title. ProSense Jun 2013 #13

^^^^^^For anyone who collects examples of brazen, twisting spin^^^^^^^^ woo me with science Jun 2013 #15

You're a joke. I'm laughing at you. n/t ProSense Jun 2013 #26

Here's some "brazen twisting"--but it's from the SOURCE of this sloppily-reported story. MADem Jun 2013 #68

Outrageous misdirection and spin. woo me with science Jun 2013 #83

Talk. To. Congress. MADem Jun 2013 #94

ProSense... sibelian Jun 2013 #19

Who the fuck are you? ProSense Jun 2013 #31

+1...nt SidDithers Jun 2013 #46

+1 jazzimov Jun 2013 #52

You can plug away as long as you like. sibelian Jun 2013 #85

+1 Well summarized. woo me with science Jun 2013 #41

I have no idea what to say to them. sibelian Jun 2013 #86

You're right. It's all disruptive strategy by the very same group woo me with science Jun 2013 #87

"how the Third Way really operates" sibelian Jun 2013 #88

"Are you pissed that the facts are coming out?" alcibiades_mystery Jun 2013 #29

What is with this "brazen" comment? ProSense Jun 2013 #32

Their strategy is now to outright refuse to argue with you - they opt for innuendo and accusation alcibiades_mystery Jun 2013 #51

I see the troops are in. woo me with science Jun 2013 #54

"Stalinesque" really shouldn't be uttered by someone who supports spying on all citizens DisgustipatedinCA Jun 2013 #63

Don't shoot the messenger. I just copied & pasted directly from the article. JaneyVee Jun 2013 #38

Please just be aware woo me with science Jun 2013 #43

Were details not released? sweetloukillbot Jun 2013 #79

Oh for dog's sake. There is plenty of space at DU to be clear, if you *choose* to be clear. woo me with science Jun 2013 #80

I understood the headline. sweetloukillbot Jun 2013 #98

And why did they need to classify it in the first place dkf Jun 2013 #9

Thank you. And now come the legal pursuit and intimidation to the leaker woo me with science Jun 2013 #14

You mean someone in an intelligence agency who can't be trusted with intelligence? randome Jun 2013 #21

What? The NSA National Snooping Assholes can't snoop out the leakers? Epic Fail! L0oniX Jun 2013 #53

your last line... +1000 FirstLight Jun 2013 #58

Yes and why are they "going after the leak"? nt Bonobo Jun 2013 #81

"leakers"? I thought the latest meme was "old news"? n/t hughee99 Jun 2013 #24

+100000 It's "old news," but don't doubt that an example will be made of anyone woo me with science Jun 2013 #28

Re-leaking old news is hurting our national security... L0oniX Jun 2013 #55

Someone will be made an example of... woo me with science Jun 2013 #56

You are absolutely right. Th1onein Jun 2013 #73

"A lie will go round the world while the truth is still pulling its boots on..." alcibiades_mystery Jun 2013 #27

Some issues that need to be cleared up. BlueCheese Jun 2013 #33

Great thread, Janey. Major Hogwash Jun 2013 #35

Truth? From NSA? Come on now. DisgustipatedinCA Jun 2013 #74

DU rec... SidDithers Jun 2013 #48

Just as I thought - much ado about nothing. jazzimov Jun 2013 #50

Clapper's blasting seems to be at odds with the President who said he was glad to be having this Bluenorthwest Jun 2013 #57

He's a complex and multifaceted man, that President. MNBrewer Jun 2013 #109

You can't fight hysteria, you just have to let it wind down on its own. Fast & Furious anyone? Tarheel_Dem Jun 2013 #82

I'm sure the GOP are rubbing their hands together with glee... nt MADem Jun 2013 #103

You are probably right. So why then does BO reach across the isle for their approval GoneFishin Jun 2013 #105

It's not their approval he seeks. His efforts across the aisle have more to do with MADem Jun 2013 #113

Unlikely. Probably their guy who was breaking the law with PRISM. DirkGently Jun 2013 #131

I thought I read here on DU that he had fans over at Faux, but I just don't watch that MADem Jun 2013 #133

Whether these stories have led to "misimpressions" or not justiceischeap Jun 2013 #110

CYA complete with shrieks. Tierra_y_Libertad Jun 2013 #112

See his head snap around at the news conference? DirkGently Jun 2013 #134

It Broke the "Cool/Pragmatic." He DID NEED to deal with This.... KoKo Jun 2013 #123