June 11, 2013

"The American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit Tuesday challenging the constitutionality of the U.S. government’s surveillance program..."

WaPo reports.
The ACLU lawsuit will bring the surveillance programs into federal court, setting up a challenge for Obama, who pledged during his 2008 presidential campaign to bring more transparency and proportion to national security policy after the George W. Bush administration.
ADDED: Back in August 2006, I had an op-ed in the NYT about a decision in a case called American Civil Liberties Union v. National Security Agency. It's interesting to me to look back at that and see if I'm still thinking the same way 7 years and one President later. 

AND: Here's Glenn Greenwald — of all people — lambasting me for what I said. 

275 comments:

1 – 200 of 275   Newer›   Newest»
Simon said...

Lots of luck.

edutcher said...

Wow, that was fast.

/sarc

Carl said...

Bet the judiciary will get right on that. Nothing like appealing Caesar's abuse of power to Caesar.

Lem said...

Are those guys still around?

Where were they when the IRS was running rings around the tea parties?

Philip Irwin said...

He meant OUR lives would be transparent to THEM. Must. Listen. Carefully.

Carl said...

I feel much more sympathy for German voters circa 1933 these days. I can see how the desire to see large swathes of smug lying aristocratic narcissist weasels shot can become so strong that it becomes treacherously easy to overlook the touch of psychopathy in the guy who says he'll do it. Blech.

edutcher said...

Uh, last I looked, it wasn't large swathes of smug lying aristocratic narcissist weasels being threatened with being shot in 1933 Germany.

Hagar said...

Are they going to include all the other governments doing this in their suit?

If they do not know who they are, can they sue John Doe, et al.?

Oshbgosh said...

Outsource the surveilance task to the British government. They are so much better technically at these matters... problem solved.

Revenant said...

The ACLU does good work defending eight out of the ten amendments in the Bill of Rights.

(they basically suck on numbers 2 and 10, but oh well)

Jay said...

Ahem:

As Barack Obama begins his second term in office, trust in the federal government remains mired near a historic low, while frustration with government remains high. And for the first time, a majority of the public says that the federal government threatens their personal rights and freedoms.

And:

And new poll new numbers indicate, many Americans are not happy with the Justice Department snooping on the press, CBS 2’s Dick Brennan reported Tuesday.

Americans are very supportive of freedom of the press, but a Rasmussen poll finds they are also very worried about how it’s applied and suspicious of the Justice Department investigating reporters.

When asked, “Was the Justice Department primarily trying to intimidate the media or protect national security?” those polled said:

* 43 percent say it was an attempt to intimidate the press

* 34 percent say it was primarily out of concern for national security

* 23 percent say they are not sure

“It is partisan, absolutely. Democrats right now say there is too much freedom of the press. Republicans now say there is too much concern about national security. If George W. Bush was in the White House those numbers would be reversed,” pollster Scott Rasmussen said.


The ACLU is on the side of the the center!

Revenant said...

Uh, last I looked, it wasn't large swathes of smug lying aristocratic narcissist weasels being threatened with being shot in 1933 Germany.

Isn't "smug lying aristocratic narcissist weasels" a pretty good summary of how 1930s Germans viewed the people they blamed for the "stab in the back"?

Methadras said...

Another multi-year circle jerk of billable hours.

Jay said...

the vast middle is coalescing... around Obama.

Bullshit.

Left Bank of the Charles said...

Yes, but are you wittingly thinking the same way?

The ACLU was denied standing back in 2006 on the basis that "the NSA might not be intercepting, and might never actually intercept, any communication by any of the plaintiffs named in this lawsuit."

Now there is the appearance of evidence, but do they have standing? Or do they still lack the requisite evidence until they can get Edward Snowden back in the United States to testify?

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

Bush is f'ing amazing. He can control Obama's mind and take up permanent residence in Glenn's skull... all at the same time...
from his ranch in Texas... while painting himself in the shower...

Hagar said...

Fox News just showed a squib about Ernst & Young (accountants, business management consultants) basically doing the same thing as the NSA, though on a smaller scale of course, and intended for their own purposes, whatever that may be, rather than "terrorism."

bagoh20 said...

I wonder if Glenn still has that crush on you. Calling you a Rush Limbaugh is never gonna catch a girl's heart.

somefeller said...

Good for the ACLU. The game is afoot now. Though I wonder about standing.

Edutcher says:Wow, that was fast. /sarc

Actually, it was pretty fast. The story broke late last week and legal filings don't write themselves. Good lawyers move quickly but not hastily and the ACLU has good lawyers.

Revenant says:The ACLU does good work defending eight out of the ten amendments in the Bill of Rights.
(they basically suck on numbers 2 and 10, but oh well)


Alas, I think there's a lot of truth in that comment, though I'm not sure the 10th Amendment is an individual right like the 2nd. And I don't think they've done much on the 3rd Amendment, but that doesn't come up often. They are generally on the side of the angels, however.

edutcher said...

Revenant said...

Uh, last I looked, it wasn't large swathes of smug lying aristocratic narcissist weasels being threatened with being shot in 1933 Germany.

Isn't "smug lying aristocratic narcissist weasels" a pretty good summary of how 1930s Germans viewed the people they blamed for the "stab in the back"?


If you think da Jooz were seen as aristocrats back then, you need to watch "The Eternal Jew".

Rhythm and Balls said...

Who in the hell gave Big Data the right to collaborate with Big Government?

Sounds like your Messiah.

Mark O said...

The Complaint is worth reading.

bagoh20 said...

I have to think the libertarians are onto something when the GOP and the DNC establishment are both trying to shut them up on the same issue. It's like when both Mom and Dad don't want you to do something - it must be really fun.

bagoh20 said...

Big Data and Big government love to fornicate to preserve their species. Where do think Big Brothers come from?

Patrick said...

I wonder if Glenn still has that crush on you. Calling you a Rush Limbaugh is never gonna catch a girl's heart.

Looks like Meade dodged a bullet there!

El Pollo Raylan said...

AND: Here's Glenn Greenwald — of all people — lambasting me for what I said.

Inglorious lambaster!

Jay said...

In many ways it’s even more troubling than [Bush era] warrantless wiretapping, in part because the program is purely domestic,” says Alex Abdo, a staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union’s National Security Project.”But this is also an indiscriminate dragnet. Say what you will about warrantless wiretapping, at least it was targeted at agents of Al Qaeda. This includes every customer of Verizon Business Services.

Hilarity.

Anyone saying "Bush did it too" is a silly, ignorant hack or lying.

leslyn said...

somefeller said...
Good for the ACLU. The game is afoot now. Though I wonder about standing.

A couple from Philadelphia have filed a $3 Billion suit claimiing the government illegally surveilled them because of their opposition to the military.

There's your standing for ya!

Inga said...

Bwhahahahaah! Ritmo:)

leslyn said...

Jay said,

Anyone saying "Bush did it too" is a silly, ignorant hack or lying.

Look up ThinThread vice Trailblazer.

But then, you never have been known for your research skills. Just your incessant vituperation.

Jay said...

leslyn said...

But then, you never have been known for your research skills. Just your incessant vituperation.


You are a complete parody.

Crunchy Frog said...

Oh look, Ritmo showed up to piss all over another thread. How lovely.

Can we please, please get an /ignore capability?

Jay said...

leslyn said...
Look up ThinThread vice Trailblazer.


Prove me wrong, or shut up, stupid shit.

leslyn said...

Jay, you never disappoint. You always live down to my expectations.

Inga said...

Jay needs to wipe his chin.

viator said...

"...I believe that at this point in history, the greatest danger to our freedom and way of life comes from the reasonable fear of omniscient State powers kept in check by nothing more than policy documents."

"I believe that when [senator Ron] Wyden and [senator Mark] Udall asked about the scale of this, they [the NSA] said it did not have the tools to provide an answer. We do have the tools and I have maps showing where people have been scrutinized most. We collect more digital communications from America than we do from the Russians."

"Even if you're not doing anything wrong, you're being watched and recorded. ...it's getting to the point where you don't have to have done anything wrong, you simply have to eventually fall under suspicion from somebody, even by a wrong call, and then they can use this system to go back in time and scrutinize every decision you've ever made, every friend you've ever discussed something with, and attack you on that basis, to sort of derive suspicion from an innocent life."

Edward Snowden

Jay said...

leslyn said...
Jay, you never disappoint.


I'm sorry you can't prove me wrong.

But of course everyone reading knew that already.

Jay said...

leslyn said...
You always live down to my expectations.


Stupid shit: I'm not the one who thinks it responsive to shriek at someone "go research this!!"

You're a fucking idiot.

So your "expectations" are irrelevant.

somefeller said...

From the Washington Post (on my iPhone so no HTML link) on this matter:

The ACLU asserts that it has standing to sue the government over the program because it is a Verizon customer, overcoming a hurdle that has blocked previous attempts to challenge such secret programs.

We'll see if that works. Hope it does.

Jay said...

Hilarity:

Sen. Obama in August 2007:

"[The Bush] administration puts forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we provide. I will provide our intelligence and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to track and take out the terrorists without undermining our constitution and our freedom."


Nobody believed him anyway.

Jay said...

On February 26, 2013, the Supreme Court denied standing to journalists in challenging recent amendments to the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The 5-4 ruling was in Clapper v. Amnesty

Cedarford said...

Rhythm and Balls said...
Who in the hell gave Big Data the right to collaborate with Big Government?

===================
Hate to pop your bubble, fellah...but private enterprise and big gummint have gone together ever since we decided to have a Corps of Army Engineers, a postal system and raise a Navy. And decided not to go with Government owned and operated State Industries that would do projects that had dual national security, civilian use applicability.

Ships were designed with Gummint help so they could go from cargo carrying to conversion to Navy use.
Railroads to serve military logistics.
The whole aviation industry had no chance without collaboration with military backers...for a long time, most planes were military designs converted to civilian use.
Now telecomms.

Same basic deal as was started in the Constitution for raising a Navy, building dual-use harbors, navigable rivers, then canal, rail, highway systems.

Jay said...

Reassuring:

respondents have no actual knowledge of the Government’s §1881a targeting practices. Instead, respondents merely speculate and make assumptions about whether their communications with their foreign contacts will be acquired under §1881a. .... “The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing” standing—and, at the summary judgment stage, such a party “can no longer rest on . . . ‘mere allegations,’ but must ‘set forth’ by affidavit or other evidence ‘specific facts.’”.... Respondents, however, have set forth no specific facts demonstrating that the communications of their foreign contacts will be targeted. Moreover, because §1881a at most authorizes—but does not mandate or direct—the surveillance that respondents fear, respondents’ allegations are necessarily conjectural. .... Simply put, respondents can only speculate as to how the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence will exercise their discretion in determining which communications to target.

El Pollo Raylan said...

Ships were designed with Gummint help so they could go from cargo carrying to conversion to Navy use.
Railroads to serve military logistics.


Gas chromatographs are calibrated using unicorn farts. Leslyn researched it.

Steve Uhr said...

Ms. Althouse. The Guardian wants to know what you really think of their now famous blogger in 25 words or less.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/10/glenn-greenwald-readers-tell-us-nsa-files

Jay said...

You can’t have 100-percent security and also have 100-percent privacy and zero inconvenience. We’re going to have to make some choices as a society.”

Hilarity.

lemondog said...

"As for our common defense," Barack Obama declared in his First Inaugural Address, "we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. . . . Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake.

garage mahal said...

Everyone knows the ACLU stands for American Conservative-Libertarian United. Of course they would be against government intrusion into our lives.

pm317 said...

Another lawsuit.. good all these information companies and Obama were getting too cozy.

It is not about NSA and stopping terrorists with a reasonable method of collecting intelligence on them. It is about the collusion between a Dem president and all these companies who have shown their allegiance for one political party against the other. If these companies were apolitical, I would have a different view but they are not. In fact their collusion with Obama and therefore, the US govt against all its citizens is what is disturbing.

Chip S. said...

Can we please, please get an /ignore capability?

The vastly inferior Althouse alternative is the "collapse comments" feature. Only useful in threads dominated by the usual suspects.

Chip Ahoy said...

Yeah, let's move all the sliders to the extremes, 100% of this vs 100% or that vs 100% of thisandthat then begin a discussion at those points. Better idea. Have that discussion with somebody else.

Cedarford said...

You might even call the ability of private enterprise outfits to seek out and collaborate with Gummint on contracts for legal projects - a Fundamental Constitutional Right of the hero Freedom-Lovers! who own or invest in the business.

edutcher said...

somefeller said...

Good for the ACLU. The game is afoot now. Though I wonder about standing.

Wow, that was fast. /sarc

Actually, it was pretty fast. The story broke late last week and legal filings don't write themselves. Good lawyers move quickly but not hastily and the ACLU has good lawyers.


They certainly took their time moving on all the other Constitutional abuses of the Choom Gang.

Anybody wanna bet the thrust of this is less about protecting the rights of the people than advancing the Lefty agenda?

leslyn said...

A couple from Philadelphia have filed a $3 Billion suit claimiing the government illegally surveilled them because of their opposition to the military.

There's your standing for ya!


Not sure, but filing a suit in and of itself doesn't sounds as if it gives the issue standing. The court has to say it has standing.

Tell me when somebody's suit against the Choom Gang for obstructing the Tea Parties gets standing.

SomeoneHasToSayIt said...

Hell hath frozen over.

pm317 said...

Glad to see someone echoing what I am saying.

"Quit Facebook and use another search engine. It's simple." He added, "It's nice to keep in touch with your friends. But I think if you find out if it's true that these companies are involved in these surveillance programs you should just quit."

Chip S. said...

Do you still disagree with Simon?

I haven't seen any reason to modify my views.

You were just checking to see if I'm collapsing comments, weren't you?

garage mahal said...

I read that the federal guvmint employs over 500,000 private sector jobs just in the national security sector alone. I could have sworn that I heard from conservatives that the federal guvmint has never created even one job. The thing is, we know conservatives are never wrong about anything. What do you suppose is going on here? There must be some sort of explanation for this inherent contradiction?

Chip S. said...

No, just checking to see that you still don't make it a point to find thought and unpopular positions offensive.

No, I still don't. As long as the thoughts are well-reasoned.

Chip S. said...

I could have sworn that I heard from conservatives that the federal guvmint has never created even one job.

Needless to say, this ↑ doesn't fall under the heading of "well-reasoned thought".

somefeller said...

Garage, I'm sure this inherent contradiction can easily be explained with a few sentences that include the words liberty, Constitution and bootstrap. Just watch.

Chip S. said...

I wasn't aware that you collapse to winnow away views of my comments in the first place.

I don't, as you correctly inferred from my readiness to reply to you.

Why did you think I was referring to you in what I said?

garage mahal said...

And from our tiny little office in sleepy south Madison I know we hired one job to handle all the procurement bids/ordering through the state guvmint. One job!

Like I said, there must be an explanation we haven't heard of yet from our conservative friends.

exhelodrvr1 said...

It seems highly likely that what we currently know about the surveillance is just the tip of the iceberg. As much as I hypothetically don't like what Snowden did, considering what Obama has historically done in his campaigns, and what we are learning about the IRS, I hope this suit is successful in exposing the program.

jr565 said...

They did a poll about peoples reaction to the NSA programs. Back when it was Bush 50+% of Republicans were ok with them while 30+% of democrats were. Now that Obama is president the numbers are reversed. So there's a lot of changed minds here. not to mention hypocricy.

Chip S. said...

somefeller, there's no contradiction at all.

But go ahead an mock "liberty". It's not surprising that you would.

Chip S. said...

Like I said, there must be an explanation we haven't heard of yet from our conservative friends.

Usually I think it's a cheap shot to bring up your lack of a college education. But this comment of yours is exactly the sort of smug stupidity that a single Econ 101 class would disabuse you of.

cubanbob said...

Jay said...
“You can’t have 100-percent security and also have 100-percent privacy and zero inconvenience. We’re going to have to make some choices as a society.”

Hilarity.

6/11/13, 6:44 PM

I would take them seriously if they actually deliver 100% on one or the other. Instead we get hosed on both and pay for the privilege.

Chip S. said...

But I figured you were trying to generalize the advice anyway.

That's right.

somefeller said...

But go ahead an mock "liberty". It's not surprising that you would.

I'm not mocking liberty. I'm mocking those who throw the word around with little relevance to the matter at hand and as a shield to criticism. Sort of like the famous line about patriotism and scoundrels. And in this case, I'm talking about many of the same people.

edutcher said...

A little something to add to the mix:

FBI requests for general, unspecific info have risen 1000% since Guess Who assumed office.

edutcher said...

somefeller said...

But go ahead an mock "liberty". It's not surprising that you would.

I'm not mocking liberty. I'm mocking those who throw the word around with little relevance to the matter at hand and as a shield to criticism. Sort of like the famous line about patriotism and scoundrels. And in this case, I'm talking about many of the same people.


Funny how the Lefties like to invoke - actually, hide behind - that when things are going against them.

And, as we all know, Lefties have a corner of stuff like liberty.

Just ask them.

Patrick said...

I read that the federal guvmint employs over 500,000 private sector jobs just in the national security sector alone. I could have sworn that I heard from conservatives that the federal guvmint has never created even one job. The thing is, we know conservatives are never wrong about anything. What do you suppose is going on here? There must be some sort of explanation for this inherent contradiction?

Different way of looking at job creation. To a conservative, jobs are created by someone who invests capital (either money or effort, usually both) in an idea they believe will create a profit for themselves. When that idea works, they will hire others.

When the government hires, even for jobs that are required for an ordered society, it does not create any wealth, it redistributes it. The person who starts the business cannot force everyone to buy their goods/services. The government has no such constraints on its revenue.

The government employs people, certainly. But in a very different sense than the private sector. This doesn't require thinking that no government jobs are useful, or even necessary. But they are very different things, and that distinction is what we speak about when we say the government doesn't create jobs.

cubanbob said...

jr565 said...
They did a poll about peoples reaction to the NSA programs. Back when it was Bush 50+% of Republicans were ok with them while 30+% of democrats were. Now that Obama is president the numbers are reversed. So there's a lot of changed minds here. not to mention hypocricy.

6/11/13, 7:29 PM

So you are apologizing now? Correct me if I am wrong but when did the Bush people intercept virtually every American's electronic communications?

garage mahal said...

Usually I think it's a cheap shot to bring up your lack of a college education

1. You're relying on Jay, Drago, and President-Moms-Jeans for that info. (Check yourself before you wreck yourself.)

2. It must be frustrating you can't refute someone without a college education when they mock conservatives for saying "the government has never created one job!" It's conservative dogma. Romney ran on that.

Booz Allen: We built that! (With 98% help from the federal government!)

edutcher said...

jr565 said...

They did a poll about peoples reaction to the NSA programs. Back when it was Bush 50+% of Republicans were ok with them while 30+% of democrats were. Now that Obama is president the numbers are reversed. So there's a lot of changed minds here. not to mention hypocricy.

Hate to tell you, but that poll was hideously skewed.

22% R

35% I

33% D

4.5 MOE

edutcher said...

garage mahal said...

Usually I think it's a cheap shot to bring up your lack of a college education

1. You're relying on Jay, Drago, and President-Moms-Jeans for that info. (Check yourself before you wreck yourself.)

2. It must be frustrating you can't refute someone without a college education when they mock conservatives for saying "the government has never created one job!" It's conservative dogma. Romney ran on that.


The only jobs being created by the Choom Gang are temps or violations of the Constitution.

You really want to stand behind that?

AllenS said...

A Google search of "the government has never created one job" gets 6 results. And, it doesn't look like anyone here has said it.

Revenant said...

Garage,

I know you don't actually care, but what the heck -- arguing with you will make for a nice change from arguing with neocons today.

When conservatives or libertarians say the government doesn't create jobs, we are talking about net job creation. The government "creates" 500,000 jobs by confiscating resources that would have created 600,000 jobs.

The private sector, inefficient tho it be, allocates resources more efficiently than politicians and bureaucrats do, primarily because the private sector is concerned with efficiency (less efficiency, less profit) and the public sector is not (less efficiency, bigger budget next year).

This is not controversial. Even Keynesians concede that the private sector is the engine of wealth and job creation; the government's role in their models is to stimulate private sector activity.

exhelodrvr1 said...

jr565,
Do you honestly not see a difference between the level of that activity under Pres Bush and the level of activity under Pres Obama?

Do you consider driving 36 mph in a 35 zone the same as driving 63 mph in a 35 zone?

Jay said...

Revenant said...

When conservatives or libertarians say the government doesn't create jobs, we are talking about net job creation. The government "creates" 500,000 jobs by confiscating resources that would have created 600,000 jobs.


He isn't capable of grasping these concepts.

Hagar said...

Edward Snowden obviously had other ideas, but I think he is mostly in the position of the boy who pointed out that the emperor wore no clothes.

I do not see how the ACLU lawsuit can go anywhwere, since I do not think the lawyers can manage to meaningfully distinguish what the Government is doing from what Google, Facebook, Amazon, Ernst & Young, and on and on are doing. And they do not have any FISA to worry about. Neither, of course, do foreign governments doing exactly the same things, and they certainly do not greatly care what the U.S. Constitution does or does not allow.

Just face up to it, your vital data as well as your communications are most likely stored and may be looked at in any number of locations across the globe by the Lord alone knows who.

Drago said...

Jay: "He isn't capable of grasping these concepts."

garage also doesn't understand that hiring someone whose job description is simply "help us navigate the government contracting maze" is a non-value creating activity.

The concepts of value-add, opportunity costs, etc elude most lefties.

Except when they want to institute a VAT.

That's when you know they understand perfectly well what is a productive vs non-productive activity....because they want to take a nice big bite out of the productive activities.

roesch/voltaire said...

Ann thanks for the link to Greenwald's counter to your op-ed-- I didn't realize you had a thing for each other. It will be interesting to see how this case goes as I suspect the issues which were never raised in the previous case will be this time. Also interesting I see that Ron Paul is defending Snowden-- makes sense

Revenant said...

I do not think the lawyers can manage to meaningfully distinguish what the Government is doing from what Google, Facebook, Amazon, Ernst & Young, and on and on are doing.

They don't have to. The first and fourth amendments don't constraint private citizens or private corporations.

The private sector has and public sector have different constraints on their behavior. "Companies can do it so obviously the government can too" is not a sound legal argument.

garage mahal said...

When conservatives or libertarians say the government doesn't create jobs, we are talking about net job creation. The government "creates" 500,000 jobs by confiscating resources that would have created 600,000 jobs.

The federal government employs 500,000 private sector jobs in the national security sector alone through contracts they award for services. Private sector. You can argue those private sector jobs the federal government created aren't necessary. But you're better off arguing that government workers could have done it cheaper.

Revenant said...

Who creates demand?

Natural demand is "created" by people wanting things enough to part with some of their wealth for it.

garage mahal said...

In Wisconsin, conservatives are trying to do away with longstanding good government auditing of state procurement awards and practices that show what taxpayers are paying, and to whom, services performed for the state. Why is that? You know why. To shield private companies from the sunlight of all the grift that is going on from pay to play.

Revenant said...

The federal government employs 500,000 private sector jobs in the national security sector alone through contracts they award for services. Private sector.

Hm, either you didn't understand what I wrote or are being deliberately obtuse.

It was the government, not the private sector, that decided we needed 500,000 national security jobs. The market didn't demand them. To "create" those 500,000 jobs, the government took a vast sum of money from private citizens and corporations; that money is now unavailable to create jobs that were actually demanded by the market. The net result is that there are fewer jobs than there would have been had the government stayed out of things.

Whether the jobs are government jobs or jobs at a privately-owned company isn't relevant to my point.

Hagar said...

@Revenant,

Not so much about a legal argument, just that all the horses already are out of the barn.

I am sure they will still prosecute Snowden, if they can find and get him, for the embarrassment he has caused, if nothing else, but as for protecting your privacy on the internet or in "the cloud," forget it. It is already a long lost cause.

President-Mom-Jeans said...

Wow, the libtards are out in force over this one. I think their affirmative action boyfriend's continuing scandalpalooza has them especially unglued.

You voted for this, own it.

President-Mom-Jeans said...

The fat divorced barely graduated high school loser, Ritalin needing retard, some bitch, even the drunken old cunt all jumping in.

It's going to be a fun summer.

Revenant said...

Which, I'm assuming, you think the government plays no role in enticing.

No net role in enticing. The government can create artificial demand by taking money from people (preventing them from purchasing the things they actually demand) and using it to purchase things people are unwilling to pay for.

Safe streets, clean water, and improved access to limited markets like doctors' services play no role in advertising the standard of living I'd desire to maintain and further enhance.

Because of course there would be no public interest in those things unless the government was around to tell people they should want them? :)

garage mahal said...

The net result is that there are fewer jobs than there would have been had the government stayed out of things.

You take away those 500k jobs and you take away lots of other jobs those 500k workers created by spending that money. I don't have an answer as to what that happy medium is, or should be. But it's ludicrous to suggest that government spending has no bearing whatsoever on corporate revenues.

Revenant said...

Not so much about a legal argument, just that all the horses already are out of the barn.

Yeah, that's not an argument either.

First of all if you don't want Facebook to have your data, you can simply not use Facebook. There is no "don't use the NSA" option available to Americans.

Secondly, that a large number of entities have legally done something does not imply a universal right to do that thing. Hundreds of people have been in my house, but do you think "lots of people have already been in there" would fly as a defense against a residential burglary charge?

Finally, the fact that other nations have collected data on Americans is totally irrelevant to whether the United States government is allowed to do so. Partly because our laws don't apply to them, but mostly because they have no power over us; the federal government does.

Revenant said...

Liberalism is the belief that humans can reason their way toward improving their lot - collectively or individually.

Only if we're talking about 19th century liberalism. From the progressive movement on, American liberalism has held that the lot of humanity can only be improved through centrally controlled collective action.

Revenant said...

You take away those 500k jobs and you take away lots of other jobs those 500k workers created by spending that money.

And in exchange you get 600k jobs whose workers create another 600k jobs by spending the money, and so on.

Your world-view is dependent on the factually incorrect belief that taxpayers weren't planning to do anything with their tax money besides stuff it into a mattress.

Drago said...

garage: "You take away those 500k jobs and you take away lots of other jobs those 500k workers created by spending that money."

LOL

The government had to take money out of the hands of the productive sector to "create" those jobs.

garages argument appears to be that if that money had been left in the hands of those whose productivity and value-added work created it that, somehow, for some reason, those private individuals would not have spent the money in a way that had no impact on "other jobs".

It's this kind of 3rd grade "thinking" that exposes the limits of garages intellect.

Well, this and about a million other comments.

garage: "I don't have an answer as to what that happy medium is, or should be."

LOL

Hey, you know who had "Full Employment"?

The Soviet Union.

How'd that turn out?

Given the "garage economic model", shouldn't the Soviets have had a rockin' economy?

garage: "But it's ludicrous to suggest that government spending has no bearing whatsoever on corporate revenues."

It's a good thing no one was/is making that argument.

LOL

Revenant said...

If the demand you call (erroneously, IMO) "artificial" plays no net role in even enticing, then I guess the next glibertarian agenda will be to blow up Hollywood.

I'm almost certain you thought that made sense when you wrote it. I'm just not sure why you thought that.

But the reason you would is because you believe the opposite is true: That if you can decrease people's expectations of certain standards, then you can hope they will stop demanding them.

Are you drunk?

Revenant said...

I just belatedly realized that Rhythm is our resident troll. I'm really not paying much attention today. :)

edutcher said...

Miss me yet?

Dubya's favorable now better than Choom's.

Drago said...

Alpha: "...(extreme individualism is inherently anti-organization.."

LOL

Says the side that enacted obamacare.

"anti-organization"!

Beyond. Parody.

El Pollo Raylan said...

revenant said: Only if we're talking about 19th century liberalism. From the progressive movement on, American liberalism has held that the lot of humanity can only be improved through centrally controlled collective action.

Exactly. The Progressive movement was mostly hatched in Madison, WI. I spent the first half of my life stewing in it. Sorry Ritmo, Progressives are not Liberals.

Revenant said...

That one innocuous sentence discomfited Ritmo so much he had to respond to it twice! Damn, I'm good.

Mark said...

So spying on fellow citizens is now a jobs program?

How very Stasi.

Mark said...

Conservatives today simply refuse to deal in any facts - at least in America. They invent a mythological timeframe when 1980's answers applied (and will, forever!) and then take 1880s society and 1880s economies and pretend that's how things are now.

It's really quite insane, when you look at it.


There's definitely a lot of batshit crazy in this comment, but I don't think it's where you think it is.

garage mahal said...

Oh great, the steaming pile of mythical horseshit that is "things could be different if liberals weren't progressives!"

Eisenhower was a progressive in today's political discourse. He ran on peace and prosperity.

Rhythm and Balls said...

I'm glad we have a caring censor to pick through the thread. If it weren't for all the irony in reference to the topic choice, I'd say it's a credit to the intellectual bravery of whomever's doing it.

El Pollo Raylan said...

Someone mentioned Stasi which was an abbreviation for Staatssicherheit (literally State Security) which reminded me of Lives Of Others(2006).

Inga said...

Many liberals may be progressive, but many conservatives are regressive, much much worse. Longing for the bad old days.....yes that's the ticket. That surely will keep us safe in today's world. The rest of the world will progress, while regressive conservatives demonize progressive liberals, busy fighting with fellow Americans, ignoring the threats to our safety from those who will use technology and the information it provides against us.

Facebook knows what I bought on Zappos yesterday, but the government has no right to know about the comings and goings of terrorists in our midst, because it's the evil government keeping us safe. It's just terrible, tyranny actually, right?

El Pollo Raylan said...

garage mahal said...
Oh great, the steaming pile of mythical horseshit that is "things could be different if liberals weren't progressives!"

It is ironic how the Progressives and especially hippies love to malign the 1950s. The economy was so great but everybody was so repressed.

Drago said...

garage: "Eisenhower was a progressive in today's political discourse."

LOL

And Einstein was a great product of the American public school system!

LOL

Sure garage.

Sure.

Rhythm and Balls said...

So sorry to see what a damn pussy Meade's become.

Enjoy the safety rails on your "different points of view and even edgy modes of expression".

Epistemic closure, indeed.

El Pollo Raylan said...

The 1950s are almost an object lesson in how self control led to economic prosperity.

El Pollo Raylan said...

According to progressives, tax rates were optimal in the 1950s and we should go back to them.

Methadras said...

Rhythm and Balls said...

Sorry Ritmo, Progressives are not Liberals.

Perhaps some aren't.

Are all the fringe reactionaries of today even close to "conservative"?

Simon picks up on the American phenomenon of false conservatism. Which ethos do Tea Partiers appeal to? Are they pretending that Washington was a reactionary force against an ideology that didn't arise for a century later? Do they think that the economic and political answers of 1980 - 1992 are iron-clad and suitable for every situation?

Do they wish to pretend that the imbalance of power between industrialists and mere consumers was inflated by 20th-century mobs, and that it's easier to go on pretending that the way to regulate an agrarian, pre-industrial society is appropriate for one capable of large-scale chemical and nuclear waste?

Conservatives today simply refuse to deal in any facts - at least in America. They invent a mythological timeframe when 1980's answers applied (and will, forever!) and then take 1880s society and 1880s economies and pretend that's how things are now.

It's really quite insane, when you look at it.


As always, Schtickmo once again anal streaks his way into a thread to vaingloriously decry conservativism without offering iota of why his repugnant ideology has any merit or standing at all.

Don't you get tired of playing this silly game, you silly nonsense person? Sperg lord in the corner of your own house where maybe your cats might care.

Inga said...

Wow, moronic comments by President Mom Jeans are not deleted, but comments by Ritmo are, really?

edutcher said...

Inga said...

Many liberals may be progressive, but many conservatives are regressive, much much worse. Longing for the bad old days.....yes that's the ticket. That surely will keep us safe in today's world. The rest of the world will progress, while regressive conservatives demonize progressive liberals, busy fighting with fellow Americans, ignoring the threats to our safety from those who will use technology and the information it provides against us.

My God, what drivel.

Leftists are neither liberal nor progressive. They are reactionaries fighting to maintain the power base they have accumulated and destroying (or trying to) anyone who opposes them.

Conservatives do not want to return to the old days. They want to make a better future than ever existed. that's the difference.

That's been what they've been doing since the 80s - throwing back the bounds of the possible in economics and freedom. One of the big accomplishments of the Reagan Revolution was scrapping a lot of the old New Deal regs and making an economy bigger and better than anyone had ever known.

The Lefties hate this because a society where there is plenty of opportunity and individual freedom is the last thing they want. they peddle despair, the kind of despair that only can be lightened by welfare because the average Joe (or Julia) can't stand up to the 1%, now can they?

PS I wonder if the She wolf of the SS' daughter helped her with this from her bunker where she serves as a corpseman in A-stan.

Meade said...

@R and B: Feel free to email me if you wish to discuss the deletions.

Rhythm and Balls said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
garage mahal said...

1956 Republican Party Platform:

"We are proud of and shall continue our far-reaching and sound advances in matters of basic human needs—expansion of social security—broadened coverage in unemployment insurance —improved housing—and better health protection for all our people. We are determined that our government remain warmly responsive to the urgent social and economic problems of our people."

"Furthermore, the process of free collective bargaining has been strengthened by the insistence of this Administration that labor and management settle their differences at the bargaining table without the intervention of the Government. This policy has brought to our country an unprecedented period of labor-management peace and understanding.

"We applaud the effective, unhindered, collective bargaining which brought an early end to the 1956 steel strike, in contrast to the six months' upheaval, Presidential seizure of the steel industry and ultimate Supreme Court intervention under the last Democrat Administration."

This one kills me:

"Assure equal pay for equal work regardless of Sex"

Haha, enjoy the decline, bitches.

Mark said...

I assume you're talking about me Ritmo.

As to being anonymous, I don't change my handle every three months. Glass houses, stones, etc.

Your brand of bullshit just bugs me, so I rip you a new one every time you start flinging it.

You aren't typical of "ideologically left-leaning voters" so I don't cast you as a straw-man stand-in for them.

What you are is a troll who will use every dishonest argument at hand to distract from whatever the topic of the thread was to begin with.

In this case, whether the Constitution permits PRISM (really hard to tell when so much of it is totally non-transparent) and secondarily whether the ACLU has standing to challenge.

As to the second point, since it's not possible to tell if the ACLU membership has actually been targeted by Prism, I think the courts should grant standing; statistically speaking its pretty much impossible that their property (assuming communication over the internet can be considered intellectual property) has not been appropriated for analysis.

The first question really is up for grabs. If I don't encrypt text message, am I effectively speaking in a public place? What reasonable expectation of privacy do I have when communicating by voice, text, or email over commercial networks? I see those as legitimate questions, but for the life of me I wouldn't have thought anything other than "of course they're private" until Obama's team told me they weren't.

Rhythm and Balls said...

I wish I trusted you enough to, Meade. I'm not saying that I wouldn't, or that I shouldn't, but just that the capriciousness seems to make it difficult to do so. In any event, I'm sorry if it seems I tried to derail the thread... I probably did just take a liberty or two starting with a point that Garage raised, and had no intention of preventing of the discussion from straying from a focus on the ACLU and NSA. It was an innocent mistake and I'm sorry if it seems that I'd have intended on driving it away from that.

Apologies.

El Pollo Raylan said...

Eisenhower was a progressive in today's political discourse.

Compared to Robert Taft, defeated for the nomination in 1952, Ike was a liberal. But even Taft would have been better than the 1952 Democrats. They had been in power far too long at that point and were offering only corrupt party hacks. Cost them two consecutive terms and the Senate.

Achilles said...

Rhythm and Balls said...

"Sorry Ritmo, Progressives are not Liberals."

"Perhaps some aren't."

Reality intrudes on Ritmo. Don't cry little fascist.

"Are all the fringe reactionaries of today even close to "conservative"?

Simon picks up on the American phenomenon of false conservatism. Which ethos do Tea Partiers appeal to? Are they pretending that Washington was a reactionary force against an ideology that didn't arise for a century later? Do they think that the economic and political answers of 1980 - 1992 are iron-clad and suitable for every situation?"

And so quickly reality fades and Ritmo creates his own version of the tea-party which deserved to be intimidated and assaulted by the various arms of the federal government.

"Do they wish to pretend that the imbalance of power between industrialists and mere consumers was inflated by 20th-century mobs, and that it's easier to go on pretending that the way to regulate an agrarian, pre-industrial society is appropriate for one capable of large-scale chemical and nuclear waste?"

Another straw man. A figment of Ritmo's addled mind appears and is quickly dispatched by his stunning wit! Why they deserved to be attacked by the IRS!

"Conservatives today simply refuse to deal in any facts - at least in America. They invent a mythological timeframe when 1980's answers applied (and will, forever!) and then take 1880s society and 1880s economies and pretend that's how things are now.

It's really quite insane, when you look at it."

6/11/13, 9:14 PM

Your musings are really quite insane. But you support a fascist that is using the federal government to suppress people you don't agree with. And you try to call yourself a liberal while doing it. Pathetic.

Methadras said...

Inga said...

Many liberals may be progressive, but many conservatives are regressive, much much worse. Longing for the bad old days.....yes that's the ticket. That surely will keep us safe in today's world. The rest of the world will progress, while regressive conservatives demonize progressive liberals, busy fighting with fellow Americans, ignoring the threats to our safety from those who will use technology and the information it provides against us.

Facebook knows what I bought on Zappos yesterday, but the government has no right to know about the comings and goings of terrorists in our midst, because it's the evil government keeping us safe. It's just terrible, tyranny actually, right?


I read your attempt at actually pretended to put letters to form words to form a series of sentence structure together and lol'ed.

You see, you wondrous douche nozzle, when you do something on facebook, you are effectively doing it in public for all to see or at least the one friend you have to see anyway. I've been on your facebook page and it's sad. However, you turgid teutonic twat, the government doesn't have the right, nor the probable cause without issuing a warrant and informing me of such a possible search and possible seizure of such information for I am a citizen and am afforded that right under the 4th amendment. It's not that I don't have anything to hide, mind you, you bug-eyed alcoholic, but rather it's none of their business what I do for I am their master, not the other way around.

But you see you moron of morons, you've already gotten on your back, spread your legs, and told Urkel and all of his cohorts that it's okay to go through whatever is left of your shriveled lady parts because after all, it's to get the terrorists to keep the rest of your overly used rectum safe. Keep me safe Obama, please, you are our only hope. There is a name for people like you and it's called being an unamerican scum-bag traitor.

Drago said...

garage: ""Assure equal pay for equal work regardless of Sex""

That is correct.

What progressives/leftists want is "equal pay for COMPARABLE worth".

And who would determine what jobs are "comparable"?

Why a brand new federal bureaucracy.

What "problems" is this supposed to solve?

Well, as an example, the "comparable worth" crowd want to force companies to pay truck drivers and secretaries the same salary.

Why?

Because they both spend the majority of their time "sitting" as well as several other facets of the roles that the lefties say is comparable.

LOL

What could go wrong?

garage mahal said...

Wow, moronic comments by President Mom Jeans are not deleted, but comments by Ritmo are, really?

Yep, that is complete bullshit. Creepy death threats against other commenters & their families never gets deleted. But thread "derailment" does? Fuck the NSA and fuck Meade!

Achilles said...

garage mahal said...

1956 Republican Party Platform:

"We are proud of and shall continue our far-reaching and sound advances in matters of basic human needs—expansion of social security—broadened coverage in unemployment insurance —improved housing—and better health protection for all our people. We are determined that our government remain warmly responsive to the urgent social and economic problems of our people."

"Furthermore, the process of free collective bargaining has been strengthened by the insistence of this Administration that labor and management settle their differences at the bargaining table without the intervention of the Government. This policy has brought to our country an unprecedented period of labor-management peace and understanding.

"We applaud the effective, unhindered, collective bargaining which brought an early end to the 1956 steel strike, in contrast to the six months' upheaval, Presidential seizure of the steel industry and ultimate Supreme Court intervention under the last Democrat Administration."

This one kills me:

"Assure equal pay for equal work regardless of Sex"

Haha, enjoy the decline, bitches.

6/11/13, 9:40 PM

Poor poor Garage. This stupid SQUIRREL! posting should be embarrassing to you. I know it is hard being stuck with a bunch of fascists and I know you have given up defending them. But you can still throw a useless SQUIRREL! into a thread like the best fascist out there.

Inga said...

Meade, you want to delete Methadras? Feel free, show some fairness.

Lem said...

Inga is back?

Where...

Inga you need to get yourself another avatar.

Or, don't you want to stand out these days?

Methadras said...

Inga said...

Wow, moronic comments by President Mom Jeans are not deleted, but comments by Ritmo are, really?


Personally, I'd rather see your entire existence on this blog eradicated, but alas, even the mold is allowed to survive. I'll continue to be the bleach.

Lem said...

Speak of the devil..

That's a figuratively speaking devil... Inga.

Drago said...

Achilles: "But you support a fascist that is using the federal government to suppress people you don't agree with. And you try to call yourself a liberal while doing it."

Leftists supporting fascist policies while proclaiming they are doing it for the people is the inevitable, unavoidable result of liberal/leftist politics.

In the end, human beings rebel at being controlled which "forces" the leftist to increase control in order to suppress those independent and unapproved thoughts/actions.

Where ever leftists gain substantive control of the political agenda, they always, always, move to limit individual rights as well as move to limit "individual" thoughts.

Campus "hate speech" rules (no due process, no rights for the accused, etc) are a perfect example.

garage mahal said...

.I know it is hard being stuck with a bunch of fascists

I wish. The Tea Party is alive and well in Wisconsin. I wish it weren't so. What is a guy going to do about it though? Not too much. Wisconsin has never seen a gang of thugs destroying everything in sight like the people in charge now. From the people I talked to, they simply don't believe it unless it directly effects them.

Hope it Changes!

Inga said...

Meth, you are no one's master, you can't even master your own mind, or the vile disgusting filth that comes out of the head that houses your foul mouth.

I predict a long hot burn in hell in your future.

Methadras said...

Inga said...

Meade, you want to delete Methadras? Feel free, show some fairness.


HAHAHAHA!!! Ah yes, the leftist call for fairness. Inga will cry out to anyone with power and authority to JUST DO SOMETHING. Like a good little goose stepper. Inga, do you have your brown shirts nice and starched? I bet you they are monogrammed with your giant bug-eyed, drunken pan face on the pockets. amirite?

Drago said...

garage: "Fuck the NSA and fuck Meade!"

LOL

analogous garage comment: "Fuck that mass murdering Hitler and fuck that guy who parked 5 inches into another space at the grocery store!"

You can always count on garage for reasoned proportional responses to different scenarios!

Achilles said...

Rhythm and Balls said...

I wish I trusted you enough to, Meade. I'm not saying that I wouldn't, or that I shouldn't, but just that the capriciousness seems to make it difficult to do so. In any event, I'm sorry if it seems I tried to derail the thread... I probably did just take a liberty or two starting with a point that Garage raised, and had no intention of preventing of the discussion from straying from a focus on the ACLU and NSA. It was an innocent mistake and I'm sorry if it seems that I'd have intended on driving it away from that.

Apologies.

6/11/13, 9:44 PM

Why not just say it? The topic of this thread is terrifying to you. It obliterates the notion that you and other leftists are anything but common thugs. You hate the people you disagree with and will support any act of fascism Obama inflicts on the Conservatives or Tea Party.

People who support this administration support the use of the IRS, FBI, DOJ, NSA, and any other federal agency to suppress those they disagree with.

You are fascists, the definition of. When fascists are called out it is common for them to try to change the subject.

Methadras said...

Inga said...

Meth, you are no one's master, you can't even master your own mind, or the vile disgusting filth that comes out of the head that houses your foul mouth.

I predict a long hot burn in hell in your future.


There there deary. I know it's hard between your bouts of senility and the constant shakes from your wine withdrawl to concoct a coherent enough response that doesn't leave you a frothing wet mess. You make me laugh watching your decline. I pray that one day, when you drop dead from apoplexy, that the universe will time it right that I will be there to see it and I'll point an go HA HA!!!

Drago said...

Inga: "I predict a long hot burn in hell in your future"

The left has helpfully informed us that there is no "hell" and anyone who believes that such a thing does exist is a hopeless troglodyte.

edutcher said...

Hey, garage, the 50s were the heyday of the RINOs, still traumatized by 5 consecutive Democrat terms in the Presidency.

It took another quarter century for Conservatism to assert itself.

El Pollo Raylan said...

garage projects: I wish. The Tea Party is alive and well in Wisconsin. I wish it weren't so. What is a guy going to do about it though? Not too much. Wisconsin has never seen a gang of thugs destroying everything in sight like the people in charge now. From the people I talked to, they simply don't believe it unless it directly effects them.

Have you been down to the Rathskeller lately looking for some local Putsch?

Inga said...

Drago, Meth is a born again Christian, he believes in hell. He most assuredly is a troglodyte and a hypocrite.

Achilles said...

garage mahal said...

.I know it is hard being stuck with a bunch of fascists

I wish. The Tea Party is alive and well in Wisconsin. I wish it weren't so. What is a guy going to do about it though? Not too much. Wisconsin has never seen a gang of thugs destroying everything in sight like the people in charge now. From the people I talked to, they simply don't believe it unless it directly effects them.

Hope it Changes!

6/11/13, 9:56 PM

What people can do is unite behind the fairly easy to understand concept that there is a rule of law and people should be treated equally under it.

But when half the population is seen as a bunch of slaves to be taken from to buy votes for Obama it is not a long step to take to use the various arms of the federal government to whip those slaves when they get unruly.

Mark said...

Garage, get with the program: The Tea Party is yesterday's Immanent Threat; now they're kind of sympathetic because, well, you know.

The new villains are the Libertarians. Bad bad Libertarians.

I thought you were on the mailing list.

Baron Zemo said...

For once the ACLU has got it right.

Even these benighted douchenozzles see how dangerous this is to our liberty.

I wish them well. Let's see if the courts are real Americans who value our freedoms.

Achilles said...

Inga said...

Meade, you want to delete Methadras? Feel free, show some fairness.

6/11/13, 9:51 PM

The rallying cry of the fascist. "It's not FAIR!"

Already Inga is hoping the IRS audits Methadras and fines him into bankruptcy. And then they would have Methadras's money and could give it to her for her woman parts! And some to give her friends, who have the right beliefs of course, some food stamps and obamaphones. Now that would be FAIR!

Methadras said...

Achilles said...

Why not just say it? The topic of this thread is terrifying to you. It obliterates the notion that you and other leftists are anything but common thugs. You hate the people you disagree with and will support any act of fascism Obama inflicts on the Conservatives or Tea Party.

People who support this administration support the use of the IRS, FBI, DOJ, NSA, and any other federal agency to suppress those they disagree with.

You are fascists, the definition of. When fascists are called out it is common for them to try to change the subject.


Oh, hey and they know what they are in name and in spirit. They will never admit it however because the prospect of the reality of that label is to much to bear for the shame of it's truthfulness will stain them forever. Even though they've already sold their souls to their repugnant ideology, it's all about self-preservation at this point. They think they are on the winning side. Truly they do. Nonsense people like Ritmo are the human shields of their ideology, the 1st order the upcoming ablated shield to their marxist/leftist gods. When that fire comes, they will be the first to go.

Oh right now, they are so happy that big daddy urkle is doing his best to show them how a wholesale takeover of an entire economy and society is done and they are the first in line to sacrifice themselves to it. Country? Patriotism? Duty? Honor? Meaningless words in a world where traitors like them tread.

Baron Zemo said...

The 1950's were the best of times to be an American.

If only they could come back.

Fonzie would start the jukebox playing dowoop. Laverne and Shirley would be giving blow jobs behind the bottling plant. Sinatra and Dean Martin and Sammy Davis Jr would be singing on the radio.

Good times.

Baron Zemo said...

Hey those days might come back sooner than you think. You never know.

Achilles said...

Baron Zemo said...

For once the ACLU has got it right.

Even these benighted douchenozzles see how dangerous this is to our liberty.

I wish them well. Let's see if the courts are real Americans who value our freedoms.

6/11/13, 10:07 PM

The case will go before Judge Vinson. Right after he is done with his hearings with the NSA and the FBI for permission to wiretap the ACLU's phones, read all their internal emails, and get a full log of their wireless calls and texts.

After that I see an IRS audit and a few FBI raids in their future. I am sure the people will get a fair hearing in the government run courts. Don't forget many of those judges were appointed by the same people the ACLU is suing. This is such a joke now.

Baron Zemo said...

Hey I am not hopeful.

They are lawyers after all so by definition they are scum. But every once in a while they can surprise you.

Pogo said...

So is the ACLU a traitor here?

I'm having trouble telling the good guys from the bad guys.

Maybe Brooks can write another column.

Methadras said...

Inga said...

Drago, Meth is a born again Christian, he believes in hell. He most assuredly is a troglodyte and a hypocrite.


You see how that works? How do you know I'm a born again Christian? maybe I'm a Catholic, a Methodist, baptist, 7th day Adventist, a Jew for Jesus. How? But be that as it may, because I'm a believer I'm a hypocrite and a troglodyte. Really Inga? Did you have to hit up your scrabble with friends for those? Honestly, honey, you just aren't that smart and what you think you know about me is even less.

One day, when you crumple into a heap of goo, on your madisonian sidewalk in front of your lawn with the sign that says, "GET OFF MY LAWN OR I'LL TELL MY NANNY STATE ON YOU!!!", you'll look up a the sky as the last photons are hitting your dying eyes and you'll start to feel that warm tingling sensation of eternal damnation creeping up on you for the disgusting filth you lived your life to be. You will feel that ignition of fire on your soul and as you take your last gasping breath, I'll run across the street and piss on you to put you out.

Come on, I do have some compassion.

garage mahal said...

The new villains are the Libertarians. Bad bad Libertarians.

The Tea Party started out as an anti-bank bailout, pro populist outfit that was co-opted into a pro bank bailout, pro pollution, anti populist Rube Goldberg machine. The Tea Party ain't too bright, if you haven't noticed. Why would they vote for the very thing they started out opposing?

Rhythm and Balls said...

Why not just say it? The topic of this thread is terrifying to you. It obliterates the notion that you and other leftists are anything but common thugs. You hate the people you disagree with and will support any act of fascism Obama inflicts on the Conservatives or Tea Party.

Because it's not true. (Perhaps impugning me by ascribing positions to me that I don't hold is an acceptably "edgy mode of expression", but not all modes of expression are true).

Nevertheless, I'm basically in agreement with Simon - a real conservative, one who knows what it means to come from a country where traditions need to be as realistic as they are deep in order to survive. He spoke at length about this on another thread, and I can't find a point that I don't agree with. If you cared, you could look up those comments. Essentially I acknowledge that I've known about what NSA's been up to since at least the 1990s. I never made a big deal out of it with Bush (it's hardly my biggest gripe with him), and frankly I'm relieved to know that the bulk of what they're doing is analyzing patterns of how content is dispatched, instead of the content itself.

He and I discussed this over the weekend. Look up the thread if you care to be accurate. (Again, maybe inaccuracy in the pursuit of political impugning is an "edgy mode of expression" or a "different point of view", but still untrue). I quoted a NYT comment that said the CIA presented to the WSJ on how individuals could be identified simply by the characteristic gait and rate of their walking patterns as given off by cell phone signals. Why on earth could a cop look at you on a public street through binoculars from a distance but not your electromagnetic "fingerprint" is beyond me.

Anyways, Simon's intelligent enough and honest enough to look at not only the legal issues in extreme depth and detail, but the technology. If you want to hate me as a proxy for agreeing with all the sense and facts and reason in what he's said, you're free to do that. And I might object - though I can't unfortunately guarantee that the content of any said objections will stay on record. That's Mr. Meade's call.

But I can blatantly reiterate my own thoughts from just two or three short days ago, demonstrate how aptly they stick to exactly the topic at hand, do so in a serious (but not fanatical) way, and have the record stand right there - if our hosts will allow it.

So, now that you have it, I'll have to see whether you decide to distort at will, and how those distortions will remain as "edgy modes of expression". But in my mind, I've resolved where I can, in all intellectual honesty, afford to stand on this. And since then (on this thread) I've just been brief, and comical, until I committed the dastardly deed of trying to explain to Garage why there might be some larger ideological/perceptual problems in this issue no less than on almost any other political item that we unfortunately find ourselves in such unretractable muck these days.

edutcher said...

Baron Zemo said...

For once the ACLU has got it right.

Even these benighted douchenozzles see how dangerous this is to our liberty.


As I said earlier, "Anybody wanna bet the thrust of this is less about protecting the rights of the people than advancing the Lefty agenda?".

El Pollo Raylan said...

The new villains are the Libertarians. Bad bad Libertarians.

That is astute. I picked up the signal second hand when someone said that Rand Paul's stock was rising and then the concerted hate speech started. It's a sign that the Democratic circus tent is shrinking. No wonder that they have to buy votes or pander for them. 2014 can't come soon enough.

garage mahal said...

In the end, the only group suing the government over privacy is the ACLU. The Kochs and every other right wing Sugar Daddy do not give a flying fuck.

Dirty hippies, again, were right.

Baron Zemo said...

So basically Ritmo you are for "stop and frisk" because that is what this is writ large?

Inga said...

Funny that's what conservatives said about 2012, "2012 can't come soon enough!"

Baron Zemo said...

The ACLU is at least consistent. They are against "stop and frisk" for the brothers outside the projects and the cellphone carrying general public.

You have to give them that.

Methadras said...

No Ritmo, you are just hated because you are a giant flaccid unadulterated dick. I'm sure you were waving gigantic red star, hammer, and sickle flags when Clinton instituted Echelon and Carnivore which have transmogrified into what is now known as Prism. I'd like to see your protestations of those programs back then, but alas, you may not have been that bright back then.

So rail on your post on your straightened back of consistency. I'm sure it's a great comfort to you watching this country descend into your vision of ingsoc dystopia makes your heart go all flutter. You fool no one with your stupid tropes of above-it-all ham handedness.

Baron Zemo said...

I love the term "Ham handed."

Imagine having hands made of ham. Man you could snack anytime you wanted. You would always be biting your names.

Shit you would be biting you thumb off.

Baron Zemo said...

How come nobody is every salami handed?

Is that too gay?

Methadras said...

garage mahal said...

In the end, the only group suing the government over privacy is the ACLU. The Kochs and every other right wing Sugar Daddy do not give a flying fuck.

Dirty hippies, again, were right.


Sure monkey boy, keep projecting your DO SOMETHING DISEASE onto everyone and when they don't, why they are just meanie poopy heads. The only tea party you show up to is the one your children have set up back in your mom's stall.

Achilles said...

Rhythm and Balls said...

Why not just say it? The topic of this thread is terrifying to you. It obliterates the notion that you and other leftists are anything but common thugs. You hate the people you disagree with and will support any act of fascism Obama inflicts on the Conservatives or Tea Party.

Because it's not true. ...

...long discussion about another conversation nobody read or cared about...

6/11/13, 10:18 PM

You compiled another straw man you call "a true conservative" that you create in some discussion nobody else read or participated in. It was a long way to say "I have nothing."

You know Obama is a fascist and you continue to support him. Nobody cares what you think a real conservative is. You are calling someone a reactionary and making up your own definitions while completely avoiding the point that Obama is a fascist and you support fascism.

Baron Zemo said...

That would be biting your nails not your names.

Damn you auto correct!

El Pollo Raylan said...

Inga said...
Funny that's what conservatives said about 2012, "2012 can't come soon enough!"

We said it about 2010 too so maybe we only know how to shellack and not polish knobs.

Methadras said...

Baron Zemo said...

I love the term "Ham handed."

Imagine having hands made of ham. Man you could snack anytime you wanted. You would always be biting your names.

Shit you would be biting you thumb off.


Damn it. You made me hungry. Protein drink after the gym suck. Mmmmm, ham hands...

Pogo said...

Because the Democrats and RINOs can't admit that we should be targeting Islam for surveillance, we have to frisk Grandmas and 5 year old white boys and gather info on FREAKING EVERYONE.

Oh, and to fuck with Obama's detractors.
That's the important shit we need surveillance for.

Rhythm and Balls said...

I don't know about "stop and frisk" (doesn't sound like I'd like it or instinctively agree with it), but Simon's given a lot of thought as to how analyzing patterns of electrocommunication signals are too far removed from the realm of what we think of as "privacy".

I think he's generally right, from what I can tell.

I agree that it sounds really bad. This is a big issue not only for the right to be able to run with, but for the left to have some backlash with as well.

I feel that if I didn't understand the science as well, I might have a stronger impulse to object.

And even then, I'd still like to know if the telecoms were compelled or voluntarily. And how easy is it to define voluntary given the situation at hand?

It's not an easy side to be on, but I essentially agree with Simon. And I have the grit to prove that if the shoe were on the other foot... well, if anyone can find me bitching about how Bush used the NSA then let them go find those archived comments. I don't remember doing it.

I think physical 4th amendment protections are sacrosanct in some instances. It's just that with this, I'm seeing too much slippery, technological leeway to prove that the government is invading your body, your person, your property or anything else that resonates me in a civil liberties way.

Maybe I'm over-intellectualizing it, but then, we are talking about state of the art technologies here.

Baron Zemo said...

Imagine if you were really cheesy and then became ham handed?

The possibilities are endless.

El Pollo Raylan said...

writmo wrote: Nevertheless, I'm basically in agreement with Simon - a real conservative, one who knows what it means to come from a country where traditions need to be as realistic as they are deep in order to survive. He spoke at length about this on another thread, and I can't find a point that I don't agree with.

Go look up vbspurs' take on the whole thing today on twitter. Simon should too.

Baron Zemo said...

"Stop and frisk" is the policy by the New York City police department where they stop young minorities on the street in high crime areas and frisk them for weapons.

It is racist. And very effective.

It is what they would have done back in the 1950's. Just sayn'

Rhythm and Balls said...

...long discussion about another conversation nobody read or cared about...

No. YOU didn't read that. I enjoyed that conversation very much. Short as it was. Meaningful as it was. You can rudely substitute yourself for "anyone" all you want. Again, that sounds like an edgy (if insanely narcissistic) thing to do. A new mode of expression, perhaps. But still, not true.

Given the basic rudeness of your refusal to consider that you are not the same as everyone else, I think I have good standing to utterly disregard the ridiculously insane boilerplate bs about fascism. But I know, you can use a big, mean, politically insulting word in a sentence. Bravo, etc.

Methadras said...

Inga said...

Funny that's what conservatives said about 2012, "2012 can't come soon enough!"


I bet you have a giant black dildo with Obama's head at the tip don't you? I bet it comes with a string at the bottom of it too that play all of his phrases when you pull it.

[inga pulls the string] YES WE CAN!!!

[inga pulls the string again] um, uh, uh, um, uh...

[inga is hope for the right phrase to come up to get her going. Pull string] What difference at this point does it make?

[inga looks at Obama dildo and is like "WTF?" Pulls the string again] I think that I’m a better speechwriter than my speechwriters. I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors. And I’ll tell you right now that I’m going to think I’m a better political director than my political director.

[there it is inga] OH YES MR. PRESIDENT!!! Are you ready for hot dog in a hallway time!?!?!

Baron Zemo said...

As I understand it both Simon and vspurs come from England.

I don't think we want to look to England as our model.

Rhythm and Balls said...

I understand the basic contours ("so to speak" heh) of stop and frisk, just not a lot of the better arguments pro or con. I understand the basics, but haven't followed all the detail of how it's playing out in NYC.

Palladian said...

Where's that check, Ritmo? You promised a check.

garage mahal said...

Sure monkey boy, keep projecting your DO SOMETHING DISEASE onto everyone and when they don't, why they are just meanie poopy heads

No. Your ideas have been shown to be a colossal failure everywhere they've been tried. There is a reason Tea Party economics aren't the foundation of any industrialized country for a reason. It's misery all around. Just like your miserable existence. Which is fine, but why impose it on the rest of us?

Methadras said...

Baron Zemo said...

Imagine if you were really cheesy and then became ham handed?

The possibilities are endless.


God dammit Zemo. You just made me totally imagine shoving my cheese filled ham hands into the microwave oven and wait for it to go DING!!! Bastard...

Mark said...

Garage, do you have any idea what a Tea Party group, or even a Libertarian, believes?

Because your last comment was word salad.

Rhythm and Balls said...

I don't think we want to look to England as our model.

Maybe not, but it's difficult to understand the history of modern intelligence gathering without discussing the NSA. And last I'd heard (pre-9/11) about NSA, was that it was a huge collaboration between major Anglophone countries to share ALL conversations intercepted here, in Canada, the UK and Australia.

If we really want to yank down this entire regime root and branch, we probably need to go back at least that far.

Baron Zemo said...

The way it is playing out is that it has been very effective in getting guns off the street. But the ACLU is suing to stop it as they say it is racist and discriminatory to focus preventive actions on the group that commits the vast majority of gun crimes in NYC.

The government seems to not even be targeting those groups who statistically commit terrorist actions. They are invading everyone's privacy.

If it were more limited in scope than perhaps they might have a leg to stand on. But this is just too much. Way too much power to give to an evil man like Barack Obama.

Rhythm and Balls said...

No, I offered, but you still seemed to want to smack me in the face for the perceived "insult" of it. It didn't really make me feel all that generous.

But regardless, I'm perceiving that Meade's only tolerating my continued presence tonight out of a promise to stick to the thread topic, which I obviously have no problem doing and can hopefully contribute something informative and maybe even unique on. But if not, oh well.

I'd still try to track you down. If you're really in a bad way, I wouldn't refuse to help.

Methadras said...

Baron Zemo said...

As I understand it both Simon and vspurs come from England.

I don't think we want to look to England as our model.


Too late for that. Urkel has already followed the NHS medical model. Watch what happens. England already coddles the muslims to the point that they dare not come against them in their muslim enclaves lest they will have to deal with the forthcoming retaliation. They constantly and consistently refuse to expunge themselves of the national rot they've allowed to enter their country. Not to mention the vast waves of illegal aliens that have invaded their borders from all over eastern europe, the middle-east and africa. As far as england is concerned every country to the south of them might as well be mexico.

Methadras said...

Palladian said...

Where's that check, Ritmo? You promised a check.


For the stop and frisk? You are such a whore... :D

Lydia said...

El Pollo Raylan said...
Go look up vbspurs' take on the whole thing today on twitter.

Thanks for the heads-up. She made lots of insightful, cogent comments. This may be my favorite:

"I resent that [Snowden} ran away to the Chinese, and worse, citing their freedoms as a reason. That's despicable."

Baron Zemo said...

For all of their vaunted intelligence techniques they couldn't stop the Muslims form cutting off their soldiers head in the middle of the street.

Maybe if they stopped and frisked every Abdul, Achmed and Hussein in the hood that wouldn't have happened.

Inga said...

Vspurs and Simon are correct. When Rand Paul backs down once again his libertarian followers will either be dissapointed or go right along with him.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Heh.

But forcing him to let me stop and frisk him as a precondition for the check just wouldn't seem right. ;-)

Michael said...

I am quite happy with the data gobble and yet sympathize with the ACLU for old times' sake. They are unrealistically attempting to conflate, or ignore the difference between, current with past technologies. The programs afoot are legal, have been known or suspected by sentient beings for a decade or more. The technologies in use would be greatly improved if enhanced with overt profiling and on-the-ground espionage but nonetheless a powerful tools against real and prospective foes that are less "well armed." For now we have the equivalent of the maxim gun and can be reminded of the pithy truth of Belloc's ditty. "Whatver happens we have got, the maxim gun. And they have not". I dont think we will turn it upon ourselves even in the bitter present.

Baron Zemo said...

Meade is not deleting right now because he is busy compiling the stats from the Amazon portal.

There has been a run of purchases of canned hams tonight.

garage mahal said...

Conservatism offers nothing and promises nothing more than more guaranteed misery. Any "liberal" that says the biggest threat to freedom is a loss of freedom is someone I want to run away from. The parlous state of our political discourse degrades everyone of us as citizens and people.

I hate fucking everyone!

Methadras said...

garage mahal said...

Sure monkey boy, keep projecting your DO SOMETHING DISEASE onto everyone and when they don't, why they are just meanie poopy heads

No. Your ideas have been shown to be a colossal failure everywhere they've been tried. There is a reason Tea Party economics aren't the foundation of any industrialized country for a reason. It's misery all around. Just like your miserable existence. Which is fine, but why impose it on the rest of us?


Really? Which ones? In the face of infinite government entitlement vs. the sustainability of limited government, which ones do you think won out? How did we get to pre-colonial, colonial, civil-war era, industrial, post industrial, until the 60's with prosperity at each turn. It certainly wasn't on the back of marxist ideology, if you don't count the formation of unions as the backbone of it all, which would be a farce.

Even under your dumbest assessment of what he Tea Party Movement is, it really isn't a party, you fool and therefore they don't ascribe to an economic policy if you don't count wanting as limited a government as possible that adheres to a federalist republic style of government. Then no, I guess I don't want your particular brand of leftist misery. You are so willfully stunted and backwards that it's like talking to a Inga hopped up on xanax and ripple.

Baron Zemo said...

Jeez garage. You are fucking everyone?

Dude you got to slow down. Stick with fucking one person at a time.

It's healthier for you buddy.

El Pollo Raylan said...

"parlous" = perilous

Elitist!

Methadras said...

Inga said...

Vspurs and Simon are correct. When Rand Paul backs down once again his libertarian followers will either be dissapointed or go right along with him.


Keep pulling the string Inga. I'm sure you'll hear the right phrase to get you back in the mood again.

Baron Zemo said...

Why don't we call some one who lies all the time "Baloney handed"

Baron Zemo said...

Jay Carny squelched inquires about Benghazi in his usual baloney handed way with one untruth after another.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 275   Newer› Newest»