Translating President Obama's NSA Reform Promises Into Plain English 171
sandbagger writes "The cynics at the Register have picked apart Barack Obama's NSA reform promises. As to be expected, there's some good, some deliberate vagueness, talk of 'ticking bomb scenarios' and the politician's favourite 'promises to commit to future reforms'. Basically, it's a fig-leaf to kick the can down the road so the next president has to deal with it. He's promising bulk data will go to a third party so the NSA can't see it. Okay, who is this magical third party?" They don't seem to me nearly cynical enough.
If you like it (Score:4, Insightful)
"If you like your healthcare plan you can keep it, period".
Why would you bother parsing what he said word by word. He lies, period. What he says means nothing.
Re:If you like it (Score:5, Interesting)
"If you like your privacy, you can keep it"
This is how power creeps. No one thinks they're evil. Each trust themselves to not abuse power. But even if this is going to a third party, it's still a violation of the 4th amendment. There are rules in place for a reason. This is asking to be abused.
Even worse, they still haven't proven or show any evidence that this is necessary. It's one thing if you were preventing terrorist attacks left and right and could make a utility argument, but they aren't even doing that. It's disgusting.
Re:If you like it (Score:5, Interesting)
It's one thing if you were preventing terrorist attacks left and right and could make a utility argument
No, it's not. Freedom is more important than safety. The people who are focused on the question of whether or not these programs stop terrorists are missing the point entirely.
Re: (Score:2)
If people have freedom of expression, they can disagree how freedom and security should be prioritized.
But when you get neither out of the system, then it is unambiguously a failure. (Unambiguously unless one side is arguing in bad faith.)
Re: (Score:2)
While I completely agree with you, it is not at all clear that the voting public in the US agrees. They may be quite happy to trade freedom for security, and much as I disagree with the majority opinion, I don't have a better idea than democracy for how things should be run.
I can however continue to believe that the majority is mis-guided, and will some day come to deeply regret this choice.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, even if they someday regret it, their future generations will forget all about their suffering and make the exact same mistakes.
Re: (Score:1)
I don't have a better idea than democracy for how things should be run.
Agreed.
I've been looking for a democratic country to move to, but I can't think of any...
Re: (Score:2)
Well then I guess it is a good thing that the US is not a democracy. I don't know why people keep spreading that myth. Your mistake is thinking that the "people" have a right to do whatever they want as long as the majority agrees. The typical ignorant citizen has every right to throw their own freedoms out the window. Under no
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I wasn't saying that I agreed with a utility argument. I'm just saying that it is a common one made, but it's one that doesn't even hold ground here as there is no evidence that it HAS prevented an attack. So there isn't even the utility ground to stand on. Destroying the arguments that your opponent presents is the most effective way to win a debate. If our options are to have a world with more freedom or a world with less freedom with no additional benefit to it, what do you think wins in that situati
Re: If you like it (Score:2, Insightful)
So you'd be ok with daily door to door home inspections because they might make you more safe?
I wear a harness at work because the danger is real and present. If I fall it will save my life. Now on the other hand the nsa spying on me will not make anyone safer because I have no intention of hurting anyone. They also have no evidence that I intend to hurt anyone. Now if they did have that evidence and used it to get a warrant then spy away.
people like you make me sick.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
So you'd be ok with daily door to door home inspections because they might make you more safe?
The absolutist was above, if you'll note, who was saying that "Freedom is more important than safety" without consideration of circumstances.
I was replying to them, with my own remarks, that did not express any particular sentiment or position, except disagreeing with what I perceived them as saying an absolutist position.
As far as it goes, I'm ok with home inspections for safety, but I don't see why they need to be daily, unless things are very unsafe. I suppose for the elderly, or the mentally unsound, t
Re: If you like it (Score:1)
Your problem is that you underestimate the desire of some people to do harm to others to gain power and pleasure for themselves. I suggest you research Stalin, Mao, hitler, Mussolini, Rwanda, and others before you agree to any home inspections.
Re: (Score:2)
You are anonymous, so stating something like "if you'll note, who was saying that" is not very helpful. If you wish to have progressive dialogue make an account and log in.
It's your right not to do so, but remember that when a conversation exists among at least 2 anonymous people it's impossible to tell who said what. Also impossible to tell if a 3rd, 4th, or Nth anonymous person jumped into the conversation.
Re: (Score:2)
Really, so you never wear a safety harness, because your freedom is more important than your safety?
That's a personal decision. I say you'd be dumb not too 99% of the time, though.
But this has nothing to do with fundamental liberties.
I was replying to them, with my own remarks, that did not express any particular sentiment or position, except disagreeing with what I perceived them as saying an absolutist position.
So, in other words, you completely disregarded the context this was said in. Don't blame me for your own stupidity.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, it isn't exactly pertinent, but did you keep reading my words, or did you fail to see:
I did keep reading your words. They're not on-topic. Consider the context of where I posted that; this is an article that relates to the NSA, and I responded to someone else saying that it would be less wrong if they were violating our rights in a way that kept us safe. I do not believe your reply was relevant.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow! Enough of this garbage; it's an eyesore. You're ignoring context and being pedantic for the sake of it. Vanish, I say.
I don't consider limiting the discussion to the NSA programs to be a good idea
Perhaps you should pay attention to what the article is about.
Re:If you like it (Score:5, Insightful)
so you never wear a safety harness, because your freedom is more important than your safety?
Saying freedom is more important than safety does not imply that safety is unimportant just like Saying Kareem Abdul-Jabbar is taller than Shaquille O'Neal does imply Shaq is not tall.
Re: (Score:1)
Oh... my... god... That's so retarded that reading it made me a little but stupider. You owe me 5 IQ points, and I want them back. My brain hurts.
Please go learn your englishes and gramatticals to make sure that you understand the statement, then please go learn about logic so that you understand its implications. It'll help you a lot!
His statement was "Freedom is more important than safety". This does not make any implications about how important safety is, except that it's less important than freedom. The
Re: (Score:2)
From your comment, I'm not entirely convinced that you had 5 IQ points to start with...
YumoolaJohn claimed that "Freedom is more important than safety", and implied that this phrase should make everyone instantly agree that the freedoms removed by the NSA are not acceptable, no matter how much safety they can provide. The AC then made the counter point that this is absurd, because we sacrifice freedom for safety every time we get in a car by wearing a safety harness. Trying to change what was said won't wo
Re: (Score:2)
YumoolaJohn claimed that "Freedom is more important than safety", and implied that this phrase should make everyone instantly agree that the freedoms removed by the NSA are not acceptable, no matter how much safety they can provide.
Not everyone, but everyone with a brain.
The AC then made the counter point that this is absurd, because we sacrifice freedom for safety every time we get in a car by wearing a safety harness.
The AC is an idiot. Deciding to wear a safety harness in a car has nothing to do with the fundamental freedoms the NSA is violating. And again, what freedoms are violating when you yourself decide to wear a safety harness, and how is this even remotely similar to the government violating your freedoms?
Moving on and recognizing that there's more than one side to this issue is what we need.
There is more than one side to this issue. Everyone who's paying attention knows it. The problem is, the other side doesn't promote freedom, so they should be ridiculed.
Re: (Score:2)
Baseball players won't work either.
Re: (Score:2)
YumoolaJohn implied that when he said that even if the NSA wiretaps were preventing terrorism they would still be unacceptable. I would offer you 2 IQ points, but I'm sure you wouldn't know what to do with them.
Re:If you like it (Score:5, Insightful)
Really, so you never wear a safety harness, because your freedom is more important than your safety?
False analogy. In a survival situation, you need water before food. That does not mean that you never eat, and making such an implication is simply asinine.
Ok, so you don't like that way of analogy, fine, let's consider putting people in prison. Why do we do this? Isn't that impairing their freedom? How dare we!
Another false analogy, and horrible logic. Are you really trying to imply that if you believe in Natural Law, the US Constitution, or personal freedom that there can be no accountability for actions, no justice system, or that having a justice system makes freedom impossible? This is another asinine implication, no matter how it's viewed.
There is no possible way to debate anyone with logic this horribly broken. Yes, that is correct. It's impossible to debate someone that uses this level of irrationality.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no possible way to debate anyone with logic this horribly broken. Yes, that is correct. It's impossible to debate someone that uses this level of irrationality.
I agree entirely. Acting as though a 200 year old document is sacrosanct is ridiculous, there is no such thing as "natural law", and freedoms must be abridged to have a functional justice system.
Re: (Score:2)
Acting as though a 200 year old document is sacrosanct is ridiculous
The 200 year old document you speak of is not really sacrosanct; it can, after all, be amended. If you don't like it, move to amend it. And this is the same 200 year old document that our elected officials swear to uphold, even to this day. It's also the very reason the government has any legitimacy at all.
What exactly were you intending by saying such a pointless thing about the constitution?
Re: (Score:2)
A couple of well placed amendments would certainly make the constitution a lot more bearable as a national model.
If your reading comprehension is so poor that you don't understand what I meant in such a simple sentence, then I'm quite certain you won't understand the constitution either. I am quite interested in what you think the government having "legitimacy" means, though.
Re: (Score:1)
Your opinions are not facts and vary depending on person. Nobody cares if you're willing to give up your own freedoms; just don't demand to have ours taken away as well.
And yes, I do say that everybody who violates my safety should be put in prison.
Well, I find your support of tyranny to not be in my own personal best interests of safety. Perhaps you should be sent to prison?
I'm not even going to point out that if someone is actually doing something that could potentially cause you bodily harm is already breaking the law.
Besides, why are you talking about the Constitution?
Gee, I don't know. It's almost like that's one of the founding id
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pointing out that "Freedom is more important than safety" is not true
Execept you can't, because it's not. Your assertion about prison isn't an exception - it bears out the rule. You see, your freedom isn't affected - it's not you being put in prison.
But, if you really think safety is more important, then you can certainly get a cell there fairly easily. You will be safe, clothed, housed, and fed the rest of your life. So, you should go to prison.
Re: (Score:2)
So... you support slavery? Because slaves were much safer than their inner-city descendants are today. So you think slavery was better, apparently.
Liberty or Death, mofo, Liberty or Death.
Re: (Score:2)
Really, you think slaves were much safer than their inner-city descendants?
Sorry to have to slap you in the face with reality, but yes they were. Over 8,000 blacks are killed (mostly by other blacks) every year, based on 2005 statistics. That's 1/2 of all victims of homicide, even though they are only 13% of the population. By contrast, there were only an estimated 2, 800 slaves killed during the entire century from 1750 to 1850, or about 280 per year. The horrors of the slave trade in Africa, where 50% of slaves died, and shipping and trading slaves, which often only 40 - 50%
Re:If you like it (Score:4, Insightful)
That's the same argument that violent people make to try to justify gun ownership.
And they are right. Freedom is more important than safety. I don't believe we should be punishing everyone merely because some people abuse guns.
What good is the Bill of Rights if you can take those rights if one of those gun owners can take all of those rights from us in an instant with a gun?
Have some principles, please; you're living in a country that's supposed to be "the land of the free and the home of the brave."
Some criminal could randomly kill you, but what does that have to do with the government violating everyone's rights? You act as if we must sacrifice all of our rights for safety.
Re:If you like it (Score:4, Insightful)
I'll give you 50 bonus points for not quoting Franklin. I'll also subtract 100 points because you're an idiot.
Total points: -50
What about Kennedy? "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable"
Re: (Score:2)
"100 points from Gryffindor!"
"But Snape, I was just walking down the hall minding my own business..."
"Another 100 points from Gryffindor for arguing!"
Re: (Score:1)
Even worse, they still haven't proven or show any evidence that this is necessary.
Oh it's an absolutely necessary part of their corporate espionage cash cow.
Re: (Score:2)
This 'data will be held by third parties' thing is just about changing who pays for data storage.
Instead of giving tax money to the NSA to build large data warehouses, and hacking American companies to get the data, the American companies will be required to store ALL the data [data + metadata] indefinitely, at their own expense [which means consumers have to directly pay for it] and the NSA/FBI/DHS have to pay to access it [fee's will be approximately 98% profit].
This way, the NSA can focus their budget on
Re: (Score:1)
I think it will be lackluster for them in the end run, corporate espionage data ages quickly. Do you think they will ever give it up? They have already infiltrated every security intended to keep it safe anyway so they will no doubt get it when they want it and will just 'off the books' grab what they want without having a search index. Lackluster meaning a less profitable model.
Re: (Score:2)
No it's not. The courts have ruled for decades that this sort of activity is not unconstitutional.
What difference does that make, drone? Courts can be wrong. In fact, the supreme court overruled itself on a number of occasions, so your line of thinking (that the courts are automatically right) is paradoxical at best.
You'd think that in a place that's supposed to be "the land of the free and the home of the brave," you wouldn't see people blindly worshiping authority figures.
I might add that these are the same courts whose authority to make such rulings is also defined in the constitution.
Those judges merely have power that others do not. Their opinions, however, are as 'correct' as anyone else's. And that's all they
AC == CF? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Like many slashdotters, you claim to care so much about the constitution but know so little about it.
I'm not sure how you managed to interpret my comment in such a way that it became apparent to you that I did not know it was possible to amend the constitution, but your interpretation is absurd. Essentially, all I said was that judges' opinions are not automatically correct and can be challenged. Your reply doesn't address what I said.
Plus, what the other guy said.
Re:If you like it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's more than that -- Obama is basically telling the American public, "you're all too stupid to know what's best for you, you can express your outrage by signing an online petition and then you go right back to your Facebook and Twitter who are in fact the "third parties" collecting all this data. You're a bitch-ass chump, common American, and I'm going to patronize you for being the fat moron you are, and you're not gonna do a goddamn thing about it."
Then the common American hangs their head, chin cushion
Re: (Score:1)
I prefer Arby's.
It's weird though. Their fries are shaped just like my new light bulbs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
before waddling off to McDonald's to guzzle down a 64oz. soda
that is, as long as he is not in NYC
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"If you like your unconstitutional spy agency, you can keep it"
I think that's the one promise he could actually keep.
Re: (Score:2)
President cannot write laws. Any promise from the executive branch about the legislative is not credible. Not necessarily a lie, but a promise that cannot be kept. Lower taxes, lower crime, most of the promises of a gubernatorial or presidential candidate simply cannot be backed up.
Does this make it a lie? Surely it is not ignorance.
If the audience should know better, can it feel lied to?
This will be great for India's Economy! (Score:1)
Parent said:
"What he says means nothing."
I hope not! From the front page:
"He's promising bulk data will go to a third party so the NSA can't see it. Okay, who is this magical third party?""
I don't know, but I know it will be in India where we have no money but lots of free software (like Windows XP and Vista and 7; nobody here is bothering to crack Windows 8 because there is no esteem in accomplishing something that nobody appreciates: like Windows 8).
But yes our U.S. allies can count on us Indian guys to s
Re: (Score:2)
"If you like your healthcare plan you can keep it, period". Why would you bother parsing what he said word by word. He lies, period. What he says means nothing.
Well in that case, there were some things that needed clarification. For one, the people without actual heatlhcare plans - the guys who payed their dealer in monthly installments weren't eligible to keep their plans. But the biggest issues was, the government doesn't actually control private enterprise, so they found a loophole where they could switch people off the plans they had before the cutoff (of the plans they could keep) to a brand new one with the same benefits. Then when the law came into effect
Re: (Score:2)
> "If you like your healthcare plan you can keep it, period".
To be fair, it was the insurance companies that cancelled substandard policies rather than bring them up to minimum standards. Should he have realized this would happen and refrained from making that statement? Maybe so. He owned up to it publicly, which is more than I can recall ever happening in the previous regime.
More on-topic, though, he's as much a part of the power structure as anyone else. I'm sure the NSA has made clear to him and the
We should learn from Obama's lies (Score:2)
Why would you bother parsing what he said word by word. He lies, period. What he says means nothing.
I respectfully disagree.
Obama is not the first president of the United States, and I hope that he is not the last one either.
Similarly, Obama is not the first president of the United States who was caught lying.
What I am saying is, we should learn from Obama's lies.
We should learn a lesson on how the POTUS lies, what kind of lies POTUS utters, under which circumstance(s) and what kind of benefit the POTUS reaps with his/her lies.
We should learn that because it would benefit us, the people, to better recogn
Re: If you like it (Score:2)
You blame him for the health insurance providers taking the opportunity to use him as a whipping boy and take out their aggravation that their golden goose isn't looking too healthy?
In other news, Reagan said that trickle-down economics would work, and George W. showed up on an aircraft carrier claiming victory over a war that wasn't over yet, which we started because of falsified intel. Clinton said he didn't have sex with that woman, either.
Important Questions for Future Consideration... (Score:2)
How can anyone EVER believe ANYTHING the government says EVER AGAIN?!!
How many tin foil hats out there are really JUSTIFIED?
How long till the shit hits the fan?
Re: (Score:2)
More evident? Don't get me wrong, they could well be but historically, I don't think abuses of power have ever been more evident than under the current administration. Handbaskets come to mind.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not just the NSA. IRS has also shown up on the abuse radar recently.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Or: "chlamydia - the best of the venereal diseases!"
Re: (Score:2)
What's this bullshit about caring about people? We want the government to stop bullying everyone and controlling everything. Then you can choose your own insurance coverage and/or go to whatever doctor you choose. You don't need a government overseer to care about you. Be a free, independent person, make your own choices, and care for/about yourself.
Everybody Knows (Score:1)
He's promising bulk data will go to a third party so the NSA can't see it. Okay, who is this magical third party?"
Google?
Re: (Score:1)
Dear God, thats the worst thing he could do. I trust the NSA more with the data than spreading it around to corporations for "safe keeping." The problem is the data exists / has been collected in the first place. If anything, his suggestion is an insult.
Re:Everybody Knows (Score:5, Insightful)
Arguably corporations already have this data so all you need to do is have a law that mandates a retention policy. I still don't like it but it's definitely an improvement (of miniscule proportions)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I was under the impression that this data is collected and retained forever, but it seems the order requires this data to be deleted after five years. It also says what metadata is collected, and I am not sure if any single corporate entity has this data. For
Re: (Score:3)
The NSA under a different name, I would expect.
Re: (Score:2)
It will be manages by a collaboration of Target, Evernote, and Adobe.
Seriously, is there anyone who doesn't think this "third party", whoever it is, won't become a giant "Target" (pun intended) for data hackers? At least the NSA's data centers are on military bases, and they have half a clue about security, Snowden notwithstanding.
Re: (Score:2)
CGI? We can only hope because they will screw the project up so bad that it will never see the light of day.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably the same third party I have to deal with whenever I have a billing/tech support issue. Some contractor in India.
Since they are already beyond the reach of meager US data protection and privacy laws, it will be trivial for the NSA/FBI/CIA to just buy back (for a modest fee) any metadata that they want. The telecoms//ISPs are already in the business of reselling our* metadata to third parties. Anyone who wants a dump of anything from your companies customer lists to any number that regularly calls i
Translating Obama's NSA Promises to TL;DR (Score:3, Insightful)
Plain enough. (Score:5, Insightful)
Nope.
Re:Plain enough. (Score:4, Informative)
Bullshit. Potus has WAY more power than you think. He can ask the Justice department to investigate why the judges only rubber stamp, he can use presidential orders to direct departments or how to interpretation the law, he can fire US attorneys, he has his cabinet members he can fire, he could even fire the the head of the CIA/FBI and Homeland security for misconduct by asking the AG to fire them, and so much more powers.
Re: (Score:2)
Potus has WAY more power than you think. He can ask the Justice department to investigate why the judges only rubber stamp, he can use presidential orders to direct departments or how to interpretation the law, he can fire US attorneys, he has his cabinet members he can fire, he could even fire the the head of the CIA/FBI and Homeland security for misconduct by asking the AG to fire them, and so much more powers.
Can you point to a few instances where he's done any of these things?
Re: (Score:1)
Can you point to a few instances where he's done any of these things?
Are you really asking that?
Almost every new administration begins with the President doing exactly that: replacing the cabinet and heads of departments.
Or do you think that Eric Holder was George Bush's man?
James Clapper's predecessor, Dennis Blair was fired by President Obama.
Stephen Miller (IRS Commissioner) fired by President Obama
BTW, Most of us count forced-to-resign as a firing.
Re: (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
He has a lot of control over what the NSA and other agencies do though. As President he have a great deal of influence and control because the Administration, you know, administers those agencies, appoints the people who lead them, etc.
Re: (Score:3)
He could end the secrecy. The President can de-classify anything, anytime he wants.
Get a warrant (Score:5, Insightful)
Also these warrants need to go before real judges. If they can't trust the judges then how can they trust anyone?
Re: (Score:2)
If they can't control the judges then how can they control everyone?
Re: (Score:2)
I will also add that in cases of immediate threats it would ok to do
No.
Re: (Score:1)
I will also add that in cases of immediate threats it would ok to do
No.
He actually added it, so yes, his statement that he will add it was clearly true.
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing (Score:3)
"I don't want to do anything; I don't plan to much; I don't know how what little I am offering will get done or when" -- Pretty much sums it up.
The interesting thing is, some of the statements Obama made directly contradict the congressional testimony. Is anyone getting charged with perjury this time? Or is CONgress just going to let being lied to go?
Re: (Score:2)
No standing? It's illegal to lie to Congress. If you're appearing formally and put under oath (which sometimes is done, sometimes not) and you lie it's called perjury.
Are you shitting me? (Score:2, Troll)
Mr. Teleprompter who is now costing me another house payment a month because my old plan was not good enough? His bullshit reforms with the NSA don't go nearly far enough and I have no faith that the current leaders (snicker) in congress will make meaningful reform something to debate in the upcoming elections. What his speech and plan amount to is a white wash of the situation and what has to happen is a constitutional amendment to finally put personal privacy rights first and foremost. This country wa
Re: (Score:1)
To be clear, DHS and TSA was not created by Mr. Teleprompter. Mr. Teleprompter did not legislate money is free speech. Mr. Teleprompter does not argue "corporations are people". Founding the country with liberty is all right when government is the most powerful institution. It means nothing when the most powerful institutions are corporations that can spend infinite amounts of money to get the candidates that they want, which eventually has gotten them the judiciary they want.
Re: (Score:2)
You sounded angry. Having vented, do you feel better or no?
Re: (Score:2)
Not until these fucksticks in DC are all gone, then I'll feel much better. Until then I want stocks set up on the Washington Mall so these capricious folks can get a taste of rotten tomatoes and eggs.
That's obvious (Score:3)
"Okay, who is this magical third party?"
There is only one entity that could be trusted with the security and sanctity of such a trove, the TSA of course.
-Charlie
His lips are moving (Score:2)
He is a politician.
Connect the dots.
Register's response is good. (Score:5, Interesting)
The main issue that a lot of people are going to have is:
1) They denied everything until Snowden
2) What they fix, they'll deny until the next leaker.
Possibly) What Snowden didn't leak, they will continue to deny and have no need to fix it. Plus there is the "need to know" stuff, some of which POTUS doesn't even know.
Three words would suffice (Score:2)
In reality three words would suffice when it comes to translating any policitian's words on covert monitoring:
'bridge for sale [phrases.org.uk]'
third party will be CLEC/LECs (Score:2)
make this an issue for the next POTUS election (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:make this an issue for the next POTUS election (Score:5, Interesting)
It was an issue in the election that Obama won in 2008. The problem is that he lied his ass off and wasn't held accountable in 2012, not because Obama was doing a great job but because the other guy would have been 10x worse. I'm sure whoever runs in 2016 will either lie their ass off or figure out a way to make it a non-issue.
Among other lies on the subject:
"That means no more illegal wiretapping of American citizens. No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime. No more tracking citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war. No more ignoring the law when it is inconvenient," Obama said in 2007.
Later:
"I take the Constitution very seriously," he said. "The biggest problems that we’re facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all. And that’s what I intend to reverse when I’m president of the United States of America."
But either way, this won't be a huge issue in the next election. Ironically, it'll be the things Obama actually did right that the democrats get reamed for, like social services (since that costs money, albeit a teeny tiny fraction of what the wars are costing each year) that help a helluva lot of people,I didn't even know how much good they did until having a conversation with a relative who's a social worker, and healthcare reform (although implementation was half-assed, it is allowing a lot of people get insurance, and in the bigger picture it's a move in the right direction).
Re: (Score:2)
Freedom's just... (Score:1)
That interpretor's language is not Turing Complete (Score:5, Informative)
What good is a lexical translator if the output doesn't compile? We've been incrementally compiling the language of ++BS (doubleplus bullshit) for quite a while, so let's just run what we've got now and see if there are any obvious errors.
The FBI and NSA have now both been tasked with maintaining "national security": This means maintaining the political, and socio-economic status quo despite the will of the people. [wikipedia.org] It's a fact they have a long history of acting to silence civil rights activism, anti-war activism, and other activist groups. They claimed to stop the practice, but the NSA has now admitted it still entertains the idea of discrediting "radicals", via exposing porn habits, etc. Under the state secret label of "national security" they FBI and NSA won't have to worry about pesky FOIA requests revealing their programs like they did in the past, and can delegate enforcement to the state police agency: DHS. It doesn't matter where the data is stored online, or how encrypted it is, the NSA can and will get at it via exploits. [theatlantic.com], so Obama is free to promise the moon and stars. Not like oversight ever stopped them from blatant constitutional violations before.
Here is a documentary / book presenting facts which can be easily verified in an attempt explain the practice of Disaster Capitalism. [youtube.com] The gist is that through application of social, political and economic shock therapy you can bend the will of the people to your design and siphon a lot of wealth up into the upper echelon of private business. It's also a great way to force the privatization of public resources for corporate benefit. Anyone who objects or holds counter economic views is labelled a "radical extremist" of a "dangerous ideology" and rounded up in prison camps as examples of what happens if you disagree. The bogeyman of Communism or Marxism or Terrorism, etc. is thereby leveraged.
Warning: Cognitive Dissonance Detected.
Assumption of inherent benign governance illogical: More evidence for Null Hypothesis against this stance exists.
This article examines the Pentagon's preparation to implement the round-up of those having "radical ideologies" in the wake of a Disaster Capitalism event, [theguardian.com] (essentially following the predicitons and warnings of the prior linked documentary) and explains how the PRISM system is apparently connected to it.
Error: Expected Event "Future" not found.
Democratic Republic execution model is not consistent with economic ruin and despotism.
So, there we have it. It would be crazy to think anyone could benefit through economic ruin, so everything's probably OK. It seems our government is just run at the behest of rich corporations, and is wearing tinfoil hats in preparation of ensuring our continued acquiescence just in case they're ever able to strip more power from the people than is bearable. However, it's probably nothing to worry about unless they plan to let some "unforseen disaster" happen, like a Stock Market Crash, Pearl Harbour, 9/11, Energy Crisis, etc. or our ability to influence the government via the democratic vote has been hacked. [youtube.com]
TL;DR: Obama's Promises are merely legitimization and fulfilment of The Nightmare Eisenhower Tried to Warn Us About. [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine the United States as a unicorn--pure, innocent, all that whatnot. Now the corporations are hunters who are hunting the unicorn. The problem of course, is that in a one-on-one fight with a unicorn, they're going to get gored all to hell. So they set a trap, immobilize the unicorn, stab it up and collect all its magical blood, then run away before the unicorn explodes and sell the magical blood.
Everybody knows that unicorns explode when they die, right? They do.
This just in (Score:2)
You know what's more funnier? (Score:1)
I'm just waiting for another 9-11 type of attack, which I predict will happen again fairly soon possibly in couple of years if people keep pushing for their freedom too much... guess what'll happen shortly after that?
"OMG save us government!!"... "WE NEED MORE SECURITY!!!"... "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!"
Rinse and fucking repeat. Americans are nothing but a predictable bunch.
Third Party Metadata Center (Score:1)