The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community

The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community (http://www.orangemane.com/BB/index.php)
-   War, Religion and Politics Thread (http://www.orangemane.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=25)
-   -   NSA Leaks Mucking Up Partisan Divisions (http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?t=111192)

Rohirrim 06-11-2013 11:40 AM

NSA Leaks Mucking Up Partisan Divisions
 
Democrats, owing partly to the simple fact that they control the levers of executive power, are more likely to back the extensive use of that authority. Two recent surveys differed in how respondents reacted to the NSA's surveillance programs, but they found similar patterns of partisanship.

In a HuffPost/YouGov poll, Republicans and independents were most likely to say that collecting Americans' phone records is unnecessarily intrusive, by a 65 percent to 17 percent margin for Republicans and by a 62 percent to 17 percent margin for independents. But Democrats in the poll were more divided, with 39 percent saying collecting phone records is unnecessarily intrusive and 33 percent saying it is justified to combat terrorism.

In a Pew Research Center/Washington Post poll, majorities of Republicans, Democrats, and independents all supported the NSA monitoring, but Democrats were by far the most likely to do so. Sixty-four percent of Democrats called the surveillance acceptable, compared with 53 percent of independents and 52 percent of Republicans.

That wasn't the case when former President George W. Bush was in office. A similar ABC News/Washington Post poll conducted in 2006 during the Bush administration -- after similar revelations that the government was collecting Americans' phone and email data -- found that 75 percent of Republicans and just 37 percent of Democrats said it was acceptable for the NSA to "secretly[listen] in on phone calls and [read] emails without court approval."

Republicans who were then on the receiving end of Democratic criticism, particularly that dished out by then-candidate Barack Obama, are piqued to see so many now standing up for the national security state. "This so similar to the Cheney doctrine, it's not even funny, and nobody's talking about that," a former Republican leadership aide said on background. "At least Republicans are consistent. The left should be enraged. He promised something better than this. And it's ****ing the same, it's the same arrogance."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3421415.html

cutthemdown 06-11-2013 11:51 AM

Obama could **** on the flag, spark up a crack pipe and admit he is from Kenya and 97% of black people and 65% of democrats would still like him.

TonyR 06-11-2013 12:15 PM

Quote:

One interesting aspect of these poll results is the partisan hypocrisy: Having a Democratic president has made Democrats more inclined toward surveillance and Republicans less so. But the more important finding is simply that public support for intrusive surveillance is high, under both Republican and Democratic presidents.
http://www.businessinsider.com/ameri...r+-+Politix%29

TonyR 06-11-2013 12:24 PM

Nate Silver chimes in on this very topic:

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes...016-primaries/

cutthemdown 06-11-2013 12:47 PM

Govt is out of control its time to reel them in a bit. Obviously this poll shows how when your party in power you are a lot more forgiving then when they aren't.

06-11-2013 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TonyR (Post 3860337)

Ah, the old reliable "everything's ok so long as it polls ok angle"

Looks like a small majority opposes email monitoring though. So doesn't that mean it's still possible for that to be a criminal overreach?

Or does that majority-morality rule only apply when the small majority is comprised of mostly Democrats?

06-11-2013 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cutthemdown (Post 3860326)
Obama could **** on the flag, spark up a crack pipe and admit he is from Kenya and 97% of black people and 65% of democrats would still like him.

oh, you drama queen :flower:

06-11-2013 01:42 PM

ACLU files suit over the Government confiscating those "public record" phone logs.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/12/us...gram.html?_r=0

Meanwhile, CivilLib Tony's counting electoral votes. LOL

TonyR 06-11-2013 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis (Post 3860377)
Ah, the old reliable "everything's ok so long as it polls ok angle"

That's not exactly the point here, but feel free to read it that way if that helps you keep playing the victim card or whatever flag it is you're flying.

06-11-2013 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TonyR (Post 3860504)
That's not exactly the point here, but feel free to read it that way if that helps you keep playing the victim card or whatever flag it is you're flying.

I'm not the victim. Our grandkids will be the real victims.

mhgaffney 06-11-2013 06:26 PM

What a load of BS.

I keep telling you -- Wall Street (the 1%) controls BOTH parties. They do not have serious divisions about whistleblowers.

Here is what Mike Rogers (R - Michigan) the chair of the House Intelligence Committee said about the latest leak.

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.co...wald-he-doesnt

Obviously Rogers is talking out of his A-hole. The one who should be overseeing it -- does not understand it.

Here is what Diane Feinstein (D -CA) the chair of the Senate Intelligence committee said:
http://www.11alive.com/news/article/...act-of-treason

Feinstein called Snowden's witness an "act of treason"

Obviously BOTH parties are equivalent parties to tyranny. The hero is Snowden.

MHG

Dr. Broncenstein 06-11-2013 07:41 PM

Best example is 2007 Obama vs 2013 Obama. Lol.

Dr. Broncenstein 06-11-2013 07:50 PM

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/5ylVOdriEyA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

This is too easy.

Dr. Broncenstein 06-11-2013 07:53 PM

<iframe width="480" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/vX6DrWVzyNY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Holy balls.

Dr. Broncenstein 06-11-2013 08:06 PM

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/7BmdovYztH8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Oops. I did it again.

houghtam 06-11-2013 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mhgaffney (Post 3860588)
What a load of BS.

I keep telling you -- Wall Street (the 1%) controls BOTH parties. They do not have serious divisions about whistleblowers.

Here is what Mike Rogers (R - Michigan) the chair of the House Intelligence Committee said about the latest leak.

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.co...wald-he-doesnt

Obviously Rogers is talking out of his A-hole. The one who should be overseeing it -- does not understand it.

Here is what Diane Feinstein (D -CA) the chair of the Senate Intelligence committee said:
http://www.11alive.com/news/article/...act-of-treason

Feinstein called Snowden's witness an "act of treason"

Obviously BOTH parties are equivalent parties to tyranny. The hero is Snowden.

MHG

Don't bother bringing up who is the chair of what committee to this crowd. They already made it abundantly clear in an earlier thread that they don't care what the qualifications of committee members are, nor do they care whether or not the positions are handed out as a result of being a loyal Party member.

And then they complain when nobody who is "supposed" to knows anything actually knows anything.

cutthemdown 06-11-2013 10:14 PM

Liberals are avoiding the fact Obama has been proven to be full of ****. We actually have no idea how he sits on an issue until it breaks like this one. Had you went by Obamas speaches you would have figured no way his admin this intrusive. FRAUD! hes a ****ing FRAUD!

TonyR 06-12-2013 06:20 AM

So what do you suggest, cut? Dismantle the intelligence apparatus that's trying to avoid another 9/11? What's funny is that if Obama had done that all you same people who are calling this a "scandal" would be banging out threads and posts bashing him for harming the security of the country and not being tough on terror. In other words, you're also frauds.

Dr. Broncenstein 06-12-2013 06:59 AM

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/LMfhC4CwUnM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Joe Biden sums it up perfectly in 2006.

06-12-2013 07:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TonyR (Post 3860794)
So what do you suggest, cut? Dismantle the intelligence apparatus that's trying to avoid another 9/11? What's funny is that if Obama had done that all you same people who are calling this a "scandal" would be banging out threads and posts bashing him for harming the security of the country and not being tough on terror. In other words, you're also frauds.

Almost everything we've done since 9/11 does almost nothing to prevent the next 9/11. Do you really think with how many people have been known to slip things on planes (accidentally or intentionally) without being caught that a jihadi couldn't slip something as threatening as a box cutter on a plane again?

The biggest reason 9/11 couldn't happen again (the way it happened) is because people are wise enough to no longer allow a jihadi or two with box cutters to hijack a plane. Most of that was psychological that day. The old model was hijack a plane. Fly around and make demands. People didn't understand they were being hijacked by suicidal crazies. Now they do. The whole dynamic changed.

What does TSA's security theater do to improve that? Nothing.

What does all this surveillance do to improve that? Next to nothing. The really serious threats know how to avoid this. And they're not using gmail or ****ing facebook. You might catch a kook or two doing that. But they're not the kind of kooks who are going to bring down skyscrapers.

One of the best things I've read since this whole CF came out.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/06/...nted-bull****/

Living in an Era of Unprecedented Bull****

Quote:

Let’s begin at the top: Our president (who once boasted of having taught Constitutional law), decried, way back in 2007 when he was contemplating a run for the White House, what he correctly labeled the Bush-Cheney administration’s “false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we provide.” Fast forward to the president today, after his all-encompassing monitoring of all the phone and internet communications of all Americans, and here’s what he’s saying now (speaking last Friday in San Jose) after the humongous pervasiveness and intrusiveness of the spying was exposed in the U.K Guardian newspaper and the Washington Post:

“I think it’s important for everybody to understand … that there are some trade-off’s involved. You can’t have 100 percent security and also then have 100 percent privacy and zero inconvenience. You know, we’re going to have to make some choices as a society.”

Jacob, quick! The bull**** repellent!

Where to start? A security-for-liberty trade-off, he says? Where’s the security? We just had a bombing in Boston that would have been spotted in a minute if the FBI were monitoring the Tsarnaev brothers‘ websites (assuming they are the guilty parties). But the FBI claims it “stopped” monitoring Tamerlan Tsarnaev after interviewing him several times, and “closed” his case, despite his having travelled to Dagestan, a former Soviet struggling with separatist Islamic rebels, and despite warnings from Russian intelligence. This is the kind of “100 percent security” we get in return for handing over 100% of our privacy on the phone and online? What incredible BS!
Most ironic thing is that the PC police in charge of Big Brother will work day and night to ensure that only the liberties of the most possibly suspect are protected. Every warning sign with guys like this and a guy like Hasan was completely ignored. Why? Because it tweaks some people's sense of political correctness when suspects line up with stereotypes. In essence, they're only reinforcing it in the negative. But they don't care.

Because when they miss the most obvious of obvious cases, they'll hide behind "Well we have to respect their civil liberties! Innocent until proven guilty after all!" Then you ask them why they're reading your email? "Oh, for your protection of course."

Bull****. All this Bull**** buys us nothing, yet costs us everything.

TonyR 06-12-2013 07:18 AM

^ So, then, why do you think they're "reading your email" (which they're not going, by the way, but I know you like to say that to make your argument seem better than it is). And what's your concern with it if they are? What's the conspiracy that so terrifies you? What's the "cost"?

Dr. Broncenstein 06-12-2013 07:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TonyR (Post 3860828)
^ So, then, why do you think they're "reading your email" (which they're not going, by the way, but I know you like to say that to make your argument seem better than it is). And what's your concern with it if they are? What's the conspiracy that so terrifies you? What's the "cost"?

"I'm able to determine every single person you talk to. I can get a pattern about your life that is very, very intrusive. And the real question here is: what do they do with this information that they collect?" -- Joe Biden, 2006

For one, they might use the IRS as means to punish you and your associates for supporting the political opposition. Just a thought.

06-12-2013 07:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. Broncenstein (Post 3860836)
"I'm able to determine every single person you talk to. I can get a pattern about your life that is very, very intrusive. And the real question here is: what do they do with this information that they collect?" -- Joe Biden, 2006

For one, they might use the IRS as means to punish you and your associates for supporting the political opposition. Just a thought.

No. You can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the IRS Commissioner had Tea with The President every Thursday afternoon. Therefore that kind of thing does not happen. :)

TonyR 06-12-2013 07:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. Broncenstein (Post 3860836)
For one, they might use the IRS as means to punish you and your associates for supporting the political opposition. Just a thought.

So you're worried about this, personally? Come on, doc. I know you think you're very big and important but in reality you're below insignificant. I know that's hard for your bloated ego to absorb but them are just the facts. "They" don't care about you any more than I do. Which is almost not at all.

Requiem 06-12-2013 07:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TonyR (Post 3860866)
So you're worried about this, personally? Come on, doc. I know you think you're very big and important but in reality you're below insignificant. I know that's hard for your bloated ego to absorb but them are just the facts. "They" don't care about you any more than I do. Which is almost not at all.


Rep. Hilarious!


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:28 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.