OldWorldOrder
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2012
- Messages
- 5,820
- Reaction score
- 1,438
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Actually 1984.
Don't you read?
They are statists. They no longer believe the state should be constrained by a written constitution. I would give you a Goldwater reference but it is clear you are not a reader.
The one who can read but does not has no advantage over the one who cannot read.1984? LOL how many times can someone quote Orwell as the basis of their psychosis?
You are insane.
So what do the defenders of the N.S.A. surveillance say about content? As in, the N.S.A. adamantly sticks to the metadata spiel. But what about content? I posted in this thread what Tom Clemente said on CNN after the Boston Marathon bombings. It has been thus ignored.
Hey, I deal with it. How are you doing?
It wasn't ignored; you didn't ask anything...Furthermore it wasn't clear what program Clemente was alluding to so why speculate?
He made it crystal clear that the government does content though.
Did he say without a warrant?
His quote and the link to the transcript is in post #216.
I know where it is
If you do it right it only takes once. I am sorry that you missed the references. They were subtle. Really.By not re-reading Orwell and Salinger over and over.
No, actually Abdullah Azzam.
If you've seen it, know where it's at and have read it, you should know the answer. At any rate, it's in post #216 if you need to re-read it.
I believe you to be a very honorable man. Are you telling me that you have direct knowledge of this program and the NSA is not gathering data on American citizens? If you tell me that you have direct knowledge of this program and that it is not gathering data on every one of us then I shall reconsider my stance.
The Supreme Court routinely rules that laws passed by congress are unconstitutional. The fourth amendment is not ambiguous, anyone comparing current surveillance practices with the language of the fourth amendment can see the violation. (if they are willing to be honest)
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAH
looooooooooooooooool
Is this where you pretend that 'probable' isn't subjective, Henry? I see there's a couple more pages after you posted this. Let's see you argue that it's objective for a few pages (fingers crossed, please please please do this). No wonder you're a conspiracy theorist.
FISA judges? Ya know...federal judges.
....That being said, I am not convinced that this program violates the Constitution - electronically it seems to be the equivalent of you writing a "To" and a "From" address on your mail envelope. Nobody at the NSA opens your mail unless you put the electronic equivalent of "Mr Gee Had, 911 Pakistan Lane" in your "To" block, or have it in the "From" block when you receive it......
I would thank you very much if you could give me an example of the USSC ruling that a law, any law, passed by congress was unconstitutional. And even moreso if you could make the case that such things are routine.
Google, when it is not in cahoots with my enemy, is my friend:
Abdullah Yusuf Azzam
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Abdullah Yusuf Azzam
Abdullah Yusuf Azzam (Arabic: عبد الله يوسف عزام, ‘Abdu’llāh Yūsuf ‘Azzām; 1941 – 24 November 1989) a.k.a. Father of Global Jihad[1][2] was a highly influential Palestinian Sunni Islamic scholar and theologian, who preached in favour of both defensive jihad and offensive jihad by Muslims to help the Afghan mujahideen against the Soviet invaders.[3] He raised funds, recruited and organised the international Islamic volunteer effort of Afghan Arabs through the 1980s, and emphasised the political ascension of Islam.
I have technical knowledge of the field I work in as well. In addition to that I read. I recommend it to everyone.
Terrific answer OWO. But don't feel like the Lone Ranger. No government official likes to be asked that question either. It makes them very uncomfortable.
Any independent experts? (people like John Woo don't count as independent.)
They are independent. You asked if there were any that weren't part of the Obama or Bush administrations (which was laughable to being with, that's like asking for a list of current excellent American football players that aren't in the NFL or NCAA). I gave you federal judges.
Or are you going to give me more qualifiers about who is and isn't independent?
Is so hard to acknowledge that people that disagree with you might also be intelligent, informed, and not 'evil'? Why do so many of you struggle with this? It's laughable at this point.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?