@VoodooV

do i sound angry to you?
you are injecting an emotional component that quite frankly is non-existent.

"an emotional rant that has been boiling for months"

um..what?
and just how did you discern these supposed pent up emotions?
what evidence have i presented that my accusing you of being a hypocrite and bully is somehow derived from some emotional cauldron of hate?

what device did you use to come to these conclusions?
was it magic?
a crystal ball?
did you fall into a vat of nuclear waste and somehow gained super powers to peer into another humans intentions?

again...you are projecting.

do you think i hate or dislike you?
do you think i am angry with you?
i dislike the hypocrisy.i dislike the bullying but those are only small aspects of a greater whole.
which is why i was pointing those aspects out.in my opinion you are better than those aspects and maybe i presume too much to feel that you are better than that.

once again i am truly saddened by your lack of understanding.
you seem to feel this is some personal vendetta,based on absolutely zero evidence.you also seem to be under the impression that i am using words to appeal to other sifters.never even considering that my usage may possibly be accurate and succinct.

has it even occurred to you that me pointing out that you are behaving badly may actually come from a standpoint of friendship?or is that a foreign concept to you?you seem to be so certain of your assumptions,yet i see no basis for them.

if you think that just because i point to your poor attitude in regards to certain people somehow translates to me hating or disliking you,you are so incredibly and concretely wrong.

i am truly sorry you do not understand.
my apologies for using words and terms that confuse you.i was not trying to be "cool" or gain the admiration of those who may be following our discussion.

"you proceed from a false assumption.i have no ego to bruise.of course..the ship is yours"

Are you just throwing out buzzwords to sound cool? You honestly aren't sounding very sane or rational at the moment dude. This sounds more like an emotional rant that's been boiling for months and you finally lost your cool. you keep spewing out words like hypocritical, no humanity, two dimensional yet no objective details.

just vague subjective terms and references to bodily functions.

I see you are taking up choggie's mantle of derailing sifts for your personal vendettas and nonsensical ravings, though.

thanks lover lips!
did you ever get around to finally seeing the movie?
if i remember you hadnt last time i posted a v for vendetta clip.

What is helping with that though is that because the right keeps moving the goalposts, so many people who were once Republicans are now RINOs according to the extremists. Just like this video suggests, Will may be a fictional character, but he's describing exactly what a lot of moderate Republicans are going through right now. The right wing extremists have decided to pursue a personal vendetta against Obama and all the moderates in the party are going "wtf?"

Sorry, but that's the most basic sign of a downfall. when you keep purging your ranks for not having enough ideological purity, you're not exactly planning for long term success.

When all the big historical Republicans heroes like Lincoln, Nixon, and Reagan, and maybe even HW Bush couldn't win a Republican primary in today's climate, you know you're losing touch

I dunno though, speaking more generally however, there's got to be some way of inducing politicians to not play games like this. The whole 10% approval yet 90% incumbancy rate should hopefully shock people into doing something. We've got a bill that passed both houses of congress, signed into law by the president AND upheld by the SCOTUS, and yet a small faction is holding gov't hostage over this.

I don't see how it's even legal to defund something that is law. If it's law, how is it legal to interfere with it like that? If you don't like it, pass a new law repealing it....that should be the only way to stop an existing law (other than Supreme Court of course)

I've heard this numerous times before from conservatives that we need to enforce the laws already on the books....well...ok. Let's do that.

(continued conversation from http://videosift.com/video/Democracy-Now-A-Massive-Surveillance-State-Exposed. Feel free to join in.)

@enoch - Specifically, what new power has the government gained here? (this is not a rhetorical question)

I'm with you on torture, warrantless wiretaps, illegal wars, assassinations (in general, thought I think Al Alakwi was justified considering the body count he had racked up), persecution of whistleblowers, persecution of journalists

The current NSA scandal encompasses none of these things. If they want to record your phone calls, they need a warrant. They didn't under Bush - but they do now - and PRISM can't go after your internet data at all.

Even if they did want to grab everyones' information, can you see how difficult it would be to pull off? How many phone calls are made in a day? (millions?) How many warrants would it take to get access to all those calls? How many man hours would it take to record and listen to all those calls? Even if the NSA were full of villainous mustache twirlers, doesn't that seem like a futile task? 99.9999% of the information would be useless.

I believe that the NSA genuinely works to stop terror attacks. I know there has been much bullshit done in the name of the "war on terror", but I believe there is a genuine need for an Agency that deals with National Security. I would imagine most countries have some kind of similar body.

I don't have a problem with information gained through search warrants. My major complaint is that this stuff is not better explained to the public. I know that there is plenty of specific information that needs to be kept secret in order to not blow the cover of agents who are wiretapping suspects, but I think the broad strokes should be put out there. Here's what we are doing. Here's why. Here are the problems we've had. Here are the successes we've had. How are we doing? How can we improve this?

I also think there would be far less need to monitor if drugs were legalized and the war on terror ended.

Anyway, I think this kind of surveillance is going to become status quo, will not be overly problematic and will be completely uncontroversial in a few decades. As far as abuse goes, you don't need any of these high tech contraptions to listen to people's phone calls and track internet usage. These things can be done fairly easily with comparatively primitive tech that can be bought legally at spy stores.

http://www.spy.th.com/audiocat.html

@criticalthud I don't disagree with what you say. My point is that judge approved wiretaps and internet surveillance should be a legal part of the law enforcement/National Security arsenal. How to do it best is beyond me. I think warrants and constitutional protections are decent checks and balances, but I know they are not infallible. As I mentioned to enoch, if someone wants to listen to your calls, be that person a high ranking government agent or your grumpy neighbor, it can be done easily with low tech. Killing these guidelines would do nothing to protect you from a rogue agent or personal vendetta.

If all this leads to a real discussion on the war on terror or the war on drugs, I'd be thrilled. My prediction is that it will just be used as a politicians electoral bludgeoning device until everyone gets sick of hearing about it and it slides off the radar screen.

@enoch - Specifically, what new power has the government gained here?

I'm with you on torture, warrantless wiretaps, illegal wars, assassinations (in general, thought I think Al Alakwi was justified considering the body count he had racked up), persecution of whistleblowers, persecution of journalists

The current NSA scandal encompasses none of these things. If they want to record your phone calls, they need a warrant. They didn't under Bush - but they do now - and PRISM can't go after your internet data at all.

Even if they did want to grab everyones' information, can you see how difficult it would be to pull off? How many phone calls are made in a day? (millions?) How many warrants would it take to get access to all those calls? How many man hours would it take to record and listen to all those calls? Even if the NSA were full of villainous mustache twirlers, doesn't that seem like a futile task? 99.9999% of the information would be useless.

I believe that the NSA genuinely works to stop terror attacks. I know there has been much bullshit done in the name of the "war on terror", but I believe there is a genuine need for an Agency that deals with National Security. I would imagine most countries have some kind of similar body.

I don't have a problem with information gained with search warrants. My major complaint is that this stuff is not better explained to the public. I know that there is plenty of specific information that needs to be kept secret in order to not blow the cover of agents who are wiretapping suspects, but I think the broad strokes should be put out there. Here's what we are doing. Here's why. Here are the problems we've had. Here are the successes we've had. How are we doing? How can we improve this?

I also think there would be far less need to monitor if drugs were legalized and the war on terror ended.

Anyway, I think this kind of surveillance is going to become status quo and will be completely uncontroversial in a few decades. As far as abuse goes, you don't need any of these high tech contraptions to listen to peoples phone calls and track internet usage. These things can be done fairly easily with comparatively primitive tech that can be bought legally at spy stores.

@criticalthud I don't disagree with what you say. My point is that judge approved wiretaps and internet surveillance should be a legal part of law enforcement/National Security arsenal. How to do it best is beyond me. I think warrants and constitutional protections are decent checks and balances, but I know they are not infallible. As I mentioned to enoch, if someone wants to listen to your calls, be that person a high ranking government agent or your grumpy neighbor, it can be done easily with low tech. Killing these guidelines would do nothing to protect you from a rogue agent or personal vendetta.

If all this leads to a real discussion on the war on terror or on the war on drugs, I'd be thrilled. My prediction is that it will just be used as a politicians electoral weapon until everyone gets sick of hearing about it and it slides off the radar screen.

It's alaways either fanboys (Keep grasping at straws Republicans, keep it up with your personal hate vendetta against Obama. Keep banging the impeachment drums instead of running the country.)

or insects-

I shit on geopolitics and wish to see the redux on the ashes of the current world system mates, there's no point-by-point with me, sorry to have shat on another circle-jerk.

...none of which is either backed up by any sort of evidence, or is so trivial, or taken out of context.

Keep grasping at straws Republicans, keep it up with your personal hate vendetta against Obama. Keep banging the impeachment drums instead of running the country.

2014 is coming soon

Can't upvote.

This is scarier than just some crazy vendetta cop-This guy has had all manner of special training in tactics, scenario, etc. as a Lt. M.P. in the Navy-He's a marksman, both handgun and rifle with handgun expert classification. He's had a few years to plan this, and he's got the cops in a few states, scared shit less. Almost as scary as a Glock-knock-off made in Beijing!

Well, if I lived Next to Jones I would probably limit my encounters with him because I can't stand someone who prattles-on incessantly without commas-I have had too many Bi-Polar pals and unless they are self of otherwise medicated, they're fucking annoying.
Now if f I lived next to that cunt Piers, well....I would insult him every time he walked out of his door, probably egg his house form time to time, and harass his family like he harrasses mmy sensibilities. He's a complete cunt who reminds me of Lewis Prothero in V for Vendetta, a COMPLETE shill, and a worthless pile of human garbage.

Alex Jones would probbaly make a decent neighbor, he's Texan, we're friendly and courteous until you fuck with us, and I'd feel much better living next to gun-toting Americans rather than a sold-out British media cunt. Besides, he works for a Network who has already sold it's soul to Satan and Jones created his from the ground-up with the purpose of exposing the shit the media sells and the cunts that run the show.

For as obnoxious as they both are, Jones has more character in his pinky than Piers has in his entire organism.

Cenk, misinterpreting the report (yet again), stating that the 11 year old pulled out the gun as a result of a conflict, yet nothing in Anna's report suggests that this is at all what happened.

Sounded more like the 11 year old pulled out the gun to "show off," and then it created a conflict.

This "news" reporter needs to spend a bit more time learning how to listen and evaluate the facts and less time on his soap box, turning news items into vendettas for a personal axe to grind...

In reply to this comment by alien_concept:
And once more for Guy Fawkes and the desperate wish that someone can come along and replicate his gunpowder plot in the modern age! *promote


i wuv joo!

That approximation of civilian casualties alone is reason enough to question the intent of this video: objective journalism or propaganda?

Add the "almost supernatural effectiveness" or the grossly misleading "inherent right to self-defence under international law" and I'm inclined to say that this is a disgusting propaganda piece.

When he emphasized the "humane" behaviour of operators (let the children leave before pulling the trigger) and the insinuation that victims of drone attacks are actually thankful for it, well that's just icing on the cake.


What he fails to mention:

-- low rate of civilian casualties: every male of fighting age in the target area is now considered a militant, so everything you hit is a target, unless there is concrete intelligence to prove otherwise, posthumously.

-- pinpoint accuracy: UAVs hit their targets, but the targets themselves are defined as such by piss-poor intelligence or no intelligence at all.

-- guilt by proximity: if you are near a suspect or, generally speaking, in a strike-zone, your mere presence makes you a suspect yourself, as defined by the Obama administration. Now try to square this definition with previous accusations that terrorists embed themselves into the civilian population.

-- double-tap: again, your mere presence at the site of a strike, even if your intent is to provide medical assistance, turns you into a target (eg Collateral Murder). And better stay away from funerals as well, or else they send you a present.

-- US citizens Anwar al-Awlaki, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki and Samir Khan were intentionally killed by drone strikes, without trial.

-- collateral damage: when you kill a person's family, you provide that person with a non-ideological reason to fight the US, a personal vendetta. Recent drone attacks in Yemen increased the numbers of AQAP members by killing civilians left, right and center.

-- covert killings, proxy warfare: the use of UAVs, particularly in Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen, reminds us of the good old days. Death from above or how I learned to love the drone.

FOR VENDETTA!!!!

>> ^Sagemind:

There is something to be said for Anarchy. Not a pleasant world it would make, but some digression through anarchy would be progressive for government to be more productive and less corrupt.
Of course anarchy can bread its own corruption as well.


The real meaning of anarchy is what modern Americans would call libertarianism - did you watch the recent Chomsky vid on political semantics? Check out prince Peter kropotkin.

>> ^Porksandwich:

Dude hasn't seen V for vendetta......
I've always wondered about that, if they have to make sure not to watch other stuff covering their material so they don't get influenced by it.


The movies of vendetta and from hell are not even remotely worthy of the comics.
Although to really enjoy the comics you have to be a depressed young person in Thatchers Britain. Listening to 'a forest' by the cure might be the only way back..:)