| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75
Comments:
<0> Kaliuna: Making an international call in no way suggests someone supports anything.. especially terrorism.
<1> Just never know=)
<2> icmps -- ya think NSA might have list of suspect names ?? ya know
<3> icmps, receiving an international call from an al Qaeda member does
<1> you guys there are 3 cops that i know of that populate this channel
<1> and 1 fed
<4> I know that the FBI spies on pedophiles... how can I know they aren't spying on ANYONE they don't like, and using the excuse of spying on pedophiles?
<5> the nsa is ruled by fear, they think everybody is a terrorist
<1> they are good people
<4> guesswhat, really? They think everybody is a terrorist?
<1> one is a cool soldier
<6> thetailor....so you support allowing the president to spy on whoever he wants....even if it was a liberal spying on bush
<0> Rockfish: And how the **** is the NSA supposed to know which calls are made by al qaeda operatives?
<6> thats what youre saying
<4> guesswhat, how do you come to that conclusion?
<5> yes they do
<6> bottom line
<0> Rockfish: They cant.
<0> Rockfish: That's the point.
<7> You missed one Hemi
<8> DStewart, it's utter genius on their part, they have developed a system to know what others are thinking and doing!
<6> you support a president to spy on whoever they desire without getting approval
<6> thats sad
<2> Calidank -- are you that naive?
<4> guesswhat, why do you say that?
<9> the fbi automatically ***umes that youre a pedophile terrorist drug dealer or some combination
<6> kaliuna are you ?
<8> Calidank, is that what he's doing?
<1> Az, I never mention the lone wolf
<6> tailor no one has any way of knowing
<6> now do they
<3> icmps, because they have recovered the numbers from captured al Qaeda members
<4> Calidank, that isn't what Tailor said or what ANYONE has said.
<6> cause he wont get warrants
<8> Calidank, is the president just spying on anyone?
<1> yer my bud =)
<0> Rockfish: rofl ok
<4> Calidank, they do what now?
<10> its not like the Government hasn't been spying on us anyways...
<9> youre guilty until they can prove youre innocent by spying on you
<2> Calidank -- its obvious you do't comprehend at all...
<3> rofl, right
<5> if your boss scares you into breaking the law then it would have to be a pretty scary lie
<6> dstewart but thats what will happen if you allow a president to spy without getting warrants
<4> Calidank, why?
<4> Why would that happen?
<6> cause they dont need approval to spy
<6> they dont need a warrant
<2> Calidank - you think the prior presidents got warrants??
<10> Worrants don't make a different?
<4> I mean, the law allows for interceptions without a warrant.
<10> er
<4> It has for... well, basically, forever.
<10> Warrants don't make a Difference.
<0> The law can be unconstitutional.
<0> and wrong.
<6> lol you guys are funny....you know youre dead wrong but you wont admit it cause youre on bushes nuts
<6> sad
<4> icmps, but it's not.
<3> Can be, but in this case isn't
<10> The trick is, to keep a low profile.
<4> Calidank, what's sad is that you deny facts and elevate your paranoid suspicions as some kind of reasoning.
<2> calidank -- you are the funny one -- can't admit its been going on forever
<8> Calidank, dead wrong how? I asked if you had anything to show wrongdoing, you don't.
<0> DStewart: It ought to be considered unconstitutional since there is no explicit authority for the feds to do any of this
<11> Arlen Specter seems to disagree with a carte blanche aproach to wiretaps too..
<4> icmps, there's specific legal authority and constitutional authority.
<0> Where's the constitutional authority?
<3> I don't really give a crap what Specter thinks about anything
<4> blink, carte blanche? What carte blanche approach?
<1> Cali you don't understand how politicians work
<1> =)
<4> icmps, see the Constitution: The president's oath and delegated powers.
<1> its #politics
<1> everyone is trying to be the fat cat
<11> tap first ask permission later.. sounds kind'a jack-booted to me
<2> TT -- every night calidank is here - same ole thing --
<8> Kaliuna, yes, bull****.
<0> DStewart: Where does that say 'authorize intercepting communications' or anything remotely related?
<2> tt -- ayup
<4> Tailor, if he can't show any wrongdoing, it's because HOW WOULD WE KNOW?
<4> Let me ask you, you morons.
<12> Calidank: what your plan to stop terriost?
<5> you dont know they think of you as the enemy until they shoot you
<12> Calidank: what your plan to stop terriost? what your plan for iraq?
<2> guesswhat which they would do in a split second
<12> soultion
<13> good topic. :)
<4> If it's illegal---but they're doing running a foreign intercept program anyway, despite its illegality---exactly how does that support your claim that they could therefore be doing a lot more illegal interceptions among two US domestic parties?
<4> THINK for a change.
<4> Suppose the NSA program did not exist.
<2> guesswhat while you are worried about getting a warrant to see if they are terrorists
<12> what soultion do you offer Calidank ?
<5> a mareen once told me "it only costs 10 cents to have someone killed"
<3> Incredible that anyone would object to listening in on these calls, truly astounding
<12> guesswhat: what soultion do you offer, to stop terror?
<0> Kaliuna: "those who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security"
<13> Rock: well, this is irc, not the general population.. irc has a certain selectivity towards the libertarian extreme
<4> Would you then think that, because that illegal program to intercept foreign calls into the US doesn't exist, therefore the NSA couldn't be doing illegal interceptions among two domestic US parties?
<2> Rockfish - I know and majority of people DO comprehend and approve of those security concepts
<13> and then they pull out that meaningless, decontextualized quote
<12> icmps: sure they do, security is not free, you pay a price for it
<2> icmps -- nice quote ... but no one is giving up liberty
<5> stop the government from paying the terrorists to attack us so they can p*** their contravercial bills!!!
<3> Those who cling to quaint notions of civil liberties to the point of allowing their enemies the freedom to destroy them usually get dead
<14> I don't even know if stopping terrorism is such a great idea, let's just encourage them to bomb things we don't need.
<6> actually it dosent suprise me that republicans support allowing one man to spy on whoever he wants without approval from anyone....these are the same people that wanted to get rid of a president for lying bout ***
<6> ***
<6> omg
<6> i said
<0> Kaliuna: Due process of law/warranted searches are a crucial check on government authority .. without which our liberty is threatened..
<6> ***
<6> dont ban me :)
<14> YES!
<2> Calidank -- are you that naive -- do you comprehend what perjury is?
<4> Do you think that somehow the existence of a program to intercept calls between people in foreign countries whose names and/or numbers appeared on terrorists' captured hard drives and cell phones makes it more likely, or certain, that therefore they're illegally interceptions between US parties?
<14> don't be gay about it though, because then *** is less cool... eww gay ***.
<6> do you comprehend what the consitution is kaliuna
<2> icmps -- suggest you reallly read IV
<2> Calidank - obviously far better than you ever will
<15> DStew: What if the terrorists use IRC.
<4> Calidank, you're good at the mammothly imbecilic non sequitur.
<0> Kaliuna: IV?
<15> And we're all on that list? :P
<6> kaliuna the fact that you even wanted to put clinton under oath over *** is just hillarious
<16> Nothing Bush has done threatens due process. None of the warrantless wiretaps could have stood up in a court of law--and that wasn't the point of doing them.
<4> Astrodog, what if they do? This is a public forum with no expectation of privacy.
<14> if Terrorists use IRC, the should be banned
<6> kaliuna obviously not cause you support allowing one man to spy on whoever he wants...aka you support dictaroships
<14> they
<2> calidank -- he was charged with a crime...
<6> kaliuna and bush will too soon enough
<6> dont worry
<2> Calidank -- and oh you support Clinton -- hmm
<4> Calidank, I notice you don't answer my question.
<6> brb poker
<4> icmps, I notice you don'
<4> don't either.
<2> DS -- of course he won't
<3> Let's see, President Clinton committed a serious federal felony in an attempt to cover up his own perverse crimes or at the very least torts, President Bush is falsely accused of violating the law in order to protect the lives of American citizens, yeah I can see the comparison there
<6> dstewart i proally didnt see it, im in and out..im playin poker
<13> Cali: I don't worry, I worry about not doing enough
<6> msg me if you have a important question
<0> DStewart: probably missed it in the scroll
<4> Calidank: Do you think that somehow the existence of a program to intercept calls between people in foreign countries whose names and/or numbers appeared on terrorists' captured hard drives and cell phones makes it more likely, or certain, that therefore they're illegally interceptions between US parties?
<13> Cali: ah, gambling makes you a more credible critic of policy
<4> Suppose the NSA program did not exist.
<14> I think it's a great idea to let police spy on people and go through their things without getting any permission, police are upstanding people.
<4> Would you then think that, because that illegal program to intercept foreign calls into the US doesn't exist, therefore the NSA couldn't be doing illegal interceptions among two domestic US parties?
<14> where are u playing poker?
Return to
#politics
or
Go to some related
logs:
ak7 dan the automator
#politics
#opengl
fatherham
gamedev low poly buildings
access is denied green filename
pickup gurus
#hardware
#nhl
how to use lightscibe
|
|