I Don’t Give a Damn if Jesus, MLK and Gandhi are Cloned and Made President,

[20score]

Vice President and Secretary of State, respectively.

If they are overseeing massive, illegal spying programs and Charlie Manson is somehow able to blow the whistle those programs, I will still be against the spying.

Just wanted to make that clear.

[NuclearDem]

1. Damn straight.

Principle > personality.

[20score]

50. Well said.

[suede1]

2. Got that right!

[djean111]

3. Oh noes!!!! That would make you an atheist racist something!!!!!!!!!!!

You are right, it does not matter who the president is.

[rhett o rick]

4. They still wont get it. Denial is everything to them. nm

[mountain grammy]

109. So who is "they" and "them?"

[rhett o rick]

113. Those that attack whistle-blowers and deny that there is anything wrong.

Those that accuse me of hating Obama because I call for more transparency and further investigations into the secret world of the NSA, Booz-Allen, and the Carlyle Group.

[mountain grammy]

119. And I agree, sounds reasonable to me.

My thing is to put the spying revelations in perspective. Hell, I google campers and now every time I get online there's an ad for RV sales. Data mining indeed.
My feeling that Snowden and Greenwald have their own agenda, and it's far from the public good, is not an attack on whistleblowers, it's just my conclusion about these two men.
Nothing would please me more than investigations into the secret world of the NSA, Booz-Allen and the Carlyle Group, just to name a few, but doubt it will happen with this teabag Congress.

[rhett o rick]

120. Sound reasonable to me.

I dont mind people doubting Greenwald's and Snowden's motives, but believe we should let some time pass before we disparage them.

[sabrina 1]

118. Those who refuse to stand up for the Constitutional rights of the people.

[mountain grammy]

121. But the problem is, teabaggers think THEY are standing up for the

Constitutional rights of the people.
Every right wing nut I know thinks THEY are standing up for the Constitutional rights of the people.
But, I know you mean our own elected Democrats (and some unelected as well.) We actually expect them to stand up for the Constitutional rights of the people, and when they don't it's disappointing. I'm as disappointed as the next guy, but I remain hopeful.

[MannyGoldstein]

5. Perfectly said, thanks nm

[MuseRider]

6. Well said

thank you.

[madokie]

7. Trouble is as it stands this is all legal

Best I can tell. If you don't like it pay attention at the poll when you vote. This is Obama's cross to bear. He didn't start it, he can't do anything about it, congress critters are who can.

[20score]

8. It's really not legal. I've read the PATRIOT ACT

and there is nothing there that allows for spying on everyone, all the time. They're saying it's legal, but they are lying.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/28/opinion/the-criminal-nsa.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&

[madokie]

12. You are lying

would be my guess. A little bit if not knowing what you're talking about with a tad of it doesn't fit your narrative.
The collecting of phone numbers is not much different from the phone company keeping a list of the numbers I call so they can bill me correctly later. No one is reading or listening to your emails or phone conversations, no one.

[20score]

16. I wanted to edit my reply so you knew it wasn't personal, just relaying info.

Misjudged you. Do some reading before you call someone a liar. Not going to waste my time on someone who doesn't know what the hell they're talking about.

[madokie]

17. Bye

[BehindTheCurtain76]

65. K

Haha. Sounds like a text from a spurned 12 year old girl. But I'm sure the government is reading it. Ironic that people say Obama isn't responsible for say as an example the drug war he has increased or the appointments of industry lobbyists to watchdog positions because the government isn't controlled by him yet same people get defensive about NSA crimes because they feel it reflects on Obama. One major point though : ALL emails, calls, texts etc are stored...not just call pen registers. And local law enforcement has been getting these without warrants from the telecoms for years which is illegal except that telecoms were given immunity. Now NSA wants everything independently and they want to listen or read when they target someone in future and as disclosed by NSAs Russ Tice, they are targeting judges, politicians and journalists for political purposes of the 1%...terrorism is just a smokescreen. They also have developed predictive software that analyzes all data to sift out dissenters most of whom are activists not terrorists. You are simply wrong about what data u think is collected and what is in the Patriot Act and the Act in illegal inherently because it is unconstitutional...the Constitution is what our law is based on so we have order and not chaos where inalienable rights are guaranteed and protected against majority rule.

[tblue]

87. Even if it was 100% legal

I'd still say it's wrong. On what is all this blind faith based? Does anybody in their right mind trust that these programs are and will always be conducted in total compliance with the law, which, last I heard, even Congress isn't fully privy to?

[Chef Eric]

38. I guess the government should keep track of what we buy, too?

After all, the online retailers and credit card companies keep track of that information. Using your logic, it's "not much different" if the government keeps track too. It's not like they're going to try to watch us USE the products that we buy, right? So, there would be nothing to be concerned about.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

44. If it's high-explosives, clearly the answer is yes...

...and in fact, not only do they keep track of what we buy, they actually prevent people from buying it unless they have an identifiable reason as to it's use (i.e. mining applications).

I find it absolutely amazing that the exact same DUers who are completely in favor of governmental prohibitions on the purchase of firearms, imagines that it is unconstitutional for the government to merely keep track of who exactly is buying them.

The cognitive-dissonance of the "OBAMA IS AN AUTHORITARIAN IN ALL CAPITOL LETTERS - DERP DERP DERP" crowd is amazing.

-C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[Chef Eric]

47. And what about books? And what about video streaming?

Should the government keep track of the books we buy? Should it keep track of the movies we stream?

[ConservativeDemocrat]

55. That would be a collosal waste of money

While technically (via the Third-party doctrine established by the Supreme Court) the government has the legal right to keep track of your purchases, doing so on everything would obviously be an absurd waste of taxpayer money.

But please, don't imagine that private entities who hold the primary records on these, don't keep track of all the business you've done with them. They do. And further, unlike the U.S. government, they have an economic interest in selling that information to others. So if you're concerned that the NSA is watching your porn, rest assured that that don't care - it's people in business with Verizon that will start trying to pitch you fetish material.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[Chef Eric]

61. I don't care if retailers keep track of my book and movie purchases.

But I do care if the government does. It's none of their business. That's the point. The point that you keep dancing around.

And I don't buy porn. When I need it, I can find it online for free.

I don't know why you keep going off on tangents. First you made an irrelevant point about guns. Then you tried to make this about the taxpayers' money. It's not about the taxpayers' money. It's about the government collecting all phone metadata, without any proof of relevance to an ongoing investigation. There is absolutely no legal justification for this. And just because the government claims that it's authorized by the Patriot Act doesn't mean it's true. Even Jim Sensenbrenner, the author of the Patriot Act, has questioned the legality of this data collection.

[tblue]

88. Watch who you're dealing with.

You've been addressing a self-proclaimed "Proud Member of the Reality Based Community." Like Sarah Palin's divisive "real America," that kind of arrogance and contempt for others is probably not worthy of your time and good intentions -- unless you enjoy talking to a wall.

[Chef Eric]

92. You're probably right. Thanks. nt

[GoneFishin]

96. I am confident that the NSA collects every database then can including retail store records.

They probably pay quite handsomely for these records. Huge mega stores also have video of customers making their purchases as the items are being rung up and paid for, no doubt time correlated to the items purchased, customer credit card number, etc..

[ConservativeDemocrat]

110. Absolutely...

If you are not intelligent enough, educated enough, or curious enough to know where the phrase "Member of the Reality Based Community" comes from, or who it is directed at, then I'm really not interested in talking to you.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[cascadiance]

93. I even am concerned about what business does with this information...

There is already outrage and tons of legislation that is being put in place in many states to fight against the practice many companies and schools have of requiring prospective (or sometimes current) employees or students to hand over their Facebook or other social media passwords before you get hired or accepted as a student in a university.

And if that is allowed, do you think that companies will stop there in snooping on you to control you at work as well? How public will your google search history, your private mail and messaging content, your medical history, your online backup content, your ad profiles, your purchase histories be available to those making hiring decisions by these same companies or their partners. Yes it gets even worse if the government also has access to this. But I would say that there needs to be more definition of the boundaries that we have of private information kept on us online as well. And if these boundaries aren't carefully set, then them being there at all towards government access and not just private company access will fuel the move towards fascism too as well, the more government needs to outsource/privatize its means of gathering personal information on us too.

Government needs to set the rules for companies to ensure that our private data is protected in a practical, pragmatic way that also keeps our privacy intact within the spirit of the 4th amendment if not its explicit language.

[JimboBillyBubbaBob]

97. Well said.....................

The issue here is so clear, everything else is subtext.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

112. There is absolutely no difference between firearm and other purchases

...at least Constitutionally speaking, except that it could be argued (though I don't), that firearm purchases have greater Constitutional protections.

So these points aren't "irrelevant". Constitutionally speaking, you believe either one of these two things:

A] The U.S. government has the power to demand private information to perform its duties, including enforcing its gun control laws, its tax system, and the defense of its citizens.

B] It doesn't.

If you answer B, you are not a Democrat. You are a Libertarian. Someone who that imagines all the considerable comforts of living in a first world country is something that just happens all by itself. And that if bad terrible government would just drown in a bathtub, then everything would be even better.

Now of course, you have the right to believe this. But you are in the significant minority of thought in the Democratic party. Most of the rest of us think President Obama has been doing a pretty damned good job overall, especially given the cards he was dealt. When he came into office, he (and House Democrats) reformed the FISA court system from the overreach during the Bush administration. But this didn't include "metadata" because "metadata" has never been considered private. Ever.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[sulphurdunn]

39. Show me.

And send me a crystal ball like yours, so I can see for myself that no one is reading my emails or listening to my phone calls without a warrant.

[think]

52. Supposedly there is basically a "secret" Patriot Act that they follow:

Secret interpretations of the Patriot Act type stuff:

There’s a Secret Patriot Act, Senator Says
By Spencer Ackerman
05.25.11

~Snip~

It’s worth noting that Wyden is pushing a bill providing greater privacy protections for geolocation info.

For now, Wyden’s considering his options ahead of the Patriot Act vote on Thursday. He wants to compel as much disclosure as he can on the secret interpretation, arguing that a shadow broadening of the Patriot Act sets a dangerous precedent.

“I’m talking about instances where the government is relying on secret interpretations of what the law says without telling the public what those interpretations are,” Wyden says, “and the reliance on secret interpretations of the law is growing.”

Full article:

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/05/secret-patriot-act/

[Dragonfli]

53. Not only that, but the rogue Just. Dept. is calling for a full cover up

Of the secret acts and interpretations by the secret courts that oversee the secret laws.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023184266

Are secret laws legal in a Democratic Republic? How do the checks and balances work with the laws too secret for us to even read?

[TheKentuckian]

56. Your statement is nonsensical. The phone company has the information provided to

perform a desired service voluntarily entered into that is not public.

It would seem the "why" is very different.

The "how" is very different. One is given for a specific purpose the other taken in secret.

The "what" is also a horse of a different color.

What in the world is the same here?

Beyond that burden of proof is on you, defender of the secret dragnet surveillance program by a largely corporately captured state.
You are making the far out claim that yours or any dragnet surveillance program is clean and reasonably safe from the potential for abuse.

[bread_and_roses]

94. AND on its own authority the phone co can't arrest you

The phone co cannot issue a warrant - or seize you without one - or leave you to rot in some hole in secret without access to a lawyer - or etc etc etc

I may not like Corps collecting info on what I buy, but anyone comparing the two is either being disingenuous or is too naive to factor power into the equation.

[TheMadMonk]

75. We have the admission that encrypted traffic is stored for analysis.

This means every Skype conversation, all VPN traffic, all of your online banking and shopping, and a whole lot more. And as more and more telephony providers switch to voice over IP, those conversations too are recorded. Furthermore, good data compression and encryption are indistinguishable to cursory analysis, both ideally present as a random sequence of bytes. The sole difference lies in the algorithms used expand or decrypt.

Furthermore, because they have made themselves the quintessential "man in the middle" key security is a joke.

Bluntly, unless you are making a direct physical copper connection between the last two decadic exchanges on the planet, the rules of the game "permit" the NSA to record your conversation.

Whether or not, anyone is listening right now, nearly all barriers, but the good will of the listeners are down. The potential for massive abuse is there, and who the hell knows what the future might bring.

Odds are that future is here right now: We know the NSA et al use computers to perform keyword monitoring in order to glean the titbits that might interest them, which means that there is at least a small chance that your viperous criticism of the president of the local football club, will be listened to for at least long enough to determine it's not Obama you're talking about.

No one is reading or listening to every word coming from you and I, but you can lay London to a house brick that every last possible trick of analysis is being applied to your words in order to determine whether or not someone "should" listen in.

And finally, who is to say what constitutes an "ENEMY OF THE STATE" 6 months, a year, or a decade from now.

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.

[A Simple Game]

11. Even if it was legal, I don't happen to think it is, but even if it was,

it is still unconstitutional. Why do none of you, it's ok because I voted for this President people, want to talk about its constitutionality?

No President Obama didn't start it, but he can stop it. It is the administration sending requests to the FISA court, not congress. Your saying he can't doesn't surprise me, it's never his fault for the bad stuff, is it? But yes, congress could also pull the plug. Do you expect this congress to do that?

[madokie]

14. He can't stop or start anything and if you'd been paying attention these last five years you'd see

that.
This program has been in place since Carter

[A Simple Game]

21. Oh I have been paying attention, and what I see is that he doesn't want to stop it.

How is he handicapped from having the most transparent Presidency? Why didn't President Obama tell Snowden that he would give him amnesty and to bring all of his information in and we would have a national discussion about it and see how the people feel? Do the people want freedom or security? Is there a way we can have both? This would have been a good excuse to discuss the alternatives. But the truth is this program was never started to track terrorists, it was started to track the citizens of the US. Why did the system continue to be escalated and not scaled back when the cold war ended?

Apparently you don't agree with me that it is the administration that is sending the requests to the FISA court, so who is? And again, but I don't expect an answer again, do you believe all of the domestic spying is constitutional?

Yes I know how long the program has been in place, do you know why it is legal now when it wasn't legal under Bush and probably every other President? Did you think it was right when Bush was doing it?

Yes I have been paying attention and you are right about one thing, more people do need to start paying attention!

Drip, drip, drip, drown.

[madokie]

23. thats easy

Bushco wasn't even elected and was a rogue administration and didn't do anything lawful, or very little anyway

[A Simple Game]

24. I didn't think you would answer any of my questions.

But you have made one thing obvious.

Thanks for your time.

[totodeinhere]

70. Yes and that's why we elected Barack Obama to make all of that right or at least

make some kind of effort to make it right. And that's why we are disappointed that it hasn't happened.

[sulphurdunn]

46. That's right.

The President is just a hand puppet of the shadow government. Congress and the courts are its rubber stamp.

[BenzoDia]

51. Can you elaborate on the President's power when it comes to directing NSA programs?

Or at least direct me towards some reading?

Genuine question, I'm all about learning.

[totodeinhere]

69. If he can't stop it why can't he at least go to the American people and say that it is wrong and

ask the people to help him pressure Congress to do something about it? The Barack Obama that I voted for was a fighter for what is right or at least that's what I thought.

[Divernan]

29. One of your buds disagreed with you-said it will remain illegal.

Prosense: "Spying on Americans was, is and will still be illegal."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2461323

ProSense (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-15-06 08:53 AM
Original message
Edited on Wed Feb-15-06 08:53 AM by ProSense

Bush is spying on Americans: opponents and activist groups. The law can't
be changed to make that legal. The Republicans are trying to pull a fast one with this "law change" tactic by framing the illegal spying as warrantless spying on terrorists; therefore, the law is being changed to give Bush the authority to spy on terrorist. Spying on Americans was, is and will still be illegal. Bush committed crimeS by illegal spying on Americans and breaking existing FISA laws.

I'm sure all criminals would love to have a law passed that retroactively absolves them of their crimes.

[fascisthunter]

67. awesome!

[DisgustipatedinCA]

99. Bookmarked for later retrieval

[99Forever]

40. Every dictator and tyrant down through history...

... used that same exact argument and the "courts" to back it up.

Every. Fucking. One. Of. Them.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

43. WTF do you think we did in 08, and again 2012

Hello

[Marr]

76. That's what they *claim*, while they block actual legal review. /nt

[Spitfire of ATJ]

85. Knowing about it is the problem....

[mbperrin]

104. Read the 4th Amendment again.

No law passed by Congress overrides the Constitution.

In time, the Supremes will find the Patriot Act and all the rest null and void.

After all, we had to live with Plessy and Dred Scott, and then finally, correct decisions were made.

We'll look back on this period the same way we do McCarthy and Nixon now.

[RILib]

111. oh, excuse me.

Obama could stop this in a second.

Pay attention at the polls? Like elect Obama, you mean, so this will stop?

[Ms. Toad]

114. He certainly can do something about it.

The law does not require President Obama to do these things; it (arguably) permits it. I did pay attention when I voted. President Obama, as candidate Obama, campaigned against these practices. I expect him not to engage in them regardless of what the law (arguably) permits.

[rhett o rick]

115. How do you know that it's legal when we dont know the full story.

And just because a warrant is issued doesnt mean that the actions are legal per FISA. Looks to me like the FISA courts are overreaching their authority.

Also, IMO, the FISA Law, in of itself, is illegal.

We need to look farther to decide if Booz-Allen/NSA/Carlyle Group are acting legally.

[The Straight Story]

9. My understanding is that Jesus already has a massive spying program, called ANGELS

or something like that

[20score]

10. HA! That's funny!

[bobduca]

103. He's even subcontracted this bulk data collection

to Santa! what with his massive lists of kids who were naughty and nice!

[forestpath]

13. K&R

[treestar]

15. I know you won't like this, buy why?

That's the issue that could have been discussed all along. Now by trying to discuss it we are deemed supporters of it. But we haven't had a chance to discuss it really. Have you really thought about it, either? It may be OK. It may be a grey area. But why are we required to be against it just because?

[20score]

18. We've been discussing this for decades, even before I was born.

And for almost twelve years, intensively.

I'm glad more people are discussing and thinking about the issue, but watching us all the time has nothing to do with terrorism.

If you don't mind, I wrote a more thoughtful post a few days ago that covered this a little more in depth:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023135524

[Th1onein]

31. Have you seen the warrant? The Verizon warrant?

I don't think that's a grey area. I think it's illegal on it's face. I think it's unconstitutional on it's face. They want ALL of the records for the specified time period. ALL of them.

[JoePhilly]

34. Shuuush!!!

You are ruining perfectly good outrage.

And by doing so, you are announcing to the world that you must be an authoritarian and a paid troll of the Obama administration.

At least that's what I read lately here on what has become, Hair-On-Fire Underground.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

45. Are you trying to call us racist, again?

[AnnieK401]

19. Look I'm not happy about it either.

I doubt if the massive data collection is as necessary as they would have us believe, and maybe there should be a discussion of coming up with another way to keep us safe without keeping a record of every phone call and e-mail. Still, as I've said before, people still seem to feel perfectly free to make the most hateful, racist comments imaginable about our POTUS, and the GOV. in public forums where their IP addresses are easily obtainable. We have a full time so called news channel presenting usually false negative stories about the President on a 24/7 basis. Since no one seems to me to be cowering in fear a from some totalitarian dictator it's just kind of hard to go along with all the alarmists. I do know for a fact that there are Republicans who are passing extremely strict anti-abortion laws in the middle of the night. They are also looking for any way to make "liburals" look bad to win in 2014 to keep advancing their facist agenda. Forgive me if I see that is a more immediate concern.

[truedelphi]

30. If you're A-okay with massive spending on war, while states go broke,

Eight million households being foreclosed on, illegally, (but done by bankers, so Holder gives them a free pass,) an economic system that Bails Out the bankers, on Main Street's dime, with little oversight and little regulation, and lets them launder violent drug cartel crimes, but then turns around and arrest marijuana smokers in states where the voters have approved of legalizing it, collusion with large energy firms that destroy the environment, collusion with nuclear power plant owners and builders, and also Monsanto Gm foods, privatizing schools and prisons, and drones that kill people left and right (of course, the victims are for the most part not Americans and have dark skin) and now this massive surveillance, you don't have a thing in the world to worry about, AnnieK401.
You will never ever be labelled a dissident, so nothing to worry about.

And thanks again for reminding me of the truth that Bill Hicks brought to us: You are free to do as we tell you!

[AnnieK401]

33. Not OK with any of that. But not sure what banks, Monsanto, the gun lobby,

war on drugs and everything else you mentioned have to do with the NSA. By the way, I am no fan of Eric Holder. Just saying I am getting tired of hearing people take potshots that won't change anything except possibly help keep people home during mid-term elections and get people who actually support the very things you are so upset about elected. I would actually support a Warren/Saunders ticket in 2016 if I thought they could actually get elected, do you really think so? Look, I'll be brave and say if we are ready for an all out civil war OK. Maybe that's the only think that will really change things. Until then, anything else is just making noise and I really don't want to hear it because it ultimately supports the very things you say you are against. Look for future posts of mine to be sure I have not been hauled off.

[sulphurdunn]

49. "...not sure what banks, Monsanto, the gun lobby,

war on drugs and everything else ...have to do with the NSA."

You're kidding. Right?

[AnnieK401]

54. What's the connection that you see.

[sulphurdunn]

57. It's quite simple really.

Surveillance states exists primarily to protect domestic ruling classes from their own citizens and from the ambitions of foreign ruling classes, not from peasant terrorists, foreign or domestic, who pose a lesser threat by far than an aroused and organized citizenry.

[truedelphi]

58. Thank you.

You pointed out the reason why surveillance states exist. And they usually come about at a time of Fascistic Control, politicians that are bought and paid for, and all the other end runs around democracy.

[AnnieK401]

59. I see, so when does the revolution begin?

[sulphurdunn]

60. It never ended,

and so long as we prefer agrarian civilization to tribal society it never will. It's called class struggle, and it is inevitable in all vertically integrated sociopolitical systems. Ideas of liberty and equality in such systems are nothing but the useful delusions of both the rulers and the ruled.

[AnnieK401]

62. I actually think that's brilliant.

Not sure how it translates into actual action that will change things, but intellectually/philosophically brilliant. So do we go back to a tribal culture, or accept that equality is just a delusion.

[sulphurdunn]

64. Tribal society is democratic society.

It is also intellectually restrictive and conservative. I would not wish to return to it. Ideally, what works best and what agrarian societies should strive for, is a system of conservation, meritocracy and egalitarianism based upon environmentally sustainable agricultural surpluses and technological progress that permit increased levels of individual specialization and freedom unattainable in tribal societies.

[sibelian]

101. The problem is that the apparatus will span more than just this administration

and it's potential for abuse is just petrifying.

[cherokeeprogressive]

20. So you support Charles Manson then. Okay.

I'm just kidding... trying to soften you up for when the hyenas get here to tell you it's all okay and the Fourth Amendment doesn't REALLY call for specificity.

[Poll_Blind]

22. Huge K&R!

PB

[Lobo27]

25. Well, for one none of them would make it as President.

People that care about the poor are not liked. Hell, Jesus would be seen as the biggest moocher of all time. Yeah he would be hated by the same religious nuts that claim to love him. Some irony imo...

[Buzz Clik]

27. The birthers would have a field day with Jesus.

"I'm sorry. You said your father was ... who?"

[Squinch]

37. Cut that out!!!! I just took a sip of coffee!!!! Now it's all over the place!!!!

[jberryhill]

84. Manson would have a chance

[Buzz Clik]

26. Jeebus does not approve of cloning.

You, my friend, are going straight to hell.

And the NSA will still have access to your information.

[Douglas Carpenter]

28. true . But I suspect Charles Manson would have an easier time obtaining asylum than Edward Snowden

[tblue]

90. Charlie's treated better than Bradley Manning.

Wow. My country is freaking me out.

[blkmusclmachine]

32. That does it. You're on the list.

[Duppers]

35. objectivity, my friend!

Love yours!

[20score]

41. Duppers, you rock!

[truebluegreen]

105. Would that be

Super Duppers?

[HardTimes99]

36. If Jesus were President, the government wouldn't need to spy, given

Last edited Sat Jul 6, 2013, 06:31 PM - Edit history (1)

Jesus' omniscience (and omnipotence).

If Jesus does it, that means it is not illegal

[nashville_brook]

42. well said.

[Savannahmann]

48. LOL

Nicely done.

[Agony]

63. Crystal Clear! Affirmative.

Cheers,
Agony


it takes a lot of beer these days to deal with all the bullshit.

[dawg]

66. You never loved the Jesus MLK Gandhi clone.

You emoprog, you!

[20score]

73. Well, if you put it that way, I kinda suck. Sorry.

[MADem]

68. Well, if your objections are constitutional, two of the three are not qualified to be President or

Vice President.

I don't think anyone likes illegal spying programs, massive or otherwise.

[cantbeserious]

71. Well Said - Thank You

eom

[DeSwiss]

72. This.

K&R

[Apophis]

77. Thank. You.

[bowens43]

78. Yes, exactly. the Obama true believers don't seem to get this.......

[MisterP]

79. the only way they can respond is, "they aren't?!"

[JDPriestly]

80. K&R.

[a2liberal]

81. Very well-put, thanks (n/t)

[ProSense]

82. And, of course,

"I Don’t Give a Damn if Jesus, MLK and Gandhi are Cloned and Made President, Vice President and Secretary of State, respectively.

If they are overseeing massive, illegal spying programs and Charlie Manson is somehow able to blow the whistle those programs, I will still be against the spying."

...there would be posts declaring Charlie Manson a hero and comparing him to "Jesus, MLK and Gandhi"

It's an interesting hypothetical.

Of course, Snowden didn't reveal "massive, illegal spying programs" so the comparisons to "Jesus, MLK and Gandhi" are a bit bizarre.

Though, he did spark a debate, which is important.

[99th_Monkey]

83. K & f-n R ~nt

[hfojvt]

86. well if Santa became President

then all this spying would just be redundant

because he already sees you when you're sleeping. He knows when you're awake, He knows if you've been bad or good.

[tblue]

89. True. The NSA should hire him.

I think he's available this time of year.

Haha! Your post is adorable!

[DeSwiss]

91. ....

[ancianita]

95. Heh heh. nt

[mbperrin]

107. Ray Stevens was on to this a long time ago!

[Progressive dog]

98. You'd trust Charlie Manson to be truthful over

Jesus, MLK, and Ghandi. Sounds like your minds made up to me. I'm glad you didn't get chosen for Manson's jury.

[SammyWinstonJack]

100. hehehe.

[mbperrin]

102. Yes, thank you.

Perfectly sums up my feelings.

[truebluegreen]

106. Hear, hear!

in short, it is not and never was about personalities! Well said.

[Orsino]

108. And even the three of them together would not be able to dismantle our surveillance culture. n/t

[ReRe]

116. K&R

I absolutely agree!

[sabrina 1]

117. I couldn't agree more!