vBCms Comments
Welcome To Hunting Country
General Hunting Forums
Archery & Bowhunting
Shooting Sports
Manufacturers' Corner
Firearms
Classifieds
Not Hunting / General Chit Chat
1.) bluecat - 06/06/2013
Ya'll okay with this?
I'm not.
"The Obama administration has been collecting the phone records of millions of U.S. customers of Verizon under a top secret court order, according to a British newspaper report which raised new and troubling privacy questions. "
Read more: [url]http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/06/nsa-collecting-phone-records-for-millions-verizon-customers-report-says/#ixzz2VRwmACJw[/url]
I'm not.
"The Obama administration has been collecting the phone records of millions of U.S. customers of Verizon under a top secret court order, according to a British newspaper report which raised new and troubling privacy questions. "
Read more: [url]http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/06/nsa-collecting-phone-records-for-millions-verizon-customers-report-says/#ixzz2VRwmACJw[/url]
2.) DParker - 06/06/2013
To be fair, the previous admin was doing pretty much the same thing on occasion. But to be even more fair, the left absolutely raked Bush over the coals for it (as did most libertarians), repeating the mantra that he was behaving like a dictator, "shredding the Constitution", etc. I'll even wager that Obama was one of them. Now...what do you suppose the odds are that those same critics will just as publicly hold the current admin (you know, the "most transparent" one ever) to the same standard rather than defending it, and claiming this is just another racist smear job?
3.) Alex - 06/06/2013
I got bad news for you, that fox news wont report... It aint new unfortunately...
[QUOTE]It is suspected that the practice is ongoing, stretching back far beyond April 2013, possibly even to 2006. One anonymous expert contacted by the Washington Post in the wake of the scandal said that the order appeared to be a routine renewal of a strikingly similar order issued by the same court in 2006, and renewed every three months since.
As to the authority claimed by the government via this order, that is specifically cited to fall under the “business records” provision of the PATRIOT Act of 2001.[/QUOTE]
And recently a judge ruled that google cannot refuse (legally) to deliver personal information to the .gov despite claims by google that they are improperly requested.
Lots of BS that went in the Patriot Act and then renewed much to the surprise of many democrats just coming to light.
Welcome to the new state. Same as the old state. Same as the next state unfortunately.
[QUOTE]It is suspected that the practice is ongoing, stretching back far beyond April 2013, possibly even to 2006. One anonymous expert contacted by the Washington Post in the wake of the scandal said that the order appeared to be a routine renewal of a strikingly similar order issued by the same court in 2006, and renewed every three months since.
As to the authority claimed by the government via this order, that is specifically cited to fall under the “business records” provision of the PATRIOT Act of 2001.[/QUOTE]
And recently a judge ruled that google cannot refuse (legally) to deliver personal information to the .gov despite claims by google that they are improperly requested.
Lots of BS that went in the Patriot Act and then renewed much to the surprise of many democrats just coming to light.
Welcome to the new state. Same as the old state. Same as the next state unfortunately.
4.) Alex - 06/06/2013
[QUOTE=DParker;6488]To be fair, the previous admin was doing pretty much the same thing on occasion. But to be even more fair, the left absolutely raked Bush over the coals for it (as did most libertarians), repeating the mantra that he was behaving like a dictator, "shredding the Constitution", etc. I'll even wager that Obama was one of them. Now...what do you suppose the odds are that those same critics will just as publicly hold the current admin (you know, the "most transparent" one ever) to the same standard rather than defending it, and claiming this is just another racist smear job?[/QUOTE]
The same likelihood that the right will rake the republican president for continuing the same activity after the next election.
The sooner everyone realized that the change in leadership is really all window dressing the better.
Though my personal belief is that lesson will [B]never[/B] be learned. It's almost an american tradition now to believe in the "vote for change"... the campaign that EVERY party has run on for the past 40+ years.
LOL... how many times can you change the view of a two sided coin before you realize that they are nearly the same in countless ways.
Sad.
The same likelihood that the right will rake the republican president for continuing the same activity after the next election.
The sooner everyone realized that the change in leadership is really all window dressing the better.
Though my personal belief is that lesson will [B]never[/B] be learned. It's almost an american tradition now to believe in the "vote for change"... the campaign that EVERY party has run on for the past 40+ years.
LOL... how many times can you change the view of a two sided coin before you realize that they are nearly the same in countless ways.
Sad.
5.) Go Bucks - 06/06/2013
if they want to listen in on my inane conversations, have at it.... but yea, it is troubling. I don't mind well defined targeted taps for specific things like terrorism, but a fishing expedition across the masses is very disconcerting.
6.) DParker - 06/06/2013
[QUOTE=Alex;6490]I got bad news for you, that fox news wont report... It aint new unfortunately...[/quote]
Not only will they report on it, they already did...multiple times...back in 2006 when it was first alleged:
[URL="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,195330,00.html"]N.J. Lawyers Sue Verizon Over NSA Data Collection[/URL]
[URL="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,195745,00.html"]Verizon: We Didn't Give Customers' Call Records to NSA Either[/URL]
[QUOTE=Alex;6490]And recently a judge ruled that google cannot refuse (legally) to deliver personal information to the .gov despite claims by google that they are improperly requested.
Lots of BS that went in the Patriot Act and then renewed much to the surprise of many democrats just coming to light.
Welcome to the new state. Same as the old state. Same as the next state unfortunately.[/QUOTE]
That's pretty much my point.
[QUOTE=Go Bucks;6494]if they want to listen in on my inane conversations, have at it.... but yea, it is troubling. I don't mind well defined targeted taps for specific things like terrorism, but a fishing expedition across the masses is very disconcerting.[/QUOTE]
These weren't taps (at least, not that we've heard about), but call accounting data (who called who, when, for how long, etc). Still intrusive as all hell though.
Not only will they report on it, they already did...multiple times...back in 2006 when it was first alleged:
[URL="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,195330,00.html"]N.J. Lawyers Sue Verizon Over NSA Data Collection[/URL]
[URL="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,195745,00.html"]Verizon: We Didn't Give Customers' Call Records to NSA Either[/URL]
[QUOTE=Alex;6490]And recently a judge ruled that google cannot refuse (legally) to deliver personal information to the .gov despite claims by google that they are improperly requested.
Lots of BS that went in the Patriot Act and then renewed much to the surprise of many democrats just coming to light.
Welcome to the new state. Same as the old state. Same as the next state unfortunately.[/QUOTE]
That's pretty much my point.
[QUOTE=Go Bucks;6494]if they want to listen in on my inane conversations, have at it.... but yea, it is troubling. I don't mind well defined targeted taps for specific things like terrorism, but a fishing expedition across the masses is very disconcerting.[/QUOTE]
These weren't taps (at least, not that we've heard about), but call accounting data (who called who, when, for how long, etc). Still intrusive as all hell though.
7.) Swamp Fox - 06/06/2013
Not enough information to say whether it's a problem or not. The video was a good discussion in case someone is tempted to only read the article.
I don't have a problem with casting a wide net. What I want to know is what is the purpose, who are the targets, what is the oversight and what are the limits.
Until we know those details, coming to conclusions about this (or any Patriot Act or similar tool, frankly) is just unproductive speculation.
I don't have a problem with casting a wide net. What I want to know is what is the purpose, who are the targets, what is the oversight and what are the limits.
Until we know those details, coming to conclusions about this (or any Patriot Act or similar tool, frankly) is just unproductive speculation.
8.) bluecat - 06/06/2013
The problem is they aren't requesting specific records. They are gathering information on everybody, not just suspected terrorists.
9.) Alex - 06/06/2013
[QUOTE=DParker;6496]Not only will they report on it, they already did...multiple times...back in 2006 when it was first alleged:
[URL="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,195330,00.html"]N.J. Lawyers Sue Verizon Over NSA Data Collection[/URL]
[URL="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,195745,00.html"]Verizon: We Didn't Give Customers' Call Records to NSA Either[/URL][/QUOTE]
Let me rephrase my point about FOX...
Now that its being brought to light (again) under the current administration, Fox isnt likely report that its the same thing as the previous admin. And if they do, its likely to be minimized.
My problem with FOX and CNN and MSNBC is that journalistic integrity is gone. Gone!
The very second you have a news service that leans right or left, its automatically a shadow of one that doesnt.
finding one that doesnt these days though...
sadly very very difficult.
[URL="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,195330,00.html"]N.J. Lawyers Sue Verizon Over NSA Data Collection[/URL]
[URL="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,195745,00.html"]Verizon: We Didn't Give Customers' Call Records to NSA Either[/URL][/QUOTE]
Let me rephrase my point about FOX...
Now that its being brought to light (again) under the current administration, Fox isnt likely report that its the same thing as the previous admin. And if they do, its likely to be minimized.
My problem with FOX and CNN and MSNBC is that journalistic integrity is gone. Gone!
The very second you have a news service that leans right or left, its automatically a shadow of one that doesnt.
finding one that doesnt these days though...
sadly very very difficult.
10.) DParker - 06/06/2013
[QUOTE=Alex;6500]Let me rephrase my point about FOX...
Now that its being brought to light (again) under the current administration, Fox isnt likely report that its the same thing as the previous admin. And if they do, its likely to be minimized.[/quote]
Don't get me wrong...I'm not a FOX News fan, nor do I watch it hardly at all anymore (and when I do it's strictly actual news updates when no other network is covering something...I avoid the panel and talking-head shows like the plague). But I think we should be fair and accurate in our criticisms of them. Here's a snippet from a [URL="http://www.foxbusiness.com/news/2013/06/06/nsa-is-collecting-phone-records-verizon-customers-report/"]FOX Business story[/URL] this morning:
[quote]"The revelation represents an expansion of policies under the Bush administration..."[/quote]
At this point we don't have enough information to know whether the current practice is indeed an "expansion of" or "the same thing as" what went on under the Bush admin, so while I agree that it's premature for them to be claiming the former, it would be just as premature to claim the latter.
[QUOTE=Alex;6500]My problem with FOX and CNN and MSNBC is that journalistic integrity is gone. Gone!
The very second you have a news service that leans right or left, its automatically a shadow of one that doesnt.
finding one that doesnt these days though...
sadly very very difficult.[/QUOTE]
On this we are in complete agreement, except that I'd add NBC, ABC and CBS to the list as well...they're just not quite as blatant about their bias...usually. I still say that Tim Russert was the last of the real broadcast journalists.
Now that its being brought to light (again) under the current administration, Fox isnt likely report that its the same thing as the previous admin. And if they do, its likely to be minimized.[/quote]
Don't get me wrong...I'm not a FOX News fan, nor do I watch it hardly at all anymore (and when I do it's strictly actual news updates when no other network is covering something...I avoid the panel and talking-head shows like the plague). But I think we should be fair and accurate in our criticisms of them. Here's a snippet from a [URL="http://www.foxbusiness.com/news/2013/06/06/nsa-is-collecting-phone-records-verizon-customers-report/"]FOX Business story[/URL] this morning:
[quote]"The revelation represents an expansion of policies under the Bush administration..."[/quote]
At this point we don't have enough information to know whether the current practice is indeed an "expansion of" or "the same thing as" what went on under the Bush admin, so while I agree that it's premature for them to be claiming the former, it would be just as premature to claim the latter.
[QUOTE=Alex;6500]My problem with FOX and CNN and MSNBC is that journalistic integrity is gone. Gone!
The very second you have a news service that leans right or left, its automatically a shadow of one that doesnt.
finding one that doesnt these days though...
sadly very very difficult.[/QUOTE]
On this we are in complete agreement, except that I'd add NBC, ABC and CBS to the list as well...they're just not quite as blatant about their bias...usually. I still say that Tim Russert was the last of the real broadcast journalists.
11.) Alex - 06/06/2013
[QUOTE=DParker;6501]Don't get me wrong...I'm not a FOX News fan, nor do I watch it hardly at all anymore (and when I do it's strictly actual news updates when no other network is covering something...I avoid the panel and talking-head shows like the plague). But I think we should be fair and accurate in our criticisms of them. [/QUOTE]
But there in lies the rub DP... When you have a news service that is well known for party affiliation (on BOTH sides) then its disingenuous to take any one story and suggest that they may or may not be slanted.
There are probably articles that arent biased but the the organization they represent has devalued those articles because the governing motivations are questions.
Sad to be sure.
Nobody goes to CNN to look for news critical of the blue admin, nor the reverse for Fox and the red seats.
The worst thing ever to happen to news was the sponsor. Ironically it was the original way to keep political bias out of the system.
But there in lies the rub DP... When you have a news service that is well known for party affiliation (on BOTH sides) then its disingenuous to take any one story and suggest that they may or may not be slanted.
There are probably articles that arent biased but the the organization they represent has devalued those articles because the governing motivations are questions.
Sad to be sure.
Nobody goes to CNN to look for news critical of the blue admin, nor the reverse for Fox and the red seats.
The worst thing ever to happen to news was the sponsor. Ironically it was the original way to keep political bias out of the system.
12.) DParker - 06/06/2013
[QUOTE=Alex;6502]But there in lies the rub DP... When you have a news service that is well known for party affiliation (on BOTH sides) then its disingenuous to take any one story and suggest that they may or may not be slanted.[/QUOTE]
I'm not citing any stories to suggest that they...or anyone else...are not slanted. I'm not that stupid. They most certainly are. My point was simply that I am willing to criticize them when that bias manifests itself in clearly slanted reporting, but not when it hasn't yet based solely on an assumption that they will...especially when I know they have been quite critical of the Bush admin many, many times...on issues like this one, in particular.
[QUOTE=Alex;6502]There are probably articles that arent biased but the the organization they represent has devalued those articles because the governing motivations are questions.
Sad to be sure.
Nobody goes to CNN to look for news critical of the blue admin, nor the reverse for Fox and the red seats.[/QUOTE]
No...but I don't worry too much about political bias when looking for death tolls from a tornado, or riots in Greece, etc.
I'm not citing any stories to suggest that they...or anyone else...are not slanted. I'm not that stupid. They most certainly are. My point was simply that I am willing to criticize them when that bias manifests itself in clearly slanted reporting, but not when it hasn't yet based solely on an assumption that they will...especially when I know they have been quite critical of the Bush admin many, many times...on issues like this one, in particular.
[QUOTE=Alex;6502]There are probably articles that arent biased but the the organization they represent has devalued those articles because the governing motivations are questions.
Sad to be sure.
Nobody goes to CNN to look for news critical of the blue admin, nor the reverse for Fox and the red seats.[/QUOTE]
No...but I don't worry too much about political bias when looking for death tolls from a tornado, or riots in Greece, etc.
13.) Swamp Fox - 06/06/2013
LOL...The discussion on Fox contained in the video that accompanied [I]the very article [/I]BC linked related this to the Bush admin. policies. :re: Geez. :-)
Fox does straight news as well as opinion journalism. The major networks, if that's what you want to call them, supposedly do straight news but show their overwhelmingly left-of-center bias not only in what they cover and how, but in what they don't cover and why.
We have a much deeper tradition in this country of opinion journalism and news outlets taking a point of view than most people realize, I think. The idea that we've historically had pervasive major news media that were unbiased and without a point of view is a myth.
But I digress...
Fox does straight news as well as opinion journalism. The major networks, if that's what you want to call them, supposedly do straight news but show their overwhelmingly left-of-center bias not only in what they cover and how, but in what they don't cover and why.
We have a much deeper tradition in this country of opinion journalism and news outlets taking a point of view than most people realize, I think. The idea that we've historically had pervasive major news media that were unbiased and without a point of view is a myth.
But I digress...
14.) DParker - 06/06/2013
Two additional items of note:
1) This story was broken not by a U.S. news agency...but by the UK Guardian, for Pete's sake.
2) Today is the 64th anniversary of the publication of George Orwell's [I]1984[/I].
And I should confess that my own initial wording...
[indent][quote]the previous admin was doing pretty much the same thing on occasion[/quote][/indent]
...was poorly chosen. I should have said that the Bush admin did "similar" things. As I said we don't know enough details yet for a meaningful comparison.
Also, Verizon is my home telephone and internet service provider. Hold on....someone's at the door....
1) This story was broken not by a U.S. news agency...but by the UK Guardian, for Pete's sake.
2) Today is the 64th anniversary of the publication of George Orwell's [I]1984[/I].
And I should confess that my own initial wording...
[indent][quote]the previous admin was doing pretty much the same thing on occasion[/quote][/indent]
...was poorly chosen. I should have said that the Bush admin did "similar" things. As I said we don't know enough details yet for a meaningful comparison.
Also, Verizon is my home telephone and internet service provider. Hold on....someone's at the door....
15.) Old Crow - 06/07/2013
Son of a gun .... guess
I need to change my billing address to - 1600 Pennsylvania Ave Nw, Washington
Looks like I just got my self an Obama Phone .... :bang::tap::bang:
Surprised them SOB's at VZ haven't found a way to bill me for sending them the info ..... I currently have had other issues with VZ and have truly considered beginning a random act of violence by enteringVZ stores across the country and kicking the fist sales guy I see in the nutz ...... hope it takes off with copy cats all over .... reminiscent of singing a few bars of Alice's restaurant ...
I need to change my billing address to - 1600 Pennsylvania Ave Nw, Washington
Looks like I just got my self an Obama Phone .... :bang::tap::bang:
Surprised them SOB's at VZ haven't found a way to bill me for sending them the info ..... I currently have had other issues with VZ and have truly considered beginning a random act of violence by enteringVZ stores across the country and kicking the fist sales guy I see in the nutz ...... hope it takes off with copy cats all over .... reminiscent of singing a few bars of Alice's restaurant ...
16.) bluecat - 06/07/2013
Oops
17.) Jag - 06/07/2013
[URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/us-intelligence-mining-data-from-nine-us-internet-companies-in-broad-secret-program/2013/06/06/3a0c0da8-cebf-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497_story.html?hpid=z1"]http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/us-intelligence-mining-data-from-nine-us-internet-companies-in-broad-secret-program/2013/06/06/3a0c0da8-cebf-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497_story.html?hpid=z1[/URL]
You can add the following companies to the list: Microsoft, Apple, Google, Yahoo, Facebook, AOL, Skype, Paltalk, YouTube, and "coming soon" Dropbox.
You can add the following companies to the list: Microsoft, Apple, Google, Yahoo, Facebook, AOL, Skype, Paltalk, YouTube, and "coming soon" Dropbox.
18.) Jag - 06/07/2013
[URL="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324299104578529112289298922.html"]http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324299104578529112289298922.html[/URL]
Add Sprint, AT&T, and your credit card transactions.
Add Sprint, AT&T, and your credit card transactions.
19.) DParker - 06/07/2013
I think at this point we do need to be clear on the scope of this issue:
So far as we know (at least so far) the data gathering being reported on does NOT include "wire-tapping" or other communications *content* monitoring. It involves the gatherin of "meta data" related to communications (the phone numbers of parties involved in a call, when the call occured, how long it lasted, the IDs and location(s) of cell phones involved, TCP/IP and e-mail addresses for internet users, etc.) What's at issue here is not the gathering of that type of data, which is perfectly legal. It is the sheer [I]breadth[/I] of it. The fact that it appears to not be targeted in any way at all, and instead monitors the activities of EVERYONE rather than those suspected of crimes involving national security issues.
So if we're going to raise hell about all of this (and I absolutely think we should) it's important that we have a solid understanding of exactly what it is that we're pissed off about, and not go off on speculative tangents about things that are not (yet) in evidence.
So far as we know (at least so far) the data gathering being reported on does NOT include "wire-tapping" or other communications *content* monitoring. It involves the gatherin of "meta data" related to communications (the phone numbers of parties involved in a call, when the call occured, how long it lasted, the IDs and location(s) of cell phones involved, TCP/IP and e-mail addresses for internet users, etc.) What's at issue here is not the gathering of that type of data, which is perfectly legal. It is the sheer [I]breadth[/I] of it. The fact that it appears to not be targeted in any way at all, and instead monitors the activities of EVERYONE rather than those suspected of crimes involving national security issues.
So if we're going to raise hell about all of this (and I absolutely think we should) it's important that we have a solid understanding of exactly what it is that we're pissed off about, and not go off on speculative tangents about things that are not (yet) in evidence.
20.) bluecat - 06/07/2013
[QUOTE=DParker;6588]I think at this point we do need to be clear on the scope of this issue:
and not go off on speculative tangents about things that are not (yet) in evidence.[/QUOTE]
political party pooper
and not go off on speculative tangents about things that are not (yet) in evidence.[/QUOTE]
political party pooper
21.) Swamp Fox - 06/07/2013
[QUOTE=DParker;6588]I think at this point we do need to be clear on the scope of this issue:
So far as we know (at least so far) the data gathering being reported on does NOT include "wire-tapping" or other communications *content* monitoring. It involves the gatherin of "meta data" related to communications (the phone numbers of parties involved in a call, when the call occured, how long it lasted, the IDs and location(s) of cell phones involved, TCP/IP and e-mail addresses for internet users, etc.) What's at issue here is not the gathering of that type of data, which is perfectly legal. It is the sheer [I]breadth[/I] of it. The fact that it appears to not be targeted in any way at all, and instead monitors the activities of EVERYONE rather than those suspected of crimes involving national security issues.
So if we're going to raise hell about all of this (and I absolutely think we should) it's important that we have a solid understanding of exactly what it is that we're pissed off about, and not go off on speculative tangents about things that are not (yet) in evidence.[/QUOTE]
The Prism program looks like it might involve content. That's a different program from the telephone data gathering. A big problem here is that the Obama administration has no credibility or reputation for telling the truth, and even if these programs could be acceptable if properly understood, intelligence officials will have a vigorous upstream paddle to get us to cooperate, at this point.
So far as we know (at least so far) the data gathering being reported on does NOT include "wire-tapping" or other communications *content* monitoring. It involves the gatherin of "meta data" related to communications (the phone numbers of parties involved in a call, when the call occured, how long it lasted, the IDs and location(s) of cell phones involved, TCP/IP and e-mail addresses for internet users, etc.) What's at issue here is not the gathering of that type of data, which is perfectly legal. It is the sheer [I]breadth[/I] of it. The fact that it appears to not be targeted in any way at all, and instead monitors the activities of EVERYONE rather than those suspected of crimes involving national security issues.
So if we're going to raise hell about all of this (and I absolutely think we should) it's important that we have a solid understanding of exactly what it is that we're pissed off about, and not go off on speculative tangents about things that are not (yet) in evidence.[/QUOTE]
The Prism program looks like it might involve content. That's a different program from the telephone data gathering. A big problem here is that the Obama administration has no credibility or reputation for telling the truth, and even if these programs could be acceptable if properly understood, intelligence officials will have a vigorous upstream paddle to get us to cooperate, at this point.
22.) luv2bowhunt - 06/07/2013
You see, it's junk like this that makes people start websites like SilentCountry.com.
Board the windows and hide your sweaters.
Board the windows and hide your sweaters.
23.) Hunter - 06/07/2013
[QUOTE=luv2bowhunt;6596]You see, it's junk like this that makes people start websites like SilentCountry.com.
Board the windows and hide your sweaters.[/QUOTE]
Luv2, you crack me up! :grin:
Board the windows and hide your sweaters.[/QUOTE]
Luv2, you crack me up! :grin:
24.) DParker - 06/07/2013
[QUOTE=bluecat;6589]political party pooper[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;6591]The Prism program looks like it might involve content. That's a different program from the telephone data gathering. A big problem here is that the Obama administration has no credibility or reputation for telling the truth, and even if these programs could be acceptable if properly understood, intelligence officials will have a vigorous upstream paddle to get us to cooperate, at this point.[/QUOTE]
All true. I was referring to the danger of getting the facts confused and referring to the NSA FISA order that started all this as "wire-tapping" and such.
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;6591]The Prism program looks like it might involve content. That's a different program from the telephone data gathering. A big problem here is that the Obama administration has no credibility or reputation for telling the truth, and even if these programs could be acceptable if properly understood, intelligence officials will have a vigorous upstream paddle to get us to cooperate, at this point.[/QUOTE]
All true. I was referring to the danger of getting the facts confused and referring to the NSA FISA order that started all this as "wire-tapping" and such.
25.) Swamp Fox - 06/07/2013
Correctomundo....I probably should have noted your veracity instead of just quoting you, since you are taking me out for ice cream at the strip club...
26.) DParker - 06/07/2013
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;6610]Correctomundo....I probably should have noted your veracity instead of just quoting you, since you are taking me out for ice cream at the strip club...[/QUOTE]
Well...I [I]was[/I]. Apparently you forgot that whole "behave yourself" qualifier. Don't make me go all SME on you.
Well...I [I]was[/I]. Apparently you forgot that whole "behave yourself" qualifier. Don't make me go all SME on you.
27.) Swamp Fox - 06/07/2013
Sorry, Sister.
I promise to do better.
:-)
I promise to do better.
:-)
28.) DParker - 06/07/2013
Dallas Market Hall, where one of the better guns shows in the area is held every 2-3 months, is right up the street from all that (Medieval Times and the nearby "gentlemen's clubs"). So if you time things right you can make a booze-broads-and-boomsticks day of it. If those aren't the makings of a party, I don't know what is.
29.) bluecat - 06/07/2013
Hard liquor and handgun night at the ball park.
30.) bluecat - 06/07/2013
It's less predictable than smelt night.
31.) Swamp Fox - 06/07/2013
[QUOTE=DParker;6620]So if you time things right you can make a booze-broads-and-boomsticks day of it. If those aren't the makings of a party, I don't know what is.[/QUOTE]
I am going to see if something around Halloween will work, then. Going to up the ante for booze, broads, boomsticks [B]and broomsticks[/B]. I love me a girl in a Sexy Witch costume ...:wink
I am going to see if something around Halloween will work, then. Going to up the ante for booze, broads, boomsticks [B]and broomsticks[/B]. I love me a girl in a Sexy Witch costume ...:wink
32.) bluecat - 06/07/2013
I bet she tastes like candy corn.
33.) Swamp Fox - 06/07/2013
Plus, she's handy around the house...
34.) bluecat - 06/11/2013
This is what I don't understand. Those that have no problem with the collection/monitoring of phone records say that it is for the good of the nation and to help curb possibly terrorist attacks. The government will behave ethically and responsibly. Most also argue that the goverment has no business creating a centralized gun owner database because the government might use that information for other purposes.
You either trust the goverment with your data or you don't.
You either trust the goverment with your data or you don't.
35.) DParker - 06/12/2013
36.) Dan-o - 06/12/2013
[QUOTE=bluecat;6702]This is what I don't understand. Those that have no problem with the collection/monitoring of phone records say that it is for the good of the nation and to help curb possibly terrorist attacks. The government will behave ethically and responsibly. Most also argue that the goverment has no business creating a centralized gun owner database because the government might use that information for other purposes.
You either trust the goverment with your data or you don't.[/QUOTE]
I don't. It's a disgusting intrusion and a clear violation of the 4th amendment. Want to know who I'm calling and when? Get a warrant.
You either trust the goverment with your data or you don't.[/QUOTE]
I don't. It's a disgusting intrusion and a clear violation of the 4th amendment. Want to know who I'm calling and when? Get a warrant.
37.) bluecat - 06/12/2013
Don't worry people, this was in 2008. I'm sure they've cleaned up their act since then.
[B]2008: NSA mocked personal phone calls from the battlefield[/B]
The defenders of the NSA during this controversial time like to point out that they aren’t watching you, per se, but rather they’re just looking for patterns in the massive swaths of data collected. The problem is that claim is simply not true, as evidenced by the 2008 report detailing how NSA officials were listening in on American soldiers during their most intimate moments.
A former Navy Arab linguist David Faulk, who worked at the NSA center in Georgia, told ABC about the NSA eavesdropping and even mocking U.S. citizens overseas:
Faulk says he and others in his section of the NSA facility at Fort Gordon routinely shared salacious or tantalizing phone calls that had been intercepted, alerting office mates to certain time codes of “cuts” that were available on each operator’s computer.
“Hey, check this out,” Faulk says he would be told, “there’s good phone sex or there’s some pillow talk, pull up this call, it’s really funny, go check it out. It would be some colonel making pillow talk and we would say, ‘Wow, this was crazy’,” Faulk told ABC News.
Faulk said he joined in to listen, and talk about it during breaks in Back Hall’s “smoke pit,” but ended up feeling badly about his actions.
[B]2008: NSA mocked personal phone calls from the battlefield[/B]
The defenders of the NSA during this controversial time like to point out that they aren’t watching you, per se, but rather they’re just looking for patterns in the massive swaths of data collected. The problem is that claim is simply not true, as evidenced by the 2008 report detailing how NSA officials were listening in on American soldiers during their most intimate moments.
A former Navy Arab linguist David Faulk, who worked at the NSA center in Georgia, told ABC about the NSA eavesdropping and even mocking U.S. citizens overseas:
Faulk says he and others in his section of the NSA facility at Fort Gordon routinely shared salacious or tantalizing phone calls that had been intercepted, alerting office mates to certain time codes of “cuts” that were available on each operator’s computer.
“Hey, check this out,” Faulk says he would be told, “there’s good phone sex or there’s some pillow talk, pull up this call, it’s really funny, go check it out. It would be some colonel making pillow talk and we would say, ‘Wow, this was crazy’,” Faulk told ABC News.
Faulk said he joined in to listen, and talk about it during breaks in Back Hall’s “smoke pit,” but ended up feeling badly about his actions.
38.) luv2bowhunt - 06/13/2013
So much I could say about Fort Gordon, where my daughter worked for the Air Force for 5 years.
Lets just say, lots of listening going on there.
Lets just say, lots of listening going on there.
39.) DParker - 06/15/2013
[video=youtube;h2qgU8kJt-0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=h2qgU8kJt-0[/video]
40.) bluecat - 06/17/2013
It almost sounded like he was conscious for a second.
41.) bluecat - 06/17/2013
Poor Congress, so many scandals, so little time.
42.) DParker - 06/19/2013
I'm shocked....SHOCKED, I tell you...to find that the NSA is embellishing the truth with their claims regarding their altruistic use of the metadata they've been collecting on us,
[URL="http://news.yahoo.com/nsa-claim-thwarted-nyse-plot-contradicted-court-documents-211252935--abc-news-topstories.html"]http://news.yahoo.com/nsa-claim-thwarted-nyse-plot-contradicted-court-documents-211252935--abc-news-topstories.html[/URL]
[URL="http://news.yahoo.com/nsa-claim-thwarted-nyse-plot-contradicted-court-documents-211252935--abc-news-topstories.html"]http://news.yahoo.com/nsa-claim-thwarted-nyse-plot-contradicted-court-documents-211252935--abc-news-topstories.html[/URL]