Marco Rubio: We Need To Add To US Surveillance Programs (dailydot.com) 343
Patrick O'Neill writes: The debate over surveillance hit the 2016 race for the White House again on Sunday when Republican presidential candidate Marco Rubio said he wants to add to American surveillance programs, many of which were created after 9/11. He invoked a recent shooting of a Philadelphia police officer by a man who allegedly pledged allegiance to the Islamic State. "This the kind of threat we now face in this country," Rubio said. "We need additional tools for intelligence." Rubio also addressed the NSA leaks that led to this debate: "Edward Snowden is a traitor. He took our intelligence information and gave it to the Chinese and gave it to the Russians. We cannot afford to have a commander-in-chief who thinks people like Edward Snowden are doing a good public service."
... and we cannot have (Score:5, Insightful)
People like like Marco Rubio, who think that any and every threat of violence is an excuse to make nearly omniscient government through every and any possible means of government, be president. He talks a game about reducing government. If/When the government attains the power he is talking about, then what's to stop it from using the power for other "unintended" purposes. He's a politician, he should know all about power creep. And he calls himself a conservative. I am tired of these people who claim to be conservative, complaining about big government, and then turning out to be power-hungry hypocrites.
captcha:tactics
Tell the republicans that. Please (Score:5, Interesting)
> And he calls himself a conservative. I am tired of these people who claim to be conservative, complaining about big government, and then turning out to be power-hungry hypocrites.
I've made that point calling conservative talk radio, and I called and said that to my House representative when he visited the local radio station. I hope you and others do the same.
'Fraidy Cat Republicans (Score:2)
Why are they all such sniveling cowards? They are supposedly all for the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment, but don't give a shit about the 4th?
A pox on all these jingos!
And the Democrats are no better, not ever a bit.
Re: (Score:2)
Politicians are power creeps.
politically bad idea (Score:5, Insightful)
So he's coming out with something that few people are strongly in favor of, but a sizeable minority strongly opposes. Something like that is a political loser.
Re:politically bad idea (Score:5, Insightful)
More than likely there was enough money funneled into his campaign by the relevant parties that his opinion on the matter was bought and paid for.
Re: (Score:2)
It's an interesting approach (Score:5, Funny)
Crazy talk (Score:4, Informative)
What is it with US politics. Do these people actually go out there and actually talk to real people. Is the fear mongering that effective that people are actually wanting this?
All this talk of spending more in surveillance and military makes me sick. Education is where money needs to be spent. Local infrastructure, innovation...
The only surveillance I would approve of is the monitoring of our elected officials and how budgets are spent. THAT'S IT!
Re:Crazy talk (Score:5, Insightful)
Do these people actually go out there and actually talk to real people.
Yes. Thousands of them. At least 100 million Americans, maybe more, agree with Rubio on this. Those people don't post on any of the same web forums that you or I do, but they exist and they vote.
Re: (Score:2)
Can we agree that fear mongering and miss information is what drives this way of thinking?
Re: (Score:2)
Miss information? [wikia.com] Jeez, she seemed so nice on Hysteria!, too.
Re: (Score:3)
That's irrelevant to the question. Rubio is trying to win votes from scared, misinformed people, who he meets with every day.
drown 'em in noise (Score:2)
Yeah, let's dump more data on them, that will fix them not finding what's right in front of their nose!
Politicians in america (Score:5, Insightful)
What is it with US politics. Do these people actually go out there and actually talk to real people.
Not really, no. And many of the ones they do talk to are fairly hysterical, racist, fearful and dumb. The republican base in the last few years seems to be particularly panicky and nuts. Used to be that the republicans were pragmatic economically and had a wing of the party where the kooks hung out that could be safely ignored. Now the tail is waging the dog and the religious nuts and the tea party loonies have gained enough power that they can't be ignored anymore. Combined with gerrymandered voting districts we've had both parties (but especially the republicans) getting more extreme for the last 10-15 years. If a politician isn't "pure" enough for their party they never make it out of the primary election.
Is the fear mongering that effective that people are actually wanting this?
Short answer? Sadly, yes.
Long answer? We've got a lot of dumb, fearful people who are religious bigots and racists. They'll vote for anything that gives them a way to act on these us vs them tribal fears and the mechanisms to keep the politicians from responding to these idiots are broken or badly damaged.
All this talk of spending more in surveillance and military makes me sick. Education is where money needs to be spent. Local infrastructure, innovation...
I couldn't not agree more. Education, infrastructure, research, clean energy, etc are badly needed. A larger military and surveillance state is not. We're borrowing to pay for a military that is way larger than we need and an inefficient and badly designed health care system.
Re: (Score:2)
What is it with US politics. Do these people actually go out there and actually talk to real people. Is the fear mongering that effective that people are actually wanting this?
There's more than one objective, and the blanket statements are the only ones that get traction, so that's what is often used.
In this case, for example, yes, it will land on people that agree completely, and it may even sway some that were ok with the current amount of surveillance.
At the same time, it's going to soften the blow of accepting other candidates' positions. For example, if Trump said he wanted to keep it at the same level, then those that actually wanted less but had to choose between those two
Those pesky civil rights... (Score:4, Insightful)
"Edward Snowden is a traitor. He took our intelligence information and gave it to the Chinese and gave it to the Russians. We cannot afford to have a commander-in-chief who thinks people like Edward Snowden are doing a good public service."
See I prefer a Commander In Chief who actually treats the civil rights of US citizens as something more than an inconvenience to be trampled over at their whim. We don't need more "intelligence tools" that demonstrably do not make us any safer but manage to oppress us in the process.
I look forward to the day when we have a republican candidate for president who doesn't ear big shoes, a colorful wig and have a red squeaky nose.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You are high off your ass if you think only Republicans want to increase government surveillance. What a great country we live in when voters' opinions are formed strictly from what Jon Stewart tells them...
Obama wiping his ass with The Second Amendment sure shows what he thinks of the civil rights of US citizens.
Re:Those pesky civil rights... (Score:5, Funny)
Obama wiping his ass with The Second Amendment sure shows what he thinks of the civil rights of US citizens.
You're the confused one. Obama has been the best gun salesman [cnn.com] ever. Every time he says the word 'gun', thousands fly off shelves. You think this isn't part of a well coordinated plan? How do you think Obama plans to support his retirement? Social Security? Remember, he's pretty young yet. His presidential pardon is just pocket change.
I bet that he is heavily invested in Smith & Wesson and Sturm Ruger....
Re:Those pesky civil rights... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't see much choice for you unless you plan to vote for Gary Johnson in the general. Hilliary's words and deeds have made it painful clear she is in about the same place on this issue. Sanders will not get the nomination and won't run as an independent.
Re:Those pesky civil rights... (Score:5, Informative)
Sanders will not get the nomination
Why are you so sure? The polls in Iowa and NH show him even with Clinton (within the margin of error).
Re: (Score:3)
New Hampshire and Iowa are not really very representative of the US as a whole. The attention paid to them early on skews their perspectives on things. Sometimes that lets them pick out a dark horse, but more often it just means that they vote their local issues and then fade into obscurity. New Hampshire is right next door to Sanders' home state, and he's more popular there than in the rest of the country.
It's possible that a surprise win in either could help raise his visibility (as it did for Obama in 20
Re: (Score:2)
And before anyone talks about "throwing your vote away" consider this: Your vote is only wasted when you don't use it.
Every vote for gets counted, ever notice how the congresscriters talk about representing the "majority", when only slightly more than 1/6 of the registered voters actually voted at all? If everyone voted, even if they just write in their cat's name, the D
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
"They are all the same party, basically." (Score:2)
People with those beliefs helped elect George Bush in 2000, because "Gore is just the same".
So thank you in advance for helping get US boots on the ground in Syria.
Re: (Score:2)
We have candidates like that -- e.g. Jon Huntsman in 2012 -- but because they're moderates, they have no chance in the primary.
Re: (Score:2)
I used to like Marco Rubio.
Edward Snowden is a traitor.
Not anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
Marco Rubio panders to the older generation of Cubans that have fled Cuba.
Politicians like him just wouldn't exist if only the second generation of political asylum seekers were allowed to vote in this country.
As it stands, political asylum seekers lose their wars, come to this country, we give them citizenship, and they co-opt our politicians to fight their wars for them (since they only care about one issue when they vote, and that's about getting revenge on the country that originally f___d them).
Those who do not study history.... (Score:5, Informative)
Remember how Hitler was able to suspend civil liberties in Germany? On February 27, 1933 Reichstag building was burned, which found to be an arson. This led Hitler to accuse communists of the terrorism, and he got Hinderburg to pass an emergency decree to suspend civil liberties. Of course, Germany was in shock and most of the smart educated Germans really thought that this action would protect them from the terrorist threat of communists and anarchists.
That's how Hitler was able to come to power. He came on the power of the fear of the masses, willing to suspend their civil liberties in return for security.
No, we need more guns. (Score:3, Insightful)
Rubio Fail (Score:2)
And this is why I am not a (R).
We have plenty of government intervention into our lives. We don't need more. Americans aren't a danger to America. We are America!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're only lying to yourself if you're pretending that Rubio's stance is unique to Republicans.
Re: (Score:2)
I am not lying to myself, and Rubio's stance isn't limited to (R). Hillary is just as bad, if not worse. But you won't hear Liberal supporters of her talking about her Security stances. Mostly because they are completely hypocritical in light of her "email" problems.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I completely agree. However, the problem is that the Democrats are not any better: in the last eight years, things have only become worse despite Obama's "good intentions" before he was elected and none of the Democratic or Republican candidates have put forward credible steps towards reducing runaway government intervention. There is simply no presidential candidate at this point that I would even consider voting for. All of them are part of the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
I would argue that Americans are, in fact, the greatest threat to America.
Both the parties' debates had that question about "what is the biggest threat to the US" and the candidates talked about terrorism and climate change. I think they were all wrong: not a single one said "internal conflict."
What I wish for isn't a president who will stand against terrorism, or address income inequality, or whatever else has most of the platforms' focus. I wish for a p
Re:Rubio Fail (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
I am not an (R) because they tend to be (D) in disguise far too often, and aren't right on a number of critical issues. I am not (D), because for the most part, they are fine with using state powers to take from others. Both (R) and (D) are fine with imposing their sociological experiments upon the people without any regard to liberty (freedom).
I am a Libertarian, and support Liberty. The purpose of government is to secure liberty, but that is contrary to state power.
What the hell is wrong with our politicians? (Score:5, Insightful)
Cruz - scary blowhard asshole
Rubio - no concept of privacy
Clinton - unindicted felon
Bush - aww hell no
Christie - not considered corrupt only by comparison to New Jersey
Fiorina - Enriches herself by firing people
Sanders is the only one out there who makes any sense, and he's an unabashed Socialist!
Re: (Score:2)
Listening to Ted Cruz, I think that he missed his calling. He sounds like he should be preaching in a tent revival. Or perhaps leading a mega-church on TV.
Re:What the hell is wrong with our politicians? (Score:5, Insightful)
You forgot Rand Paul.
Favors decriminalizing marijuana.
Wants to minimize our interference in other countries' affairs.
Wants to end the NSA spying.
Re:What the hell is wrong with our politicians? (Score:5, Insightful)
Philosophically he does, politically and legally he does not. He knows his personal views do not transfer to politics.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course the standards are really, really low.
Re: (Score:2)
If Cruz is a scary blowhard asshole, Trump is a scarier blowhard asshole. When your campaign rallies start employing brownshirt tactics like beating up protestors, you have become legitimately very scary.
Re:What the hell is wrong with our politicians? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sanders is the only one out there who makes any sense, and he's an unabashed Socialist!
Oh my god, not a socialist! You do realize that the US has a ton of socialist programs already in place, right? Such as... Social Security, Medicaid, etc...
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, Mr/Ms. Lawyer, what EXACT law did she violate?
I agree she made unwise decisions, but if you allege clear and specific laws were broken, then please be clear and explicit.
Most legal experts in the subject say the related laws are complex, hazy, and/or nuanced.
Re:What the hell is wrong with our politicians? (Score:5, Insightful)
For starters, he has no clue what the phrase "carpet bombing" means; that was painfully clear in the debate. He said the federal government wants to crack down on school districts that don't allow transgender kids to use the showers of their identified gender. He has a problem with OSHA/ADA guidelines on toilet seats. He thinks Barack Obama is somehow unique in writing signing statements and executive orders. He said that expanding Medicaid will make it harder for the poor to get healthcare (WTF?). He told Catholics that Democrats said, "Change your religious beliefs or we'll use our power in the federal government to shut down your charities and your hospitals." He's against net neutrality.
As a matter of opinion, he's just creepy. He cooks bacon on a gun. Also, if Republicans complained because Obama hadn't even served for one entire senate term, then they should have the same issue with this cat. But they won't because when a Republican has no experience, he's an "outsider." When a Democrat has no experience he's "unqualified."
Overlooking one small detail... (Score:2)
Re:Overlooking one small detail... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing prevents me as a law-abiding citizen from owning guns and building up a small arsenal to slaughter people in the name of Santa Claus. All the intelligence agencies won't have the slightest clue if I keep to myself and don't broadcast my intentions to the world at large.
Clearly the end game involves a mixture of hiring one half of the population to spy on the other half, indoctrinating children to inform on their parents, and detaining reclusive people who live alone and don't have children because that's just unAmerican.
Re: (Score:2)
Flop-Flip (Score:4, Insightful)
One of the reasons GOP gained so many seats in the last midterm election is that many were upset with Snowden's revelations about how much domestic and ally-country snooping the gov't was doing. Republican attack ads on Democrats made that a key issue (along with ACA).
But recent domestic attacks have caused the GOP to flip on snooping, in general. They are now pro-snooping.
I have to give them credit for taking advantage of both sides of the issues and leveraging voter forgetfulness. It's slimy, but it works politically.
Re: (Score:2)
One of the reasons GOP gained so many seats in the last midterm election is that many were upset with Snowden's revelations about how much domestic and ally-country snooping the gov't was doing.
The Republicans won the 2014 midterm elections with the lowest voter turnout since the 1920's, as Democratic voters typically stayed home during non-presidential years. Of course, the last time the Republicans held both houses of Congress was just a year before the 1929 stock market crash. Something to think about.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/11/1928-congress-last-time-republicans-had-a-majority-this-huge-112913 [politico.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Many Democrats were also upset by the Snowden revelations, which is part of the reason they didn't bother to vote. It made Democrats feel ho-hum, and added fuel to the right's ever-burning anger over Obama.
Anger brings people to the polls. The Right was angered by ACA, domestic snooping, the alleged Tea-Party-targeting IRS scandal, Ebola, Benghazi, the Arab-Spring going south, and their belief that O is a foreign-born gay Muslim commie
Re: (Score:2)
Democrats had nothing that really energized them.
Democrats typically come out in droves during the presidential elections. but not during midterm elections. Republicans typically come out in droves during the midterm elections, but not during the presidential elections. With 2016 being a repeat of 2012 that gives Hillary an electoral advantage, the Republicans will have a steep hill to climb to win the presidential election and keep the Senate with 24 seats — the Class of 2010 — are in play.
Re: (Score:2)
" the last time the Republicans held both houses of Congress was just a year before the 1929 stock market crash"
Except for the 1994 election.From 1995-2000 and 2003-2005(?)
Oh, and 1947 and 1953.
At least that seems to be so based on some brief Googling.
Sorry,what were you saying?
Re: (Score:2)
At least that seems to be so based on some brief Googling.
My bad. What I meant was that today's Republican Congress has the LARGEST majority since the 1920's.
Yet another reason I don't support him (Score:4, Insightful)
That said Rubio is flat wrong, and is a dangerous candidate because he is for more invasion of privacy. We don't need more surveillance. We need more freedom.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
He crossed the traitor line when he dumped other documents such as the collection efforts on other nations. That was the treason.
Quite the contrary -- the foreign data grabbing is the worst of all. While Americans elected the government that decided to secretly invade their privacy at an unprecedented scale, people in other countries had no say at all. They are mere victims. Furthermore, while part of the domestic snooping is likely to be illegal, all of the foreign snooping that was exposed is, without a doubt a criminal offence. I am not aware of any jurisdiction that has allows foreign agencies to steal its citizens' data.
By expos
Re: (Score:3)
Snowden is both a traitor and patriot.
Plainly he broke the law.
And he disclosed what should be recognized as abuse and overreach by our government and others.
In this case, punishing him as a traitor will also silence other whistle blowers. We may never know what our government is doing, secretly, ostensibly on our behalf.
And we will surely only guess at their motivations, though we should not. If secrecy were necessary for our protection, we could have that discussion, but have these programs actually res
Re: (Score:3)
I agree that Snowden was a traitor. (not for revealing the NSA collecting on citizens, that was whistleblowing. He crossed the traitor line when he dumped other documents such as the collection efforts on other nations. That was the treason.
That said Rubio is flat wrong, and is a dangerous candidate because he is for more invasion of privacy. We don't need more surveillance. We need more freedom.
Where Rubio is wrong is in this: the best way to stop another Snowden is to *listen to him* when he goes to his higher-ups and tries to blow the whistle.
Snowden did the right thing first, and, as usually happens in government, they circled the wagons. At that point he went rogue.
totally agree ; D (Score:3)
Let's start with a set of drones programmed to follow every single US Governor, Congressman, Senator, President or candidate for any of those jobs 24 hours a day, live streaming and recording it, viewable by any IP address located inside the USA.
We can put in an exclusion for when they actually meat on top secret/confidential meetings - as long as those meetings only consist of people directly employed by the US government.
Re:totally agree ; D (Score:5, Interesting)
Lobbyists. You really want to ensure no bullshit is happening, track every single registered lobbyist.
Those guys are doing FAR more to undermine your government by ensuring that corporate interests take precedence over everything else.
The ones writing checks are also writing policy.
The Copyright cartel (which is mostly multinational corporations) practically write laws and trade agreements for the US government these days, and the government is largely on the payroll of corporate interests.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm in favor of using better tools. (Score:2)
I regularly readjust my irrigation system to minimize waste from overspray, aiming, and excessive runtimes.
The same scrutiny should be be applied to our various government surveillance efforts.
'Better tools' should include identifying legitimate and dangerous targets based on general surveillance, focusing on real threats, and enhanced oversight and permission. Courts should have meaningful and genuine control over requests for detailed information.
The current scheme seems to be 'collect everything', with
The Party of Freedom and Small Government (Score:3)
War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I wouldn't vote for you (Score:5, Insightful)
Why? It's cool to insult him, but better to give reasons. Insults without reasons are a waste of a post.
Point taken.
Hey, Rubio! I am not, even the least little bit, so scared of "teh terrorists" that I am willing to let you and the rest of our government take away my right to privacy. No. Shut up and listen. I am not scared. If I am, the terrorists win. If you assume I am, the terrorists win. If you're just using the terrorists as an excuse to grab power for your corporate masters, the corporations win. In no case is this good for me, so start acting like the elected official you claim that you want to be and represent the interests of the people or get the fuck off the stage.
We Need To Add To US Surveillance Programs? (Score:2)
Re: We Need To Add To US Surveillance Programs? (Score:5, Interesting)
Um, no we don't.
I've always wondered how conservatives can justify to themselves their vigorous defense of the rights granted under the Second Amendment, but seem far less concerned with those granted under the First and Fourth.
Re: We Need To Add To US Surveillance Programs? (Score:5, Insightful)
Even moreso for those who say "We need our guns to protect against the government" while also saying "We need more government surveillance to protect against the terrorists." You're making the exact government you're claiming to need guns to protect against!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The difference is that the people who say "we need guns to protect against government" actually mean what they say, whereas the government who says "we need more surveillance to protect against terrorists" actually mean "we need more justifications for expanding the business of government".
Apples and oranges, I'd say.
Re: (Score:2)
And here comes the strawmen.
The left doesn't want to confiscate everyone's guns but to confiscate hand guns (which may or may not be useful in an armed revolt against a tyrannical government) and limit other gun ownership to those who aren't mentally ill or ex-felons. Meanwhile, the crux of "can't be trusted with information" is precisely that ar
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Some list of guns that varies from one day to the next and one leftist to another. But your guns will be completely safe. Trust us. Don't be paranoid.
"If you like your guns, you can keep your guns. Period."
Re: (Score:3)
How do you add more surveillance to the US without weakening privacy protections? You can add laws making it harder to get a gun without taking away peoples guns.
Re: (Score:2)
The opposite position on the left is equally incoherent. A government that's absolutely trusted to confiscate everyone's guns but can't be trusted with information.
You personal gun will never be effective against a nation state, they have tanks.
And it's not really about not trusting the government. Well, indirectly it is... It's about not granting any instruments for abuse.
We've seen stasis in east Germany abuse their power, we've seen the FBI run counter intelligence campaigns against peaceful political movements (civil rights movement to mention one). It happens in all countries, the Danish intelligence service kept illegal records on left wing politicians during
Re: (Score:2)
You personal gun will never be effective against a nation state, they have tanks.
Your private phone conversations will never be effective against a nation state, they have tanks.
Re: (Score:3)
But apparently, a new law to make private gun sales go through a FFL so background checks get done is the same as confiscation.
Re: We Need To Add To US Surveillance Programs? (Score:4, Interesting)
A government that's absolutely trusted to confiscate everyone's guns but can't be trusted with information.
The only ones talking about seizing guns are the pro-gun lobby and all of their unwitting minions. The rest of us just wish for more common-sense measures, like universal background checks.
Re: (Score:2)
I think I have stated this over and over and yet, many conservatives don't seem to care. They would rather wrap their hands around their long hard objects rather than worry about the deep probing they are getting from the federal government.
Cruz campaign response (Score:2)
They've said this about Rubio [politico.com]:
"So Rubio's foreign policy and national security strategy is to invade Middle Eastern countries, create power vacuums for terrorist organizations, allow their people to come to America unvetted, give them legal status and citizenship, then impose a massive surveillance state to monitor the problem,” ... “I'm trying to figure out if it is more incoherent than dangerous or vice versa.”
Re: (Score:2)
if you were the last Cuban-American on Earth.
Uh, that's Cuban-Canadian... At least according to Trump and "people who are talking about this".
Or is that Cruz? I can't tell them apart :-)
Re: (Score:2)
I want the govt to mostly leave me alone.
Re: (Score:2)
I want the govt to mostly leave me alone.
In spite of what some claim, there isn't a party that wants this.
Don't believe me? Go back to when Reagan would have been a conservative Democrat in today's world.
Re: (Score:3)
there isn't a party that wants this.
You haven't heard of the Libertarian Party?
Re: (Score:3)
He's the strongly-establoshment candidate. If you like how the government treats people, vote for him for more of it. If you'd like some reform, that basically any GOP candidate other than him and Bush. Cruz is straddling the border but he might try to make some changes, while Trump would randomize everything, and the others fall somewhere in between.
Re:I wouldn't vote for you (Score:5, Insightful)
hile Trump would randomize everything
Trump is Pandora's box, please leave it closed, please.
Re: (Score:2)
But then who would be the first Cuban-American president!
Not for long. His first act would be to annex the USA to Cuba, thus making him the President of all the Cubas.
He obviously has the Cuban Government mindset.
Re:Not MY Grandma (Score:5, Insightful)
Progressives don't want HillaryClinton. They want Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren.
Re: (Score:2)
In a few centuries all real religions will be dead. The last war will be between the followers of FSM and IPU.
Yes I know, it sounds like that South Park episode. But still a good scenario for a movie.
Re: (Score:2)
The last war will be between the followers of FSM and IPU.
Maybe the last religious war, but certainly not the last war. If there is one thing that humans excel at above all other things, it's finding reasons to hate other humans and commit acts of violence against them. As long as there are two people left on the planet, they'll find a way to hate each other, so the only way there will ever be a last war is if humanity goes extinct.
Re: (Score:2)
Socialism has been noted as taking over the attracting features of religion, that gained them followers in millenia past, like caring for poor, the sick, hospitals, and orphanages.
It is no coincidence that youths no longer care for religion when government does all that. This was noted at least 20 years ago.
Political parties are literally religions in all but the most technical sense. Andike religions, as giant memeplexes, they happily adopt a righteous feeling they can jam their behaviors onto everyone,
Re: (Score:3)
More accurately it's more like:
"Doesn't work, but it's good political theater to pretend it does. And I need more political theater to get elected."
Re: (Score:3)
That's how government works. Oh FBI/NSA/CIA/EPA/FDA/NBA couldn't detect the baddies? Then they need more funding!
Which is also why false flags are so popular amongst governments.
That's the thing of it, we need to see that it's actually working before we even continue to use it, let alone add more.
There have been several domestic incidents where there might have been some kind of Internet-based evidence that it was in the works, most not even based on Islamic terrorism. There was a shooter at a historically-Black church. There was a movie theatre shooting. There was an elementary school shooting. There was a congresswoman and people that came to see her speak that were shot.
Re: (Score:3)
We need an addon that replaces the following six words after a Trump mention with "Trump".
Ex: Person accuses Trump of pandering to racists, general intolerance, and fascism
Becomes: Person accuses Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump, Trump Trump, and fascism
Re: (Score:3)
We need an addon that replaces the following six words after a Trump mention with "Trump".
Ex: Person accuses Trump of pandering to racists, general intolerance, and fascism Becomes: Person accuses Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump, Trump Trump, and fascism
Well, how about eggs, sausage and Trump? That hasn't got too much Trump in it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm amazed that people didn't grasp the implications of the Jane Harman wiretap . [salon.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Saw a link that claimed that America is responsible for over 12 million dead since WWII. When you consider how many wars America has started since 1945 it is believable. Not even the USSR routinely started wars on the other side of the planet.