Wonder if he watched the 60 Minutes whitewash last night.

A federal judge ruled Monday that the National Security Agency program which collects information on nearly all telephone calls made to, from or within the United States is likely to be unconstitutional.

U.S. District Court Judge Richard Leon found that the program appears to violate the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures. He also said the Justice Department had failed to demonstrate that collecting the so-called metadata had helped to head off terrorist attacks.

  1. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

    Calling for……. Mr Obvious.

    Its obvious. Now lets see how activist the Supremes really are.

  2. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

    On topic–here is satisfying critique of that 60 min show:


    I’ve begun not watching 60 min due to number of repeat or near duplicate segments….. AND…. very specifically with this program==>I don’t need to listen to gubment liars lying. NSA==THEY LIE as part of their Charter.

    Only an idiot would believe ANYTHING out of ANY of their spokesmen. Give the other gubment reps a 10% chance of every saying anything worthwhile.

    Am I too positive?

    Ha, ha.

    • NewFormatSux says:

      Yes the liberal media serves as a propaganda outlet for the liberals.

      • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

        No, by and large they were cheerleaders for BushtheRetard too. If you think they have been more biased in favor of Obama, maybe Obama is more worthy?

        How do you make that distinction?

        Puppets looking for Puppet Masters. Kinda fits.

        Indeed, our media as much to answer for……and Fox is not media in this context. More of an express purposeful propaganda wing.

        You know its true.

    • John E Quantum says:

      I quit watching when Lara Logan was suspended. Leslie Stahl is a waste of Cheetos.

      • NewFormatSux says:

        The proper time to quit watching was after they doctored the video to make Westmoreland look worse. They took the video of his answers and added in their own questions Jay Leno style.

  3. charl says:

    My eyes are opened wide!

  4. NewFormatSux says:

    Hmm, a George Bush appointee, and the case was brought by Larry Klayman, mocked by liberals including in The West Wing.

    That said, the reasoning is nonsensical. Whether the spying is unconstitutional shouldn’t hinge on whether it actually stops terrorist attacks.

    • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

      I’ll just make a contextual WAG and say: “Of course privacy is balanced by claims of national security.”

      What are you??? Some guy that believes in ABSOLUTES?

      All rights are balanced and weighed against/compromised by other rights. Like the right to be safe from enemies both foreign and domestic.

      STOP THE DOGMA—think.

      I think the Judge is correct. Milk toasts but correct. Phone data collection is a violation of privacy rights. Lots of private entities are allowed to do what the gubment is prohibited from doing. Just as we give the Phone Co permission to have that data, the Gubment would have to secure our permission for the same info.

      Seems rather “obvious” to me.

      • NewFormatSux says:

        So it is a violation of privacy rights but not if it stops a terrorist attack?

        • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

          Until its ruled upon, all we can say right now is that there was an “invasion” of privacy. Can’t tell yet if there was any “right” to privacy, nor if there was a violation of any such right established.

          The link says the little law on the subject was a case that said we have no privacy right in the collection/invasion of the discrete phone numbers that we dial.

          When you obviously know precious little about the law, or constitutional law, how do you justify in your mind huffing and puffing over the related issues?

          Just curious.

          • NewFormatSux says:

            >Until its ruled upon, all we can say right now

            Then why say anything. In your reading comprehension you should have realized I am not talking about constitutionality but whether such constitutionality hinges on whether an op is successful.

          • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

            An as this very opinion DEMONSTATES, your position that privacy rights are absolutes and not to be balanced or judged against the effectiveness of counter terrorist measures is WRONG.

            Your position is initially quite understandable but when you see and can read examples that show it is wrong (this court case) AND you have a clear explanation of how you are wrong (my posts above) AND you fail to correct yourself and LEARN ===> then sadly you are just stuck on stupid.

            Learn. Change. Incorporate. Adapt. Overcome. But don’t be stuck on stupid.

            Again: of experiential necessity “all” rights are balanced against all the others. IN FACT: No right is absolute as you argue for. Why do you continue to argue for a position that only shows a lack of basic understanding?

            Learn. Do better. Note that you and I share the desire for the same outcome. I get there by balancing the pros and cons and I hope the court in its final resolution does as well. But only a fool would impose an absolute right of privacy across society.

            Know what I mean?

        • Dip Stick says:

          That’s a loaded question.

          The government should be held to HIGHER STANDARDS than to act like a bunch of NAZI’S!

          Any standards our government uses in their duty to protect the public should include things like REASONABLE DOUBT! Just one of those things that might cause doubt could include things like … oh, I don’t know … CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR. Another might be a casual association with a hostile nation too.

          But even if someone is nothing more than a NON CITIZEN I say that’s probably reasonable enough right there. But NOT if that person is a U.S. CITIZEN!!! Because — and this is key — U.S. citizens and only U.S. citizens have “CONSTITUTIONAL” RIGHTS!!!

          But if you disagree then try reading the very first sentence in the Constitution which says: We the People of the United States… Notice how it doesn’t say we the people of planet earth

          So if the NSA wants to become charter to the United Nations then I say great. However, I’d personally be pushing to see it moved BACK TO RUSSIA!

  5. NewFormatSux says:

    And really Uncle Dave, you should put more thought and read things through first. Didn’t it appear strange to see a judge not say yes or no, but maybe? ‘Segregated schools are likely unconstitutional.’

    • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

      You are criticizing our excellent moderator.

      Don’t you owe the community, if not your own internal processes, an example/suggestion of what Uncle D should have said???

      Otherwise, you start to sound like Pedro or all the other RightWingNuts: all empty criticism, nothing constructive to offer.

      Same as it always is.

      • NewFormatSux says:

        He should have said ‘Court rules it’s OK if we find you likely to be guilty.’

        • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

          That is what he said.

          Your chosen expression of that idea is not an Absolute. There are always other ways of expressing the same idea. Some better than others.

    • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

      I had to look it up, but: “Leon issued a preliminary injunction”===those things are issued based upon preliminary “maybes” with final decisions to come on receipt of more facts.

      Basic stuff. I don’t know it, easy to find out, kinda like forming preliminary reactions one’s self rather than dogmatic conclusions.

      Know what I mean?

      • NewFormatSux says:

        And thus not so much to get excited about.

      • NewFormatSux says:

        >kinda like forming preliminary reactions one’s self rather than dogmatic conclusions.

        Yup and as you say
        Basic stuff. I don’t know it, easy to find out,

  6. sargasso_c says:

    Slap a “secret” badge on anything to circumvent oversight, even when constitutional law requires accountability. A court can decide guilt in an absence of a defence.

  7. Dallas says:

    Hmm. Define ‘collect’

    • Dip Stick says:


      (And somehow, I’m the “dip stick”!)

      • Dallas says:

        Nope, not ‘take’. It’s still there.

        • Dip Stick says:

          Wrong AGAIN!

          When you collect something you must first TAKE it from wherever it naturally exists. Either that or COPY it.

          So take your choice of definition. Because either way, someone else’s data is NOT YOURS to TAKE or COPY! Just ask Microsoft or Apple (or most any Copyright or Patent attorney).

          • Dip Stick says:

            P.S. Do you know the difference between their, there, and they’re? Because I’m sensing a less than Grammar School education where basic homonym’s like that may not be something you’re able to use correctly.

            …No need to answer. I’m pretty sure I have my answer.

          • Dallas says:

            “..their, there and they’re.. ”

            Where do you see a grammatical error? BTW, you seem like a real asshole.

  8. Dip Stick says:

    This whole thing seems to revolve around a little addendum no one (here) seems to want to look at. It’s called, the FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES!

    You may also like to know that the first TEN Amendments to the Constitution are also known as the “Bill of Rights” — including that pesky old second one too (although that’s another rant).

    So, let’s READ that ENTIRE amendment. Shall we?

    Article [IV]

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    Hmmm. Seems like someone in the judicial branch actually got it right when we see that VERY FIRST SENTENCE, The right of the people to be secure in their persons…

    I can’t say about YOU! But when I read it I am increasingly more motivated to stand up and NOT grab my ankles that so many of the knee jerk reactionist’s (here) want me to do.

    Frankly, it couldn’t be any more clear! The government has over stepped it’s bounds and must NOW be put back in order.

    • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

      Why isn’t a search and seizure of your phone meta data “reasonable” if it prevents 3 airplanes from being used as missles… or worse.

      You know…. you gotta develop your memory to last longer than the first 7 words that are read to you….. even when you write them yourself as in you apparently on some reptilian level recognize that maybe the data/info is not “taken” but is only “copied” but your 7 word limit had already been reached, so no thinking possible.

      …… or how would you explain your limited reading comprehension?

      • Tim says:

        When a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to use airplanes as missiles to throw off such Government…

        “You were doing 32 in a 30. Got any knives or grenades?”

        “You win the cupie doll, officer Friendly; This thing is mint! Pity I just dropped the pin in that dipspit, though.”

        • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

          No Timmy, you are wrong. The remedies available to an electorate are not the same as those available to foreign combatants/terrorists waging a WAR against those who have occupied their own homelands.

          WE (USA) may not like that, but its entirely reasonable to have to deal with patriots and zealots, the reasonable and unreasonable, in some fraction of the population under our foreign domination.

          Our world hegenomy is much to based on fantasy. I think the Chi-Coms will show that ruthlessness is the key. Just look. How they are controlling the world resources of land/water/minerals by political intrigue looks to me to be the winning method over our capitalistic laissez-faire military industrial tax dodge race to the bottom model.

          Time will tell……. but I am discomforted.

  9. Dallas says:

    Google has been storing, archiving, parsing and inspecting 100% of your email and searches for years to sell to their advertisers. The sheeple never complained. Phone records are no different.

    I suspect 99.9999% of the phone records the NSA has access to is never and will never be seen or used.

    • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

      About 2-3 months ago, didn’t TSA stop a Canadian from entry to USA because of her public web postings regarding psych treatment for depression?

      So…web postings is not phone calls, and Canadians aren’t Americans, and denial of entry isn’t……(whatever)==so, depending on your sensitivities AND comfort level with trusting our overlords………….

      • Dallas says:

        I haven’t researched it but at first look, I don’t buy that story. I’m sure the part where she was arrested for stabbing a movie usher because she’s claustrophobic wasn’t mentioned.

        • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

          Well, that does sound relevant as well.

          Who shapes the news for us this way?????

  10. NewFormatSux says:

    Companies are reducing peoples’ hours to 29 or less a week, meaning those workers will now have less pay and have to pay a tax penalty if they don’t sign up for health insurance which is now more expensive, and the website payment system is not yet functioning.

    • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

      Most of those people should sign up for healthcare and get the subsidy.

      • NewFormatSux says:

        Have you signed up?

        • bobbo, we think with words, and flower with ideas says:

          Nope. I have my benefits, don’t need ObamaCare.

          So silly. Any country rich enough to do so should assure all its citizens a base line level of healthcare.

          Its a nice balance in my mind, picking a course between all the popular dogma. I say:

          1. Basic services for all
          2. Extraordinary services by private payment.
          3. Express statutory DEATH PANELS criteria to be established by experts according to expected benefits and costs all as approved by Congress
          4. Personally–I’m against spending too much money on the born badly or the living past prime…but I’m not a zealot. If the majority want to pay $300K/year for 8 years for a Downs Syndrom to learn to ties his shoes, or for an 80yo smoker to get a lung transplant thats fine with me===as long as every kiddie in the USA has all the immunizations and meals at school.

          Simple really.

  11. deowll says:

    I suppose my biggest objection to the NSA collecting all this data is that I’ve seen no credible data that doing so has actually prevented even one attack. It may help make a neater, more completely documented case after the fact but not actually prevent an attack. Plan old fashioned police work plus an alert public has been what has prevented several attacks.

  12. Glenn E. says:

    Metadata, shmedadata. I don’t care what they call it. It’s still my business, who I contact, when, and for how long. Whether it’s expressed in human names, IP address numbers, or phone numbers, makes no difference. Who determined it was alright to declare certain details of private communications, as fair game for collecting? What it really is, was one foot in the door, for collecting even more data later. Connecting the dots. And extrapolating false trends and scenarios. To be acted upon, without a court of law to test any of it, and defend the innocent from runaway bureaucratic excesses of career building.

    And instead of security being a priority, to be built into all the new communications technology, from day one. We’ve learned that surveillance capability was instead the first priority, decreed to be built in, from day one. Not caring a wit, whether hackers can tap in and steal your personal data. Just so long as the NSA, CIA, and FBI, always has a way to spy on anyone they want to. For any reason they want to. Through the cell phones, smart phones, and laptop computers.

    And instead of these agencies, advising software makers, and commercial entities, to improve their data security. They just sit back and let the black hat hackers, breaking into databases that could have been better protected. Stealing credit card and banking information. Why isn’t any of this a priority of the three letter agencies? Because they’re counting on these security flaws existing, so they can take advantage of them, themselves, some day. Maybe even siphoning off some funds for themselves, if and when their spending budgets run dry. They can always blame it on rouge hackers, they never manage to catch. Meanwhile their black budgets mysteriously get a boost, from unknown sources. Like maybe a nickel out of everyone’s savings and credit card accounts.

  13. NewFormatSux says:


    Obama will decree that henceforth your airline purchases will require dinner, more legroom and free drinks. Your previously cheap tickets were substandard from bad apple airlines.


Bad Behavior has blocked 6772 access attempts in the last 7 days.