The Atheist Communist Caliphate Made Flesh, Spread the Clusterfuck Around Thread

[CBStew]

I don't want MikeC to leave, because if he does he will take his avatar with him.  I rarely read what MikeC has to say.  But I exercise my right to criticize him anyway.  I am like those folks who gathered to protest Letterman.  It was obvious that they have never watched the Letterman Show. 

[Philberto]

I am having so much fun bringing up every questionable Obama Administration policy, action, or indiscretion. This is stuff Obama said he would change, fix, cleanup, or stop doing.

A salute to "The Organizer" by Jeff Cahill, right?

Nope

[RV]

MikeC, you want an example of government abuse of power that you should really be pissed about? Here's something that (I would hope) is ripe for bipartisan anger:

Since April, when it was disclosed that the intercepts of some private communications of Americans went beyond legal limits in late 2008 and early 2009, several Congressional committees have been investigating. Those inquiries have led to concerns in Congress about the agency's ability to collect and read domestic e-mail messages of Americans on a widespread basis, officials said. Supporting that conclusion is the account of a former N.S.A. analyst who, in a series of interviews, described being trained in 2005 for a program in which the agency routinely examined large volumes of Americans' e-mail messages without court warrants. Two intelligence officials confirmed that the program was still in operation.

Every time new revelations of illegal government spying arise, the same exact pattern repeats itself:  (1) euphemisms are invented to obscure its illegality ("overcollection"; "circumvented legal guidelines"; "overstepped its authority"; "improperly obtained"); (2) assurances are issued that it was all strictly unintentional and caused by innocent procedural errors that are now being fixed; (3) the very same members of Congress who abdicate their oversight responsibilities and endlessly endorse expanded surveillance powers in the face of warnings of inevitable abuses (Jay Rockefeller, Dianne Feinstein, "Kit" Bond, Jane Harman) righteously announce how "troubled" they are and vow to hold hearings and take steps to end the abuses, none of which ever materialize; (4) nobody is ever held accountable in any way and no new oversight mechanisms are implemented; (5) Congress endorses new, expanded domestic surveillance powers; and then: (6) new revelations of illegal government spying emerge and the process repeats itself, beginning with step (1).

[morpheus]

MikeC, you want an example of government abuse of power that you should really be pissed about? Here's something that (I would hope) is ripe for bipartisan anger:

Since April, when it was disclosed that the intercepts of some private communications of Americans went beyond legal limits in late 2008 and early 2009, several Congressional committees have been investigating. Those inquiries have led to concerns in Congress about the agency's ability to collect and read domestic e-mail messages of Americans on a widespread basis, officials said. Supporting that conclusion is the account of a former N.S.A. analyst who, in a series of interviews, described being trained in 2005 for a program in which the agency routinely examined large volumes of Americans' e-mail messages without court warrants. Two intelligence officials confirmed that the program was still in operation.

Every time new revelations of illegal government spying arise, the same exact pattern repeats itself:  (1) euphemisms are invented to obscure its illegality ("overcollection"; "circumvented legal guidelines"; "overstepped its authority"; "improperly obtained"); (2) assurances are issued that it was all strictly unintentional and caused by innocent procedural errors that are now being fixed; (3) the very same members of Congress who abdicate their oversight responsibilities and endlessly endorse expanded surveillance powers in the face of warnings of inevitable abuses (Jay Rockefeller, Dianne Feinstein, "Kit" Bond, Jane Harman) righteously announce how "troubled" they are and vow to hold hearings and take steps to end the abuses, none of which ever materialize; (4) nobody is ever held accountable in any way and no new oversight mechanisms are implemented; (5) Congress endorses new, expanded domestic surveillance powers; and then: (6) new revelations of illegal government spying emerge and the process repeats itself, beginning with step (1).

Can one be angry about this (and rightly so, RV, you've been very consistent in your criticism of such practices) and also be angry about the firing of Walpin?

[Tank]

MikeC, you want an example of government abuse of power that you should really be pissed about? Here's something that (I would hope) is ripe for bipartisan anger:

Since April, when it was disclosed that the intercepts of some private communications of Americans went beyond legal limits in late 2008 and early 2009, several Congressional committees have been investigating. Those inquiries have led to concerns in Congress about the agency's ability to collect and read domestic e-mail messages of Americans on a widespread basis, officials said. Supporting that conclusion is the account of a former N.S.A. analyst who, in a series of interviews, described being trained in 2005 for a program in which the agency routinely examined large volumes of Americans' e-mail messages without court warrants. Two intelligence officials confirmed that the program was still in operation.

Every time new revelations of illegal government spying arise, the same exact pattern repeats itself:  (1) euphemisms are invented to obscure its illegality ("overcollection"; "circumvented legal guidelines"; "overstepped its authority"; "improperly obtained"); (2) assurances are issued that it was all strictly unintentional and caused by innocent procedural errors that are now being fixed; (3) the very same members of Congress who abdicate their oversight responsibilities and endlessly endorse expanded surveillance powers in the face of warnings of inevitable abuses (Jay Rockefeller, Dianne Feinstein, "Kit" Bond, Jane Harman) righteously announce how "troubled" they are and vow to hold hearings and take steps to end the abuses, none of which ever materialize; (4) nobody is ever held accountable in any way and no new oversight mechanisms are implemented; (5) Congress endorses new, expanded domestic surveillance powers; and then: (6) new revelations of illegal government spying emerge and the process repeats itself, beginning with step (1).

Can one be angry about this (and rightly so, RV, you've been very consistent in your criticism of such practices) and also be angry about the firing of Walpin?

Yes.

But let's wait to see how MikeC plays out...

[Quality Start Machine]

MikeC, you want an example of government abuse of power that you should really be pissed about? Here's something that (I would hope) is ripe for bipartisan anger:

Since April, when it was disclosed that the intercepts of some private communications of Americans went beyond legal limits in late 2008 and early 2009, several Congressional committees have been investigating. Those inquiries have led to concerns in Congress about the agency's ability to collect and read domestic e-mail messages of Americans on a widespread basis, officials said. Supporting that conclusion is the account of a former N.S.A. analyst who, in a series of interviews, described being trained in 2005 for a program in which the agency routinely examined large volumes of Americans' e-mail messages without court warrants. Two intelligence officials confirmed that the program was still in operation.

Every time new revelations of illegal government spying arise, the same exact pattern repeats itself:  (1) euphemisms are invented to obscure its illegality ("overcollection"; "circumvented legal guidelines"; "overstepped its authority"; "improperly obtained"); (2) assurances are issued that it was all strictly unintentional and caused by innocent procedural errors that are now being fixed; (3) the very same members of Congress who abdicate their oversight responsibilities and endlessly endorse expanded surveillance powers in the face of warnings of inevitable abuses (Jay Rockefeller, Dianne Feinstein, "Kit" Bond, Jane Harman) righteously announce how "troubled" they are and vow to hold hearings and take steps to end the abuses, none of which ever materialize; (4) nobody is ever held accountable in any way and no new oversight mechanisms are implemented; (5) Congress endorses new, expanded domestic surveillance powers; and then: (6) new revelations of illegal government spying emerge and the process repeats itself, beginning with step (1).

Can one be angry about this (and rightly so, RV, you've been very consistent in your criticism of such practices) and also be angry about the firing of Walpin?

Yes.

But let's wait to see how MikeC plays out...

I'm predicting criticism of the practice continuing under Obama.

[Slaky]

MikeC, you want an example of government abuse of power that you should really be pissed about? Here's something that (I would hope) is ripe for bipartisan anger:

Since April, when it was disclosed that the intercepts of some private communications of Americans went beyond legal limits in late 2008 and early 2009, several Congressional committees have been investigating. Those inquiries have led to concerns in Congress about the agency's ability to collect and read domestic e-mail messages of Americans on a widespread basis, officials said. Supporting that conclusion is the account of a former N.S.A. analyst who, in a series of interviews, described being trained in 2005 for a program in which the agency routinely examined large volumes of Americans' e-mail messages without court warrants. Two intelligence officials confirmed that the program was still in operation.

Every time new revelations of illegal government spying arise, the same exact pattern repeats itself:  (1) euphemisms are invented to obscure its illegality ("overcollection"; "circumvented legal guidelines"; "overstepped its authority"; "improperly obtained"); (2) assurances are issued that it was all strictly unintentional and caused by innocent procedural errors that are now being fixed; (3) the very same members of Congress who abdicate their oversight responsibilities and endlessly endorse expanded surveillance powers in the face of warnings of inevitable abuses (Jay Rockefeller, Dianne Feinstein, "Kit" Bond, Jane Harman) righteously announce how "troubled" they are and vow to hold hearings and take steps to end the abuses, none of which ever materialize; (4) nobody is ever held accountable in any way and no new oversight mechanisms are implemented; (5) Congress endorses new, expanded domestic surveillance powers; and then: (6) new revelations of illegal government spying emerge and the process repeats itself, beginning with step (1).

Can one be angry about this (and rightly so, RV, you've been very consistent in your criticism of such practices) and also be angry about the firing of Walpin?

Yes.

But let's wait to see how MikeC plays out...

MikeC has too many fans to disappoint if he doesn't come back. I read this thread because of MikeC and in spite of boring political nonsense that I was dumb enough to try and care about a few months back. I don't even disagree with MikeC because I literally have no idea what he's talking about.

Don't leave us Michael. I need your sweet lovin' arms to hold me...

[PenFoe]

I guess this goes here, since it's about politics.

I don't know about all this other stuff you guys are hollerin' about (except that MikeC is almost definitely wrong) but I do know that this is how my town settles tied elections.

[RV]

Hilarious:

http://petehisameme.wordpress.com/

[Gil Gunderson]

Please just stop, Mike.  You aren't changing anyone's minds and you aren't adding to the debate.

Popping in here to fire your scud and go hide again is just plain dumb.

We get it.  You hate Obama and everything he does.  If you want to keep doing this, at least take my angle with Soriano and go so over the top that it becomes caricature.  Right now, you're just a pain in the ass.

Can't wait for your Lord of the Flies angle.

You know, even though I don't really care for what MikeC usually has to say, I wouldn't say that he should stop.  There should always be some vigorous opposition, from all sides.  In addition to that, this site is where you can whatever you want, whenever you want, so I really couldn't care fucking less.

Going over the top with the ad hominem attacks on the President is dumb, but if I were as devoted to the right as much as MikeC evidently is, I too would probably see this as comeuppance for the years of abuse that W. received.

So, in short, whatevs.

Seacrest...out!

[Internet Apex]

On about what page did you guys talk about the Iranian situation? I'd be interested in discussing that if you guys want. Maybe you linked to some interesting articles on the subject.

[Gil Gunderson]

On about what page did you guys talk about the Iranian situation? I'd be interested in discussing that if you guys want. Maybe you linked to some interesting articles on the subject.

Do we support the somewhat evil guy, the completely evil guy, or neither and call it a day?

[Internet Apex]

On about what page did you guys talk about the Iranian situation? I'd be interested in discussing that if you guys want. Maybe you linked to some interesting articles on the subject.

Do we support the somewhat evil guy, the completely evil guy, or neither and call it a day?

Or you could support neither, knowing that neither would have any real governing power either way and instead of calling it a day listen to what the protester's are actually saying. They've had it with the Islamic laws and beliefs that have stifled their society and want what the West has. Freedom to choose their own government. Do you know that without the Guardian Council's consent, no one can run for office anywhere in Iran? So the term "Reformist" is a relative term. He's on the ballot thanks to allies within the regime who don't like head snake and his pet monkey and would like to see some heinous shit go down in order to move up the ladder themselves. Of course he's no liberal in teh classic sense or any other. These Mullahs are quite long in the tooth, and while they know that the Guardian Council and the Supreme Leader would never allow their monkey to lose his perch, they counted on a little turmoil so that they may make a move before it's too late for them. But they may have overplayed their hand because... Nah. Nobody gives a shit.

What's Mike C blabbering on about again?

[Philberto]

I'm more interested in this inevitable war with North Korea.

[Internet Apex]

I'm more interested in this inevitable war with North Korea.

Thank God the South will take the bullet for us on that one.