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

[powen01]

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

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

According to most military strategists, the North Koreans will target major metropolitan cities first with nukes, drive their tanks through our cities without using turn signals and/or leaving them engaged, and then open Korean barbecues at animal shelters. 

[morpheus]

This may well be the best campaign spot ever.

http://www.youtube.com/v/ly0DD5Gv0Hw

[Oleg]

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!

I...err...would also like to say fuck you Chuck.  No, wait.  That's not right.  I would, however, like to absolutely agree with Gil.

[Internet Apex]

The only site you'll ever need site where you can whatever you want whenever you want, so I couldn't fucking care less.

[RV]

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?

Very much THOSE THINGS. Listen to the protesters? See how it plays out? Instead of wearing green and bloviating about 'supporting democracy' as if Mousavi is the second coming of Dr. King? What a novel idea.

I find this Juan Cole fella's web log to be a good starting point for reading up on anything Middle East.

The protesters hope that President Obama will maintain his relative silence on the movement, lest he unintentionally tar them with the brush of imperialist stooges.

[Chuck to Chuck]

There should always be some vigorous opposition, from all sides.

Agreed.  I love the debate.  Nothing is black and white.  But "debate" that consists of someone walking into a room and yelling, "BLACK!" and walking away again is not vigorous opposition.

[Tank]

There should always be some vigorous opposition, from all sides.

Agreed.  I love the debate.  Nothing is black and white.  But "debate" that consists of someone walking into a room and yelling, "BLACK!" and walking away again is not vigorous opposition.

TDubbs?

[morpheus]

Just because I know some of you have Michele Bachmann's cock hanging out of your mouths (did I do that right?):

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jun/17/exclusive-minn-lawmaker-fears-census-abuse/

Outspoken Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann says she's so worried that information from next year's national census will be abused that she will refuse to fill out anything more than the number of people in her household.

In an interview Wednesday morning with The Washington Times "America's Morning News," Mrs. Bachmann, Minnesota Republican, said the questions have become "very intricate, very personal" and she also fears ACORN, the community organizing group that came under fire for its voter registration efforts last year, will be part of the Census Bureau's door-to-door information collection efforts.

[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?

Very much THOSE THINGS. Listen to the protesters? See how it plays out? Instead of wearing green and bloviating about 'supporting democracy' as if Mousavi is the second coming of Dr. King? What a novel idea.

I find this Juan Cole fella's web log to be a good starting point for reading up on anything Middle East.

The protesters hope that President Obama will maintain his relative silence on the movement, lest he unintentionally tar them with the brush of imperialist stooges.

Mousavi is a "moderate" in Iranian political circles, which sandwiches him somewhere between Hitler and Bob Knight by Western Standards. But by acting as the face of protests and demonstrations which the Ayatolllah has vowed to repress forcefully, he's putting himself in grave danger. The people he represents probably don't believe in much of what he'd do if he were in fact elected. But what they needed was for somebody to stand up and make a play against these turds. He's got former president Khatami (Ahmedinejad's "reformist" predacessor) as one of his most vocal allies. Khatami was very much in favor of repaired relations with the U.S. but was overruled and fucked every which way by the Mullahs. What we have is a diverse, yet vast and youthful groundswell of defiance against the Islamic State. I don't think it matters who it was that mobilized it at this point. If Mousavi and his allies get what they want, a free and true election for the right to run the country, he may not have a shot in hell. The hardliners would either boycott or trot another one of their monkeys out there. The youth and true reformists would probably find a new voice, perhaps one that has been silenced, imprisoned or exiled. Mousavi would have to be taken care of politically in any coalition though, I believe, because he is still connected and respected.

But Khamenae'i still controls the military. So we may see blood spilling in the streets and an end to this Persian Spring before it really gets started. That would eventually spell doom for the Mullahs though. Because no pretense of true control and popular support could be imposed any longer. Not for their aged and backward supporters, their Syrian allies, their Lebanese terrorist arm or anybody else for that matter. These fuckers are older than dirt too. So their day will come and a power struggle will eventually occur.

I say we send Hillary and Biden over there to sort this whole mess out. They'll rock the whole world with their brilliant ideas.  

[MikeC]

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).

I would be concerned with private citizens E-mails being read. I don't have a problem with private citizens E-mail being read if they are connected to terrorism. Something similar the Reps and Dems fought over was wiretaps, we wanted to listen in on people making phone calls to known terrorists. And i am not exactly sure but they fought over the right of a terrorist making a phone call overseas to the US and not being able to listen to that.

If its a bunch of people sitting at desks reading billions of e-mails, i got a problem with that. If its a computer scanning through billions of e-mails picking out ones with questionable ties, i have less of a problem with that. My guess is they scan through the e-mails  and the questionable ones are put off to the side and then they are read by an actual human being. That is where the problem comes in and where they probably need a court order. I would have no problem with the NSA flagging that e-mail (not reading it) and then open up an investigation on that individual so they get enough for a court order.

[Chuck to Chuck]

Wow.  Actual debate and opinions.  What a novel approach.

Who stole MikeC's login?

[Wheezer]

I would be concerned with private citizens E-mails being read. I don't have a problem with private citizens E-mail being read if they are connected to terrorism.

While I object to NSA overstepping its bounds on general principles, any expectation of privacy when it comes to cleartext E-mail is folly.  The postcard analogy is correct.

[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!

I...err...would also like to say fuck you Chuck.  No, wait.  That's not right.  I would, however, like to absolutely agree with Gil.

Spellcheck doesn't always catch missing verbs, like "post" or "say" in this instance.

Point still stands though.

And getting back to the NSA/Email issue, I think I somewhat agree with MikeC in that those who are suspected of terrorism should be "observed" by the government.  However, the argument then becomes, who defines a suspected terrorist, what evidence can be seized, what types of information can be monitored, and under what conditions can the government do so.  This was precisely the logic behind FISA.  A problem was created by the Bush administration and Congress, in the aftermath of 9/11 - when the people and the government were simultaneously scared shitless - to simply give the NSA whatever they wanted, because it was tough on terrorism.

This is the problem with legislating during a crisis; a major problem for this country, sadly.

[MikeC]

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!

I...err...would also like to say fuck you Chuck.  No, wait.  That's not right.  I would, however, like to absolutely agree with Gil.

Spellcheck doesn't always catch missing verbs, like "post" or "say" in this instance.

Point still stands though.

And getting back to the NSA/Email issue, I think I somewhat agree with MikeC in that those who are suspected of terrorism should be "observed" by the government. However, the argument then becomes, who defines a suspected terrorist, what evidence can be seized, what types of information can be monitored, and under what conditions can the government do so.  This was precisely the logic behind FISA.  A problem was created by the Bush administration and Congress, in the aftermath of 9/11 - when the people and the government were simultaneously scared shitless - to simply give the NSA whatever they wanted, because it was tough on terrorism.

This is the problem with legislating during a crisis; a major problem for this country, sadly.

I thinik that is clearly the main issue at stake.

What your left with is a leap of faith moment. Is your nation evil? Do you believe they are out to do harm to the average American? Do you view the US as a Soviet or Cuba style state? If you believe any of that then having the NSA spy on anything needs to be stopped. However i am of the believe that our nation does it best to protect its citizens and do the right thing in helping people all over the world. I don't mind snooping on a limited scope, i wouldn't be cool with the NSA investigating groups or people simpe because they have an opposing view to the party in power. But if those groups start buying large quantities of ammonia nitrate and talk about blowing up government places, i certainly hope the NSA is listening.

Its a massive privacy concern and your damned if you do and damned if you don't. If something happens and the NSA could have easily picked up on it but were not allowed to people will be pissed. And if the NSA targets someone and they are innocent, people are going to be pissed. I just think they are trying to get as much info as they can and make the best possible decision on how to protect this nation.

[Tank]

I thinik that is clearly the main issue at stake.

What your left with is a leap of faith moment. Is your nation evil? Do you believe they are out to do harm to the average American? Do you view the US as a Soviet or Cuba style state?

So, anyone concerned about civil liberties, privacy or potential abuses of power/access in this case necessarily thinks the United States is "evil" and out to harm the "average American"?