Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
American beauty pagent contestant answers question on NSA Prism issue
17 views
Skip to first unread message
Home Guy
Jun 17, 2013, 9:49:27 AM6/17/13
to
Look upon the mindless brains of your american children and understand
why as a nation you are destined for the toiletbowl as your conversion
from a libertarian republic to a federal authoritative dictatorship
happens before your very eyes.
===============================
Miss Alabama answers a question about the NSA Prism program (Jun 16,
2013):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8vXrqHurTc
Question:
Gov't tracking of phone records has been in the news lately. Is this an
invasion of privacy, or is it necessary to keep our country safe. Why,
or why not?
Answer:
I think the society that we live in today its sad that if we go to the
movies or to the airport or even to the mall that we have to worry about
our safety, so I would rather someone track my telephone messages and
feel safe where-ever I go than feel like you're encroaching on my
privacy.
[Audience erupts in appause and cheers]
why as a nation you are destined for the toiletbowl as your conversion
from a libertarian republic to a federal authoritative dictatorship
happens before your very eyes.
===============================
Miss Alabama answers a question about the NSA Prism program (Jun 16,
2013):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8vXrqHurTc
Question:
Gov't tracking of phone records has been in the news lately. Is this an
invasion of privacy, or is it necessary to keep our country safe. Why,
or why not?
Answer:
I think the society that we live in today its sad that if we go to the
movies or to the airport or even to the mall that we have to worry about
our safety, so I would rather someone track my telephone messages and
feel safe where-ever I go than feel like you're encroaching on my
privacy.
[Audience erupts in appause and cheers]
badgolferman
Jun 17, 2013, 10:02:56 AM6/17/13
to
Vic Smith
Jun 17, 2013, 10:18:24 AM6/17/13
to
Same thing is done in Canada by their spooks.
badgolferman
Jun 17, 2013, 10:22:06 AM6/17/13
to
Vic Smith wrote:
>>Well, at least she looks good!
>
>She's hot.
My son started school on an academic scholarship at University of
>>Well, at least she looks good!
>
>She's hot.
Alabama last year. The first thing he told me is the girls are really
pretty down there.
VinnyB
Jun 17, 2013, 10:39:30 AM6/17/13
to
On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 09:49:27 -0400, Home Guy <Ho...@Guy.com> wrote in
<51BF13E7...@Guy.com> Re American beauty pagent contestant
answers question on NSA Prism issue:
>Look upon the mindless brains of your american children and understand
>why as a nation you are destined for the toiletbowl as your conversion
>from a libertarian republic to a federal authoritative dictatorship
>happens before your very eyes.
Hey, that's a good description of the New Amerika.
But really it's not the children's fault. It's the parents (baby
boomers) fault.
Oh, and by the way. The speed at which she answered the question
indicates to me that she was prompted and had time to prepare an
answer. There is no way a bimbo like that could give even that very
pitiful answer extemporaneously.
<51BF13E7...@Guy.com> Re American beauty pagent contestant
answers question on NSA Prism issue:
>Look upon the mindless brains of your american children and understand
>why as a nation you are destined for the toiletbowl as your conversion
>from a libertarian republic to a federal authoritative dictatorship
>happens before your very eyes.
But really it's not the children's fault. It's the parents (baby
boomers) fault.
Oh, and by the way. The speed at which she answered the question
indicates to me that she was prompted and had time to prepare an
answer. There is no way a bimbo like that could give even that very
pitiful answer extemporaneously.
tra...@optonline.net
Jun 17, 2013, 11:13:44 AM6/17/13
to
On Jun 17, 10:18 am, Vic Smith <thismailautodele...@comcast.net>
wrote:
> Same thing is done in Canada by their spooks.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
The right answer? Whatever you think about what the NSA
is doing, what she said makes no sense. It's completely
contradictory. She first says that in an unsafe word, she's
OK with the govt tracking telephone messages. Then she
says she would rather feel safe than have someone
encroaching on her privacy.....
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
The right answer? Whatever you think about what the NSA
is doing, what she said makes no sense. It's completely
contradictory. She first says that in an unsafe word, she's
OK with the govt tracking telephone messages. Then she
says she would rather feel safe than have someone
encroaching on her privacy.....
Thomas
Jun 17, 2013, 11:44:31 AM6/17/13
to
On Jun 17, 11:13 am, "trad...@optonline.net" <trad...@optonline.net>
wrote:
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> The right answer? Whatever you think about what the NSA
> is doing, what she said makes no sense. It's completely
> contradictory. She first says that in an unsafe word, she's
> OK with the govt tracking telephone messages. Then she
> says she would rather feel safe than have someone
> encroaching on her privacy.....- Hide quoted text -
wrote:
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> The right answer? Whatever you think about what the NSA
> is doing, what she said makes no sense. It's completely
> contradictory. She first says that in an unsafe word, she's
> OK with the govt tracking telephone messages. Then she
> says she would rather feel safe than have someone
>
> - Show quoted text -
I too had to read that twice.
> - Show quoted text -
Vic Smith
Jun 17, 2013, 11:50:37 AM6/17/13
to
Here it is. Fuck you.
tra...@optonline.net
Jun 17, 2013, 12:13:19 PM6/17/13
to
On Jun 17, 11:50 am, Vic Smith <thismailautodele...@comcast.net>
wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 08:13:44 -0700 (PDT), "trad...@optonline.net"
> Here it is. Fuck you.- Hide quoted text -
What are you talking about? And why all the anger?
wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 08:13:44 -0700 (PDT), "trad...@optonline.net"
>
> - Show quoted text -
Forget to take your medications again? Here is what?
> - Show quoted text -
What are you talking about? And why all the anger?
nestork
Jun 17, 2013, 11:40:51 AM6/17/13
to
No, I think her answer was OK.
She said she'd rather the government was allowed to monitor people's
communications so that homegrown terrorists can be caught than people
having to feel unsafe everywhere they go, and as an opinion, that's
perfectly valid.
Sounds like this one has got a brain, too. I'll bet this one could even
find the United States on a globe without help. :)
But, I disagree with asking contestants controversial questions about
stuff like abortion, capital punishment, gun control, and this PRISM
program to monitor the communications of US citizens. These are all
controversial topics, and asking a contestant's opinion opens up the
possibility of one of more of the judges voting for or against her just
because they agree or disagree with her views.
They should ask them logic questions, like if Farmer Brown goes to
Farmer Jones house and they sit down at the kitchen table for a drink of
home brew. Farmer Jones says "I'll sell you this prize goat for $200."
and Farmer Brown pulls two $100 bills out of his pocket and puts them on
the table. But before Farmer Jones can pick up the money, the goat
sticks out it's long tongue and eats one of the $100 bills. Now, who
owns the goat?
--
nestork
The Real Bev
Jun 17, 2013, 12:19:30 PM6/17/13
to
Is this the one who intended to become a brain surgeon?
--
Cheers, Bev
<> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Some mornings it's just not worth chewing through the straps.
tra...@optonline.net
Jun 17, 2013, 12:27:50 PM6/17/13
to
On Jun 17, 11:40 am, nestork <nestork.c04e...@diybanter.com> wrote:
> No, I think her answer was OK.
>
> She said she'd rather the government was allowed to monitor people's
> communications so that homegrown terrorists can be caught than people
> having to feel unsafe everywhere they go, and as an opinion, that's
> perfectly valid.
Her answer was OK? Good grief.
> No, I think her answer was OK.
>
> She said she'd rather the government was allowed to monitor people's
> communications so that homegrown terrorists can be caught than people
> having to feel unsafe everywhere they go, and as an opinion, that's
> perfectly valid.
She said:
"so I would rather someone track my telephone messages and
feel safe where-ever I go than feel like you're encroaching on my
privacy. "
>
"so I would rather someone track my telephone messages and
feel safe where-ever I go than feel like you're encroaching on my
privacy. "
>
> Sounds like this one has got a brain, too.
I'm actually beginning to worry about you.....
I'll bet this one could even
> find the United States on a globe without help. :)
>
> But, I disagree with asking contestants controversial questions about
> stuff like abortion, capital punishment, gun control, and this PRISM
> program to monitor the communications of US citizens. These are all
> controversial topics, and asking a contestant's opinion opens up the
> possibility of one of more of the judges voting for or against her just
> because they agree or disagree with her views.
>
> They should ask them logic questions, like if Farmer Brown goes to
> Farmer Jones house and they sit down at the kitchen table for a drink of
> home brew. Farmer Jones says "I'll sell you this prize goat for $200."
> and Farmer Brown pulls two $100 bills out of his pocket and puts them on
> the table. But before Farmer Jones can pick up the money, the goat
> sticks out it's long tongue and eats one of the $100 bills. Now, who
> owns the goat?
>
> --
> nestork
IGot2P
Jun 17, 2013, 1:01:47 PM6/17/13
to
On 6/17/2013 8:49 AM, Home Guy wrote:
> Question:
>
> Gov't tracking of phone records has been in the news lately. Is this an
> invasion of privacy, or is it necessary to keep our country safe. Why,
> or why not?
>
> Answer:
>
> I think the society that we live in today its sad that if we go to the
> movies or to the airport or even to the mall that we have to worry about
> our safety, so I would rather someone track my telephone messages and
> feel safe where-ever I go than feel like you're encroaching on my
> privacy.
>
> [Audience erupts in appause and cheers]
>
Hot chic with the correct answer...she has my vote.
> Question:
>
> Gov't tracking of phone records has been in the news lately. Is this an
> invasion of privacy, or is it necessary to keep our country safe. Why,
> or why not?
>
> Answer:
>
> I think the society that we live in today its sad that if we go to the
> movies or to the airport or even to the mall that we have to worry about
> our safety, so I would rather someone track my telephone messages and
> feel safe where-ever I go than feel like you're encroaching on my
> privacy.
>
> [Audience erupts in appause and cheers]
>
micky
Jun 17, 2013, 2:12:56 PM6/17/13
to
She said "than *feel* like you're encroaching..." IOW, she's going
to ignore any feelings of encroachment she might have and just feel
that the govt. is doing the right thing and that she's safe. We all
might as well feel that way, because worrying isn't going to help.
Unless one is going to demonstrate or something against the Prism?
program, and she's made up her mind that she's not.
tra...@optonline.net
Jun 17, 2013, 2:56:29 PM6/17/13
to
On Jun 17, 2:12 pm, micky <NONONOmis...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 08:13:44 -0700 (PDT), "trad...@optonline.net"
> program, and she's made up her mind that she's not.- Hide quoted text -
said,
but it's poorly stated. A better way of stating it would be that she
accepts that level of encroachment for the security she thinks
it provides. The fact that it's encroachment is a fact, whether
you feel it or not.
It's also interesting that the audience apparently thought it was
a great answer. Yet the polls I've seen tend to suggest that
the public is actually concerned about the intrusions. And a
lot of people think Townsend is some kind of hero. If there
were any doubts about that, what he just did should help
remove them. The Guardian just published another story
with info Townsend leaked. This time it's about how the
British govt, US govt have done intelligence intercepts on
world leaders, and other attendees at G8 summits.
Including tapping Putin's phone calls. Now what the
hell intercepting Putin's phone calls has to do with American
civil liberties is beyond
me. It's exactly what NSA, CIA etc are supposed to be
doing. And then he times it clearly to embarrass Obama
who is right now at the G8. And this skunk is supposed to
be a patriot? We can only wonder at what else he has
and how in the world security could be so lax that he
got all this stuff.
You also have to wonder about him going to China. If
he's so damned worried about civil liberties, what the
hell is he doing there? He's also already told the Chinese
of some of what the USA was doing with them. I wouldn't
be surprised that the little prick has been "helping" the
Chinese all along. It's like the Rosenberg's with the
A bomb secrets. They thought it was unfair for the US
to have an advantage over the Russians.
And maybe he thought the US was
on to him, so he decided to flee and make this grandstand
play. He's playing a dangerous game. The Chinese
for example, might decide to make him disappear or turn
up dead, especially if he is involved with them. They
cover their tracks and get the bonus of making a big
incident for the US, because people will suspect the US of doing it.
> On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 08:13:44 -0700 (PDT), "trad...@optonline.net"
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yeah, reading it again, I can see that interpretation of what she
> - Show quoted text -
said,
but it's poorly stated. A better way of stating it would be that she
accepts that level of encroachment for the security she thinks
it provides. The fact that it's encroachment is a fact, whether
you feel it or not.
It's also interesting that the audience apparently thought it was
a great answer. Yet the polls I've seen tend to suggest that
the public is actually concerned about the intrusions. And a
lot of people think Townsend is some kind of hero. If there
were any doubts about that, what he just did should help
remove them. The Guardian just published another story
with info Townsend leaked. This time it's about how the
British govt, US govt have done intelligence intercepts on
world leaders, and other attendees at G8 summits.
Including tapping Putin's phone calls. Now what the
hell intercepting Putin's phone calls has to do with American
civil liberties is beyond
me. It's exactly what NSA, CIA etc are supposed to be
doing. And then he times it clearly to embarrass Obama
who is right now at the G8. And this skunk is supposed to
be a patriot? We can only wonder at what else he has
and how in the world security could be so lax that he
got all this stuff.
You also have to wonder about him going to China. If
he's so damned worried about civil liberties, what the
hell is he doing there? He's also already told the Chinese
of some of what the USA was doing with them. I wouldn't
be surprised that the little prick has been "helping" the
Chinese all along. It's like the Rosenberg's with the
A bomb secrets. They thought it was unfair for the US
to have an advantage over the Russians.
And maybe he thought the US was
on to him, so he decided to flee and make this grandstand
play. He's playing a dangerous game. The Chinese
for example, might decide to make him disappear or turn
up dead, especially if he is involved with them. They
cover their tracks and get the bonus of making a big
incident for the US, because people will suspect the US of doing it.
nestork
Jun 17, 2013, 2:33:39 PM6/17/13
to
It's easier to understand what she means if you just look at the second
half of the response:
"... so I would rather someone track my telephone messages and
feel safe where-ever I go "THAN" feel like you're encroaching on my
privacy.
It's the word THAN that makes her response sound conflicted.
In her mind there are two options:
A) have the government track personal communications to stop the bad
guys SO that she feels safe wherever she goes, or
B) have the government track personal communications BUT her feel that
someone is encroaching on her privacy.
She's saying I'd rather have option A THAN option B.
Put any one of us on national television with 200 million people
watching our every move and we'll all sound like idiots too. That big
deal that happened a few years ago when some Miss America contestant
sounded stupid was just nerves. No one with excellent genetics like
that ends up with a brain that doesn't work.
--
nestork
tra...@optonline.net
Jun 17, 2013, 3:42:10 PM6/17/13
to
On Jun 17, 2:33 pm, nestork <nestork.c051...@diybanter.com> wrote:
> It's easier to understand what she means if you just look at the second
> half of the response:
>
> "... so I would rather someone track my telephone messages and
> feel safe where-ever I go "THAN" feel like you're encroaching on my
> privacy.
>
> It's the word THAN that makes her response sound conflicted.
>
> In her mind there are two options:
>
> A) have the government track personal communications to stop the bad
> guys SO that she feels safe wherever she goes, or
>
> B) have the government track personal communications BUT her feel that
> someone is encroaching on her privacy.
>
> She's saying I'd rather have option A THAN option B.
You're more confusing than she is. You don't have the option
> It's easier to understand what she means if you just look at the second
> half of the response:
>
> "... so I would rather someone track my telephone messages and
> feel safe where-ever I go "THAN" feel like you're encroaching on my
> privacy.
>
> It's the word THAN that makes her response sound conflicted.
>
> In her mind there are two options:
>
> A) have the government track personal communications to stop the bad
> guys SO that she feels safe wherever she goes, or
>
> B) have the government track personal communications BUT her feel that
> someone is encroaching on her privacy.
>
> She's saying I'd rather have option A THAN option B.
of A or B. The option is do you want tracking of personal
communications with the inherent encroachment on privacy
that comes with it. At best, she is flippantly ignoring the
encroachment on privacy by seeming to indicate that she doesn't
"feel it". That, IMO, is a bit scarey.
I can understand the value to having a log of all the phone
calls in the US for the last 5 years. It's a powerful tool to be
able to search it if needed. For example, raid a terrorist
house in Pakistan, find a couple of cell phones you did
not know existed before or even scraps of paper with
another terrorist phone # in Somalia on it. You could
run those phone #'s against the database and find out
if anyone in the US has called them in the last 5 years.
And it's probably an acceptable tradeoff. But I do
recognize that it is an encroachment on our privacy,
I feel it, and recognize the danger that could come
with it, if it's abused. I'm not sure the beauty queen
gets that.
The Daring Dufas
Jun 17, 2013, 4:15:23 PM6/17/13
to
freeze due to your proximity to The North Pole? Young women of college
age are usually Liberal Democrats and are going to toe the Politically
Correct Liberal Democrat line. Sadly, P.L.L.C.F. have even infested the
faculty at colleges in Alabama where the sleazebags spout nonsense
that the students mistake for the truth. I imagine it's just as bad or
worse at universities in Canada. O_o
TDD
Oren
Jun 17, 2013, 5:06:58 PM6/17/13
to
On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 15:15:23 -0500, The Daring Dufas
<the-dari...@stinky-finger.net> wrote:
>Homo Gay, are you a complete moron or are you just suffering from brain
>freeze due to your proximity to The North Pole?
I can answer that question.
<the-dari...@stinky-finger.net> wrote:
>Homo Gay, are you a complete moron or are you just suffering from brain
>freeze due to your proximity to The North Pole?
Stormin Mormon
Jun 18, 2013, 7:56:19 AM6/18/13
to
I was thinking that, but wasn't quite organized
enough to put the concept into words. Thank you.
Most beauty pageant and Americas Funniest
Videos winners and "person on the street" types
are willing to surrender all liberty for safety.
Quoting from George Orwell's Animal Farm:
"Surely, you don't want Jones to come back?"
.
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
.
"VinnyB" <vin...@Capple.net> wrote in message news:9l7ur8dme5l5u63l1...@4ax.com...
enough to put the concept into words. Thank you.
Most beauty pageant and Americas Funniest
Videos winners and "person on the street" types
are willing to surrender all liberty for safety.
Quoting from George Orwell's Animal Farm:
"Surely, you don't want Jones to come back?"
.
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
.
"VinnyB" <vin...@Capple.net> wrote in message news:9l7ur8dme5l5u63l1...@4ax.com...
Stormin Mormon
Jun 18, 2013, 7:57:40 AM6/18/13
to
Based on the goat's behaviour, the US Government
owns it. Eating money at that rate.
"nestork" <nestork...@diybanter.com> wrote in message news:nestork...@diybanter.com...
owns it. Eating money at that rate.
"nestork" <nestork...@diybanter.com> wrote in message news:nestork...@diybanter.com...
Stormin Mormon
Jun 18, 2013, 8:00:41 AM6/18/13
to
From what I can figure, Canada went socialist a few decades ago. There are probably a few people who quietly work hard and try to earn a living,eh?
"The Daring Dufas" <the-dari...@stinky-finger.net> wrote in message news:kpnqfj$5i3$1...@dont-email.me...
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8vXrqHurTc
"The Daring Dufas" <the-dari...@stinky-finger.net> wrote in message news:kpnqfj$5i3$1...@dont-email.me...
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8vXrqHurTc
Robert Macy
Jun 18, 2013, 8:40:23 AM6/18/13
to
On Jun 17, 8:40 am, nestork <nestork.c04e...@diybanter.com> wrote:
> No, I think her answer was OK.
>
> She said she'd rather the government was allowed to monitor people's
> communications so that homegrown terrorists can be caught than people
> having to feel unsafe everywhere they go, and as an opinion, that's
> perfectly valid.
>
>...snip...
> No, I think her answer was OK.
>
> She said she'd rather the government was allowed to monitor people's
> communications so that homegrown terrorists can be caught than people
> having to feel unsafe everywhere they go, and as an opinion, that's
> perfectly valid.
>
I basically don't mind monitoring of 'public' activities, since it is
outside your home and affects people, seems like a reasonable loss of
'privacy', especially if all that surveillance is used to ensure
safety for all. But, such monitoring didn't provide much safety in
Boston. Plus, the IRS, is an example, proving to everybody, that govt
intrusion into your business will probably not be used for the
intended purpose [in their case, to prevent tax abuse] but used rather
for harrassment and control. Therefore, completely understandable why
citizenry has said, NO! to all this surveillance, because it is seen
as a tool to control, not make their lives any safer.
Home Guy
Jun 18, 2013, 10:00:13 AM6/18/13
to
Chris Young used improper usenet message composition style by
top-poasting:
> From what I can figure, Canada went socialist a few decades ago.
We have provincially-run (not federally-run) heathcare systems where
doctors and hospitals are reimbursed by a singe-payer (the provincial
gov't). If you want to call that socialist - go ahead.
If you have something else in mind (other than how we pay for health
care) that makes us socialist, then explain it. We also have police,
fire, ambulance services that are also paid through some form of gov't
taxation - but so do you.
You also have medicare and medicaid and veteran's affairs hospitals (you
had them for a long time, under various administrations, republican and
democrat). So that makes a good chunk of your heathcare system fall
under a "socialist" paradigm.
> There are probably a few people who quietly work hard and try
> to earn a living,eh?
Apparently more than you have in your country.
top-poasting:
> From what I can figure, Canada went socialist a few decades ago.
doctors and hospitals are reimbursed by a singe-payer (the provincial
gov't). If you want to call that socialist - go ahead.
If you have something else in mind (other than how we pay for health
care) that makes us socialist, then explain it. We also have police,
fire, ambulance services that are also paid through some form of gov't
taxation - but so do you.
You also have medicare and medicaid and veteran's affairs hospitals (you
had them for a long time, under various administrations, republican and
democrat). So that makes a good chunk of your heathcare system fall
under a "socialist" paradigm.
> There are probably a few people who quietly work hard and try
> to earn a living,eh?
tra...@optonline.net
Jun 18, 2013, 10:07:15 AM6/18/13
to
On Jun 18, 8:40 am, Robert Macy <robert.a.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 17, 8:40 am, nestork <nestork.c04e...@diybanter.com> wrote:
>
> > No, I think her answer was OK.
>
> > She said she'd rather the government was allowed to monitor people's
> > communications so that homegrown terrorists can be caught than people
> > having to feel unsafe everywhere they go, and as an opinion, that's
> > perfectly valid.
>
> >...snip...
>
> I basically don't mind monitoring of 'public' activities, since it is
> outside your home and affects people, seems like a reasonable loss of
> 'privacy', especially if all that surveillance is used to ensure
> safety for all. But, such monitoring didn't provide much safety in
> Boston.
The logic there doesn't add up. It's like saying that just
> On Jun 17, 8:40 am, nestork <nestork.c04e...@diybanter.com> wrote:
>
> > No, I think her answer was OK.
>
> > She said she'd rather the government was allowed to monitor people's
> > communications so that homegrown terrorists can be caught than people
> > having to feel unsafe everywhere they go, and as an opinion, that's
> > perfectly valid.
>
> >...snip...
>
> I basically don't mind monitoring of 'public' activities, since it is
> outside your home and affects people, seems like a reasonable loss of
> 'privacy', especially if all that surveillance is used to ensure
> safety for all. But, such monitoring didn't provide much safety in
> Boston.
because those particular methods didn't prevent every event,
those methods are not effective in keeping us safer. NSA
has said that the methods that were recently disclosed
did help prevent or disrupt dozens of terrorist attacks both here
and in 20 other countries.
>Plus, the IRS, is an example, proving to everybody, that govt
> intrusion into your business will probably not be used for the
> intended purpose [in their case, to prevent tax abuse] but used rather
> for harrassment and control.
majority of all the information provided to it by taxpayers over
decades
for the purpose intended. Just because there is one incident where
it has been abused doesn't mean the whole premise, the whole thing
is bad. That's like saying because two cops somewhere abused
their authority, beat up a suspect, etc, that all law enforcement is
not doing what it's supposed to be doing.
The ironic thing about the current situation is that so far, we only
know of one person abusing the information they were privy to.
And that is Townsend, who looks more and more like he's
anti-American and possibly has been helping the Chinese for
who knows how long. One mighty fine question in all this is how
this guy got to all that stuff. My suspicion was that since he was
involved in network security, he figured out how to get into parts
of NSA that he had no business ever being in.
> Therefore, completely understandable why
> citizenry has said, NO! to all this surveillance, because it is seen
> as a tool to control, not make their lives any safer.
the beauty queen gave a total green light to what sounded like
unlimited surveilance, and the audience cheered her. I've
seen polls that show that a majority of Americans are OK with
NSA collecting phone records. They have concerns about it,
but they have not said "no" to it.
It's not too hard to see how this is a powerful tool. Say there
is a raid on a terrorist house in Somalia or Pakistan. They find
papers that have some phone numbers on them. They find
a disposable cell phone bought God knows where. Clearly
being able to then run those numbers against the phone records
NSA has logged would be a powerful tool. You'd find who, if
anyone in the USA called them. Then you have a place here
to start looking....
Stormin Mormon
Jun 18, 2013, 11:09:08 AM6/18/13
to
We can trust them to be completely honest, even knowing that a bad review might lead to reduced funding, or closing the agengy. Right?
<tra...@optonline.net> wrote in message news:9a3d99a8-141f-4d98...@ce7g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
<tra...@optonline.net> wrote in message news:9a3d99a8-141f-4d98...@ce7g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
Stormin Mormon
Jun 18, 2013, 11:10:24 AM6/18/13
to
How does one say no to it? I'd like to do so.
.
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
.
<tra...@optonline.net> wrote in message news:9a3d99a8-141f-4d98...@ce7g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
.
<tra...@optonline.net> wrote in message news:9a3d99a8-141f-4d98...@ce7g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
Wes Groleau
Jun 19, 2013, 12:25:40 AM6/19/13
to
On 06-18-2013 08:40, Robert Macy wrote:
> safety for all. But, such monitoring didn't provide much safety in
> Boston. Plus, the IRS, is an example, proving to everybody, that govt
> intrusion into your business will probably not be used for the
> intended purpose [in their case, to prevent tax abuse] but used rather
> for harrassment and control. Therefore, completely understandable why
> citizenry has said, NO! to all this surveillance, because it is seen
> as a tool to control, not make their lives any safer.
And in the past few days, most of the cell phone carriers have installed
> safety for all. But, such monitoring didn't provide much safety in
> Boston. Plus, the IRS, is an example, proving to everybody, that govt
> intrusion into your business will probably not be used for the
> intended purpose [in their case, to prevent tax abuse] but used rather
> for harrassment and control. Therefore, completely understandable why
> citizenry has said, NO! to all this surveillance, because it is seen
> as a tool to control, not make their lives any safer.
"Wireless Emergency Alerts" (WEA) software on your cell phone.
The FCC gave them a choice whether to deploy it or not, but even
before they made that choice, it was clear that _WE_ would not.
Three types of alerts: Amber alerts, Emergency alerts, and Presidential
alerts. The first two you can turn off.
Think about that:
If you don't want to save a child, you don't have to.
If you don't want to save yourself, you don't have to.
But, bu golly, if the man in Washington has something to say,
you best just shut up and listen!
AT&T's words:
<http://tinyurl.com/lsq9jcd>
If you have a WEA capable device, you are automatically enrolled to
receive Wireless Emergency Alerts. Based on FEMA guidelines, you may opt
out of the following types of alerts:
- Alerts involving imminent threats to life or property issued by
the National Weather Service or other authorized emergency
management agency
- Amber Alerts (missing child alerts)
You cannot opt out of Presidential Alerts.
micky
Jun 19, 2013, 2:06:46 AM6/19/13
to
me back on the caller-id number, the guy at the community organization
seemed like he was about to cheer for this leaker, or at least
criticize the phone call gathering, but I interupted him and gave the
other pov, and he didn't try to argue.
I think we have to catch and prosecute this guy, because otherwise,
others think they can get away with it too.** But Bradley Manning
is worse. If BM had released only documents he read and thought
shouldn't be secret ,that would be one thing, but he couldn't have
read 500,000 docs, so he's publishing all this stuff he hasn't read.
**Well, in theory BM is worse but that's on the assumption the new
guy just had one point to make, that the NSA was collecting phone
calls. I guess in fact he's been claiming lots of other things,
incuding some members of the agencies say are not true, and those I
think could not possibly be true. Like his personal abitlity to tap
anyone's phone. He might have put orders through to tap a phone,
although I doubt it, but only after the log of all the phone calls
showed something, and some lawyer appeared before a judge and got a
warrant. maybe he's claiming he could take a valid warrant and
change the phone number and everyone would trust him that it was a
new, different, valid warrant. That sort of thing seems just as
likely for the last 100 years, or at leas since the copy machine, and
I think they must have ways to avoid it. In addition, he wouldn't get
to listen to the taps so what would be his motive. Just to annoy
someone he didn't like? There are always problems when dishonorable
people have important jobs.
I've wondered for years how come there have been no big attacks on the
US, in the US. When I heard about the NSA program, I thought that
might be one reason. Now they say it stopped 10 plots in the USA (and
40+ elsewhere) and I believe it and believe that answers the
wonderment I've had for the second half of the last 12 years.
Home Guy
Jun 19, 2013, 10:00:38 AM6/19/13
to
micky was an utter boob by using improper usenet message composition
style by unnecessarily full-quoting:
> I've wondered for years how come there have been no big attacks on
> the US, in the US.
You mean like the Ft. Hood Terrorist Attack that happened in November
2009 where islamic Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan killed 13 people - an
event which is officially classified as "workplace violence" ?
Columbine High School massacre?
Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre?
Virginia Tech massacre?
Oklahoma City Bombing?
Boston Marathon bombing?
World Trade Center bombing in 1993?
World Trade Center demolition-by-airplane in 2001?
> When I heard about the NSA program, I thought that might be
> one reason.
Look at these examples of mass-murder in the US and tell me how many of
them were stopped by NSA/CIA/FBI wiretaps, intelligence or evesdropping:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Mass_murder_in_the_United_States
> Now they say it stopped 10 plots in the USA (and 40+ elsewhere)
And they won't give details or tell you who they've arrested in these
plots, will they?
> and I believe it and believe that answers the wonderment I've had
> for the second half of the last 12 years.
You are a buffoon for allowing your gov't to believe it has the right,
obligation or authority to look for evidence of crime or criminal intent
*before* or even *if* a crime is committed.
You are a moron for allowing your gov't to define certain types of crime
as terrorism.
What the NSA does and the technical capabilities it has is driven by the
private sector (military and other gov't contractors, IT companies, etc)
and their need to secure more gov't contracts in areas outside of
military weapons systems since that business has dried up after your
illegal invasion of Iraq.
style by unnecessarily full-quoting:
> I've wondered for years how come there have been no big attacks on
> the US, in the US.
2009 where islamic Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan killed 13 people - an
event which is officially classified as "workplace violence" ?
Columbine High School massacre?
Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre?
Virginia Tech massacre?
Oklahoma City Bombing?
Boston Marathon bombing?
World Trade Center bombing in 1993?
World Trade Center demolition-by-airplane in 2001?
> When I heard about the NSA program, I thought that might be
> one reason.
them were stopped by NSA/CIA/FBI wiretaps, intelligence or evesdropping:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Mass_murder_in_the_United_States
> Now they say it stopped 10 plots in the USA (and 40+ elsewhere)
plots, will they?
> and I believe it and believe that answers the wonderment I've had
> for the second half of the last 12 years.
obligation or authority to look for evidence of crime or criminal intent
*before* or even *if* a crime is committed.
You are a moron for allowing your gov't to define certain types of crime
as terrorism.
What the NSA does and the technical capabilities it has is driven by the
private sector (military and other gov't contractors, IT companies, etc)
and their need to secure more gov't contracts in areas outside of
military weapons systems since that business has dried up after your
illegal invasion of Iraq.
tra...@optonline.net
Jun 19, 2013, 10:33:02 AM6/19/13
to
On Wednesday, June 19, 2013 2:06:46 AM UTC-4, micky wrote:
>
> I think we have to catch and prosecute this guy, because otherwise,
>
> others think they can get away with it too.** But Bradley Manning
>
> is worse. If BM had released only documents he read and thought
>
> shouldn't be secret ,that would be one thing, but he couldn't have
>
> read 500,000 docs, so he's publishing all this stuff he hasn't read.
Even that is totally nuts. An Army private has no way to
>
> I think we have to catch and prosecute this guy, because otherwise,
>
> others think they can get away with it too.** But Bradley Manning
>
> is worse. If BM had released only documents he read and thought
>
> shouldn't be secret ,that would be one thing, but he couldn't have
>
> read 500,000 docs, so he's publishing all this stuff he hasn't read.
know what is or isn't going to cause serious harm to the
country, to a covert operation, result in an undercover
agent being discovered, tortured, killed, etc. Its easy
to come up with all kinds of info that would seem
harmless to someone outside CIA, NSA, etc. Yet to our
enemies it could be extremely useful. Just some of the
stuff that just seems embarrassing to you or I, for example.
Let's say some hostile foreign govt leader called
some other leader a "short dicked idiot". Manning releases
it. The foreign leader realizes he only remembers
saying that once and it was with only two other people
in the room. Now their intelligence is going to know
that either the office is bugged or that one of the two
is the source. There have been many spies outed, intelligence
programs compromised by exactly those kinds of small
things.
>
>
>
> **Well, in theory BM is worse but that's on the assumption the new
>
> guy just had one point to make, that the NSA was collecting phone
>
> calls. I guess in fact he's been claiming lots of other things,
>
> incuding some members of the agencies say are not true, and those I
>
> think could not possibly be true. Like his personal abitlity to tap
>
> anyone's phone. He might have put orders through to tap a phone,
>
> although I doubt it, but only after the log of all the phone calls
>
> showed something, and some lawyer appeared before a judge and got a
>
> warrant. maybe he's claiming he could take a valid warrant and
>
> change the phone number and everyone would trust him that it was a
>
> new, different, valid warrant. That sort of thing seems just as
>
> likely for the last 100 years, or at leas since the copy machine, and
>
> I think they must have ways to avoid it. In addition, he wouldn't get
>
> to listen to the taps so what would be his motive. Just to annoy
>
> someone he didn't like?
Problem one is that he actually said that he had the
"authority" to order a wiretap on anyone's phone.
Either he's mistaking "ability" for "authority" or
he's a liar. Authority means that he could legitimately
issue such an order. That's a joke. The other
possibility is that he could have hacked his way into
the system where he could do that, but I agree with
your view, that would seem to be virtually impossible.
I seriously doubt by issuing a few computer commands
he could start listening to my phone.
He's also confirmed what a skunk he is by disclosing
the new info, designed to embarrass Obama and the USA
at the G8. For example he disclosed that NSA had intercepted
phone calls from Medveydev, Putin, etc. Now that is
EXACTLY what NSA is supposed to be doing. It's what they've
been doing since WWII. And by his outing it, now the
Russians know it and will change the system. Clearly
this guy needs to go to jail for a very long time.
The irony is that so far the only abuse of the NSA
info that we know of, has been by this skunk.
There are always problems when dishonorable
>
> people have important jobs.
>
>
>
> I've wondered for years how come there have been no big attacks on the
>
> US, in the US. When I heard about the NSA program, I thought that
>
> might be one reason. Now they say it stopped 10 plots in the USA (and
>
> 40+ elsewhere) and I believe it and believe that answers the
>
> wonderment I've had for the second half of the last 12 years.
shoe bomber, underwear bomber, Times Square guy, etc. But I agree with
you that I think what the govt is doing has played a large part
in avoiding another attack too.
tra...@optonline.net
Jun 19, 2013, 10:54:07 AM6/19/13
to
On Wednesday, June 19, 2013 10:00:38 AM UTC-4, Home Guy wrote:
> micky was an utter boob by using improper usenet message composition
>
> style by unnecessarily full-quoting:
>
>
>
> > I've wondered for years how come there have been no big attacks on
>
> > the US, in the US.
>
OK, so change his word from "none" to "few". It
> micky was an utter boob by using improper usenet message composition
>
> style by unnecessarily full-quoting:
>
>
>
> > I've wondered for years how come there have been no big attacks on
>
> > the US, in the US.
>
doesn't change anything.
>
> You mean like the Ft. Hood Terrorist Attack that happened in November
>
> 2009 where islamic Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan killed 13 people - an
>
> event which is officially classified as "workplace violence" ?
>
>
>
> Columbine High School massacre?
You know, those that are part of an organized plot to
kill us all. Not deranged psychos. Like all countries,
we;ve had those all along. They are not likely to
kill 3200 Americans or wipe out a city. Al-Qaeda, left
unchecked, has done that and will do more if we allow it.
>
>
>
> Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre?
>
>
>
> Virginia Tech massacre?
>
>
See above
>
> Oklahoma City Bombing?
>
>
See above
>
> Boston Marathon bombing?
>
OK, so it's very few, not zero. So, what?
>
> World Trade Center bombing in 1993?
new post 911 intelligence programs went into effect.
Do try to pay attention.
>
>
>
> World Trade Center demolition-by-airplane in 2001?
>
>
>
> > When I heard about the NSA program, I thought that might be
>
> > one reason.
>
>
>
> Look at these examples of mass-murder in the US and tell me how many of
>
> them were stopped by NSA/CIA/FBI wiretaps, intelligence or evesdropping:
>
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Mass_murder_in_the_United_States
>
>
>
> > Now they say it stopped 10 plots in the USA (and 40+ elsewhere)
>
>
>
> And they won't give details or tell you who they've arrested in these
>
> plots, will they?
>
travelling from Denver to blow up the nyc subway.
That one attack could have killed hundreds, more
than all the other post 911 incidents combined.
And why would any intelligence service reveal
exactly how they caught someone? Better that the
next dummy falls into the same trap.
>
> > and I believe it and believe that answers the wonderment I've had
>
> > for the second half of the last 12 years.
>
>
>
> You are a buffoon for allowing your gov't to believe it has the right,
>
> obligation or authority to look for evidence of crime or criminal intent
>
> *before* or even *if* a crime is committed.
>
>
SPS, small penis syndrome. It causes you to focus on
the USA, instead of Canada. The Islamic terrorists seem
to suffer from the same strange fixation.
As for the govt not having the obligation or authority
to look for evidence of a crime or criminal intent
before they know a crime has been committed, just how
dumb are you? Don't they have a COPS show or similar
on TV up there? Every night you can see cops across
the USA stopping persons on the street or travelling in
a car because they "think" they might be up to something.
Car leaves crack house, it gets pulled over. Guy is
walking around neighborhood backyards at 3AM, cop
goes over to ask questions. Run, and the cop chases
you. Cop finds burglary tools, and guy gets arrested
for having them and for fleeing. Walk down the street
in nyc, fit a profile, and Bloomberg, who is a big liberal,
well, his cops will stop you and start asking questions.
>
> You are a moron for allowing your gov't to define certain types of crime
>
> as terrorism.
>
"The Combating Terrorism Act revives two measures included in the Anti-Terrorism Act of December 2001 that lapsed in 2007 under a “sunset clause”—preventive detention and investigative hearings. The new law also increases the penalties for persons who refuse to cooperate with investigative hearings and makes it a crime to travel abroad or try to leave Canada to engage in terrorism."
Good grief you're dumb!
>
> What the NSA does and the technical capabilities it has is driven by the
>
> private sector (military and other gov't contractors, IT companies, etc)
>
> and their need to secure more gov't contracts in areas outside of
>
> military weapons systems since that business has dried up after your
>
> illegal invasion of Iraq.
friendly govt, like Canada. But it figures the village idiot
would side with terrorists.
nestork
Jun 19, 2013, 12:34:18 PM6/19/13
to
>
> You are a buffoon for allowing your gov't to believe it has the right,
> obligation or authority to look for evidence of crime or criminal
> intent
> *before* or even *if* a crime is committed.
>
> You are a moron for allowing your gov't to define certain types of
> crime
> as terrorism.
>
>
> crime
> as terrorism.
>
>
> No, you're one of the village idiots from Canada with
> SPS, small penis syndrome.
>
> SPS, small penis syndrome.
>
> Good grief you're dumb!
>
I once watched an interview with one of the 9 (I think) justices of the
>
US Supreme Court that he gave after his retirement.
He said that he'd served 20-something years on that bench, and despite
all of the disagreement there had been over legal minutia during that
time, he never once heard any justice insult another's intelligence or
raise his voice in anger at the other for lacking the necessariy
intelligence to realize that he was wrong. :)
No one in here is stupid.
But we sure like to argue and insulting each other a lot.
--
nestork
micky
Jun 19, 2013, 1:33:50 PM6/19/13
to
On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 07:33:02 -0700 (PDT), "tra...@optonline.net"
<tra...@optonline.net> wrote:
>On Wednesday, June 19, 2013 2:06:46 AM UTC-4, micky wrote:
>>
>> I think we have to catch and prosecute this guy, because otherwise,
>>
>> others think they can get away with it too.** But Bradley Manning
>>
>> is worse. If BM had released only documents he read and thought
>>
>> shouldn't be secret ,that would be one thing, but he couldn't have
>>
>> read 500,000 docs, so he's publishing all this stuff he hasn't read.
>
>Even that is totally nuts. An Army private has no way to
>know what is or isn't going to cause serious harm to the
>country, to a covert operation, result in an undercover
>agent being discovered, tortured, killed, etc. Its easy
That's all true too, and I should have incuded it. I meant that even
<tra...@optonline.net> wrote:
>On Wednesday, June 19, 2013 2:06:46 AM UTC-4, micky wrote:
>>
>> I think we have to catch and prosecute this guy, because otherwise,
>>
>> others think they can get away with it too.** But Bradley Manning
>>
>> is worse. If BM had released only documents he read and thought
>>
>> shouldn't be secret ,that would be one thing, but he couldn't have
>>
>> read 500,000 docs, so he's publishing all this stuff he hasn't read.
>
>Even that is totally nuts. An Army private has no way to
>know what is or isn't going to cause serious harm to the
>country, to a covert operation, result in an undercover
>agent being discovered, tortured, killed, etc. Its easy
from BM's pov, thinking he's so smart, how can he think that about
stuff he never read.
feedscrn
Jun 19, 2013, 4:22:37 PM6/19/13
to
In conspiratorial circles, where conspiracy theorists dwell... this has been common knowledge for years. Snowden, in all his altruistic notions, only formalized the snooping by putting a name on it. yay.
0 new messages