Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In 2008 impeachment articles were brought against Bush.
Among the charges were NSA spying on Americans as an abuse of power and violation of the Constitution.
Today they defend the spying.
Liberals only care about who is in the Oval Office.
And in 2008, conservatives were defending Bush and now they say its an abuse of power and violation of the constitution. Why the change of heart?
They dont need to track phone calls between you and your mother, to know who called the terrorist in Pakistan..
How would they know who you called, your mother or a terrorist unless the computer checks the meta-data? If you called your mother, it is ignored, and if you called a terrorist, then it is tracked. The computer cares only if the number is found on the black list, and I assume your mothers number is not black listed.
And in 2008, conservatives were defending Bush and now they say its an abuse of power and violation of the constitution. Why the change of heart?
Because in 2008 we were tracking FOREIGN calls, not americans...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
How would they know who you called, your mother or a terrorist unless the computer checks the meta-data? If you called your mother, it is ignored, and if you called a terrorist, then it is tracked.
The computer would be checking THE TERRORISTS phone for incoming calls.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
The computer cares only if the number is found on the black list, and I assume your mothers number is not black listed.
Once again you've proven that you dont even know what is going on. They are tracking EVERYONES calls.. Not just those on some "black list"
The OP is wrong about this being a partisan issue though; it is big-government statists vs those who value their privacy and don't want to live in a surveillance state. Party affiliation has nothing to do with it.
Except that the big government statists are mostly Obama and the Democrat Party.
I say let them get all the information they want. If the government goes too far, there will be so much information to sift through that the program will be broken.
]I say let them get all the information they want[/b]. If the government goes too far, there will be so much information to sift through that the program will be broken.
The democrats were suckered into agreeing to the patriot act from W and the GOP lying to them, claiming we needed it or else there would be more terror attacks. In every renewal since, only about 1/3 of the democrats voted for it, where almost all of the GOP, and "pro constitution!" teabaggers voted in favor.
If it wasn't for the huge government right wingers, the patriot act never would have been done with years ago.
One of the most interesting and relevant points about the votes to renew the Patriot Act is that the Dems heavy hitters, and presumed thought leaders, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, and Harry Reid voted for it. Lets not forget that Obama signed it into law.
It is a matter of record that Obama has flipped almost 180 degrees from his positions as senator to his position as President on matters of surveillance.
Its probably 3 liberals to 1 conservative hooting and hollering demanding Snowden be charged. The other two thirds majority of the people want him let go.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.