NSA collecting records from millions of phones daily

Oh, let's have a Rand Paul / Michele Bachmann ticket!!!! Yeah, that' s it!!!

Let's REALLY give the wackos a ticket they can vote for!!! PLEASE!!!

Todd Akin for Secretary of HHS!! All those "Legitimate Rapes" to deal with!!

KodiakJack wrote:

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

PrintSmith wrote: [snip]

Whether the government examines that data for potentially dangerous patterns or not has no bearing on whether that information is gathered on your activity, does it?

You mean patterns like "Tea Party," "Patriot," "9/12..." you mean like those patterns?

Good point.

Indeed it is - there is no harm done by anyone in the government simply because they know which political party I belong to, is there? That is a matter of public record, isn't it? It is not the possession of information which brings me harm, is it? Absolutely not. It is taking that information and using it to "punish your enemies" which does harm to me, and to the society in which I live, correct?

Or, by the same logic which you are attempting to use here, should the government not know which party I belong to because there is an inherent risk that such information will be misused? My name is also attached to the ballot which I used to vote in the last election. The number of the ballot was written down next to my name when I presented myself at the polls. Such information may also be misused, may it not? Should my name not be associated with my ballot because of this? Or, as is currently the case, should my name be associated with my ballot to ensure the integrity of the vote so that if a nefarious undertaking occurs it will be a simple matter to find and remove those ballots which were not cast by one who was indeed eligible to vote? Should I be tilting at windmills because of what might be done in that instance as well?

No, we limit our actions to punishing those who have actually done harm, who have abused the public trust while holding public office or while employed by the public to see that their business is properly attended to.

BRAVO for this man and his INTEGRITY........ http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ ... story.html

This NSA story is making some interesting bedfellows. But not in my house! Wife is fine with Feds spying on all Americans suspected or innocent. And I just don't trust the Feds after seeing how the used the IRS as a weapon.

PrintSmith wrote:
[snip]

Indeed it is - there is no harm done by anyone in the government simply because they know which political party I belong to, is there? That is a matter of public record, isn't it?

[snip]

Obviously they sought out the politics of certain 501(c)4 applicants and are you going to tell us next that no harm was done?

PrintSmith wrote:
No, we limit our actions to punishing those who have actually done harm, who have abused the public trust while holding public office or while employed by the public to see that their business is properly attended to.

Who has been punished? Do you actually think anyone will?

When the GAO had there flagrant abuse of taxpayer funds scandal was anyone punished? Did it deter the IRS from doing the same thing?

Boy I sure hope that means that we will finally see Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld tried as war criminals....

LadyJazzer wrote: Boy I sure hope that means that we will finally see Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld tried as war criminals....

On what charges?

FredHayek wrote:

LadyJazzer wrote: Boy I sure hope that means that we will finally see Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld tried as war criminals....

On what charges?

Republicanism. :rofllol

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

PrintSmith wrote: [snip]

Indeed it is - there is no harm done by anyone in the government simply because they know which political party I belong to, is there? That is a matter of public record, isn't it?

[snip]

Obviously they sought out the politics of certain 501(c)4 applicants and are you going to tell us next that no harm was done?

Really Twin? You are going to go all Jazzy on me and pull single sentences out of context and then create a strawman argument based on that out of context quote? Are you going to next start writing for Huff-n-Puff and continue to use that tactic?

No, the argument was made, or at least attempted, to conflate examining raw data with wiretapping, which as both of us have pointed out is nonsense. The argument was also forwarded that the government shouldn't be able to collect that data because it is an invasion of privacy, a position which is also debunked by pointing out that none of us had a reasonable expectation that the data was private because we got a statement each and every month which clearly showed that the data was being collected and used by the provider of the service. Next comes the failed logic of saying that the government shouldn't have access to the data because it can be misused. That argument was countered by demonstrating that the logic itself was flawed by pointing out that the government already knows what political party I belong to and can misuse that data at any time of its choosing, as was done by various agents in various offices of the IRS recently. Should those applying for 501(c)4 status not have to give the name of their group because the contents of their name might allow someone to abuse the public trust? That is, after all, the same argument that is being advanced as to why the federal government shouldn't be able to have the data about phone numbers and duration of calls, isn't it? That someone might in the future, if they haven't already in the past, abuse the public trust and use that data for nefarious purposes? That argument is just as true about registering with a political party, isn't it? Or providing the name of a group seeking tax exempt status to a government agency charged with reviewing those requests? Should we not have to do either because someone might abuse the public trust instead of carry out the business of the public in a non-prejudicial, non-partisan manner?