I guess they will be knocking on my door soon too.

[Sinfix_15]

Secret Service "Visits" Outspoken Critic of Obama - Because of Twitter? - Atlanta Conservative | Examiner.com (http://www.examiner.com/article/secret-service-visits-outspoken-critic-of-obama-because-of-twitter)

[.blank cd]

Secret Service "Visits" Outspoken Critic of Obama - Because of Twitter? - Atlanta Conservative | Examiner.com (http://www.examiner.com/article/secret-service-visits-outspoken-critic-of-obama-because-of-twitter)

I hope you don't believe this is true

[Sinfix_15]

I hope you don't believe this is true

Who knows anymore what is and isn't true. The only thing i do know is that it certainly isn't you.

[Moseley]

Dude... the websites you read and the articles that you link are the definition of propaganda. It's 100% BS that's just mean to sway people's opinions. Are you really so gullible that you're reading it and actually believing it?


prop·a·gan·da
/ˌpräpəˈgandə/
Noun
1. Information, esp. of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.
2. The dissemination of such information as a political strategy.


In that particular article... notice how the first sentence is already trying to set the tone for the article, and the second sentence says "Barack Hussein Obama", which is attempting to focus on the part of his name that happens to be the same as a deceased middle eastern dictator. Towards the end of the article, several points are bolded, and OMG they are all focused around recent hot topics in the political world! what a shocker! They bold the text that references gun control, Eric Holder, and the Boston bombing.

This isn't news. It isn't proper journalism. It's complete bullshit.

The people that create this shit do it so that other people who have a sub 100 I.Q. but know how to read, run their mouth, and fire a gun, can get all wound up about our current government.

[Sinfix_15]

Dude... the websites you read and the articles that you link are the definition of propaganda. It's 100% BS that's just mean to sway people's opinions. Are you really so gullible that you're reading it and actually believing it?



In that particular article... notice how the first sentence is already trying to set the tone for the article, and the second sentence says "Barack Hussein Obama", which is attempting to focus on the part of his name that happens to be the same as a deceased middle eastern dictator. Towards the end of the article, several points are bolded, and OMG they are all focused around recent hot topics in the political world! what a shocker! They bold the text that references gun control, Eric Holder, and the Boston bombing.

This isn't news. It isn't proper journalism. It's complete bullshit.

The people that create this shit do it so that other people who have a sub 100 I.Q. but know how to read, run their mouth, and fire a gun, can get all wound up about our current government.

You could apply this statement to any of the current scandals before they were revealed. Typical lefty, deny until you can no longer deny anymore, then deny some more.

IDK if the story is true or not, neither do you. I thought it was funny.

Now that you come in here all butt hurt and nerd raging its even more funny.
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m92otkIoBf1rn7f2zo1_500.jpg

[bu villain]

I like how the headline is a question. We don't really know why they visited this dude but we'll speculate that its because he said some bad shit about Obama on Twitter. It's ok to suggest wrongdoing because we put a question mark at the end! You're right Sinflix, this is funny.

I was going to read the article but I got too distracted by their other enticing articles including "We dare you not to cry over this man singing to his wife" and "Can you identify these stars just by their famous mouths?".

[.blank cd]

I like how the headline is a question. We don't really know why they visited this dude but we'll speculate that its because he said some bad shit about Obama on Twitter. It's ok to suggest wrongdoing because we put a question mark at the end! You're right Sinflix, this is funny.

I was going to read the article but I got too distracted by their other enticing articles including "We dare you not to cry over this man singing to his wife" and "Can you identify these stars just by their famous mouths?".

Welcome to tabloid journalism! We shape your opinions buy using open ended questions for headlines and letting you speculate the outcome. You may remember us from such sensationalist headlines as:

-Was Obama really born in the US?

-Is socialism taking over America?

-Criminals don't follow laws, do they?

-You 2nd amendment rights and why they're trampling all over them!


We look forward to molding the minds of half witted and simple minded adults across the nation for the next 3.5 years!

[CSquared]

The only reason they'll be at your door is to politely ask you to stop sending your dick pics to obama. He's not interested.

[-EnVus-]

Nah Obama dont fear you...



http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt352/bumblepufff/computer-nerd-530x400.jpg (http://media.photobucket.com/user/bumblepufff/media/computer-nerd-530x400.jpg.html)

[Sinfix_15]

Nah Obama dont fear you...



http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt352/bumblepufff/computer-nerd-530x400.jpg (http://media.photobucket.com/user/bumblepufff/media/computer-nerd-530x400.jpg.html)


Clearly they do..... otherwise they wouldnt be monitoring our every word.

[Sinfix_15]

Every story in relation to things like this gets "laughed out of the building"..... but how many stories like this continue to be proven true on a daily basis. Every day a new story comes out and theyre all things you wouldnt have believed possible two years ago. Yet some of you still confidently insult anyone pays any mind to things like this.

Almost every single conspiracy theory has come to fruition.

[Sinfix_15]

Welcome to tabloid journalism! We shape your opinions buy using open ended questions for headlines and letting you speculate the outcome. You may remember us from such sensationalist headlines as:

-Was Obama really born in the US?

-Is socialism taking over America?

-Criminals don't follow laws, do they?

-You 2nd amendment rights and why they're trampling all over them!


We look forward to molding the minds of half witted and simple minded adults across the nation for the next 3.5 years!

I honestly laugh at a lot of what you have to say. Do you go through life with blinders on?

[.blank cd]

I honestly laugh at a lot of what you have to say. Do you go through life with blinders on?

Just calling it like it is.

[Sinfix_15]

Just calling it like it is.

Said the sheep to the cow.

[Sinfix_15]

It's so funny because you go off on these tangents where you express how you feel intellectually superior to everyone, but everyone realizes that you're an idiot and most of what you have to say about others is a perfect description of yourself. You talk about people being manipulated by propaganda or having a hive mind......

do you not realize that is exactly what you are???? The hive mind..... manipulated by propaganda. You're a puppet..... I bet Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton collect royalties for every one of your posts here.

Can we speak to whoever has their hand up your ass so we can get to the bottom of this?

[-EnVus-]

So you think just cause Obama is monitoring everyone closer that singles you out ?
If for some wild chance this was possible it may be due to his name drop you do every 10min on here lol

[Sinfix_15]

So you think just cause Obama is monitoring everyone closer that singles you out ?
If for some wild chance this was possible it may be due to his name drop you do every 10min on here lol

It was a joke.....

and this thread is about the CIA.

[David88vert]

It was a joke.....

and this thread is about the CIA.

CIA? It's the NSA with the secretive monitoring capabilities, and the Secret Service that came to visit him.

If you make any kind of statement that MIGHT be construed as a physical threat against the President, it is the job of the Secret Service to fully investigate you, and to determine if you are a legitimate threat. This includes inciting others to commit violent acts.
United States Secret Service: National Threat Assessment Center (NTAC) (http://www.secretservice.gov/ntac.shtml)

[bu villain]

Clearly they do..... otherwise they wouldnt be monitoring our every word.

Just to be clear, they aren't monitoring our every word. They are monitoring metadata which does not include any voice or transcript of what was said. It is only things like call location, duration, etc.


Every story in relation to things like this gets "laughed out of the building"..... but how many stories like this continue to be proven true on a daily basis. Every day a new story comes out and theyre all things you wouldnt have believed possible two years ago.

Wouldn't have believed possible two years ago? We knew about this kinda shit 7 years ago. Did you already forget about the Bush warrantless wiretapping issue? Here's a reminder:

Bush Administration's Warrantless Wiretapping Program - Washington Post (http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2008-02-11/news/36928278_1_nsa-program-surveillance-program-temporary-surveillance-law)

Highlights below:

Revelations in May 2006 showed that the NSA made an effort to log a majority of the telephone calls made within the United States since Sept. 11, 2001 -- amassing the domestic call records of tens of millions of U.S. households and businesses in an attempt to sift them for clues about terrorist threats.

On Sept. 7, 2006, President Bush defended the controversial program and urged Congress to give him additional authority to continue the warrantless eavesdropping, as part of a series of speeches on the war on terror leading up to the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.

On Jan. 17, 2007, the Bush administration announced an abrupt reversal to its policy, agreeing to disband the controversial program run by the National Security Agency that it had staunchly defended, to replace it with a new effort overseen by the secret court that administers the FISA.

[RandomGuy]

Just to be clear, they aren't monitoring our every word. They are monitoring metadata which does not include any voice or transcript of what was said. It is only things like call location, duration, etc.

That is incorrect

[RandomGuy]

Wouldn't have believed possible two years ago? We knew about this kinda shit 7 years ago. Did you already forget about the Bush warrantless wiretapping issue? Here's a reminder:

Bush Administration's Warrantless Wiretapping Program - Washington Post (http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2008-02-11/news/36928278_1_nsa-program-surveillance-program-temporary-surveillance-law)

Highlights below:

Revelations in May 2006 showed that the NSA made an effort to log a majority of the telephone calls made within the United States since Sept. 11, 2001 -- amassing the domestic call records of tens of millions of U.S. households and businesses in an attempt to sift them for clues about terrorist threats.

On Sept. 7, 2006, President Bush defended the controversial program and urged Congress to give him additional authority to continue the warrantless eavesdropping, as part of a series of speeches on the war on terror leading up to the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.

On Jan. 17, 2007, the Bush administration announced an abrupt reversal to its policy, agreeing to disband the controversial program run by the National Security Agency that it had staunchly defended, to replace it with a new effort overseen by the secret court that administers the FISA.

here's a better timeline: https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying/timeline

[David88vert]

Just to be clear, they aren't monitoring our every word. They are monitoring metadata which does not include any voice or transcript of what was said. It is only things like call location, duration, etc.


You are assuming that what they are telling you is the truth. There is no one else that has independently verified their claims. I remind you that they have lied to Congress concerning the collection of data previously, so on what basis (other than faith in the government) do you have to trust them when they tell you that they are not listening to calls when they want to?

[Sinfix_15]

That is incorrect

He's basing his it on what Obama tells him that he's doing. It's like arguing with a christian when they say "but the bible says"

[bu villain]

That is incorrect

Then I the information I have received is wrong or out of date. Can you link me to where it says they are listening to all the content of those calls? Was it in that link you posted later?


You are assuming that what they are telling you is the truth. There is no one else that has independently verified their claims. I remind you that they have lied to Congress concerning the collection of data previously, so on what basis (other than faith in the government) do you have to trust them when they tell you that they are not listening to calls when they want to?

They could be doing more, you are right. But until I haven't seen the evidence that they are. I'm not going to trust them but I'm also not going to assume something of which I have no proof of.


He's basing his it on what Obama tells him that he's doing. It's like arguing with a christian when they say "but the bible says"

All you have to do is post evidence that they are listening to the content of all those calls and I will agree with you. I'm basing it on the evidence I have heard, that's all. It sounds like maybe I just haven't heard all the details. No reason to assume I know everything that you know about this. It sounds like I'm just misinformed. I have no particular love for Obama. I didn't even vote for him last time around.

[Sinfix_15]

All you have to do is post evidence that they are listening to the content of all those calls and I will agree with you. I'm basing it on the evidence I have heard, that's all. It sounds like maybe I just haven't heard all the details. No reason to assume I know everything that you know about this. It sounds like I'm just misinformed. I have no particular love for Obama. I didn't even vote for him last time around.

Why would a logical person believe the testimony of an organization that is only offering it's testimony because someone leaked the lie they were attempting to keep hidden?????

You're believing what you're told by someone who is only telling you anything because they got caught.

How many times does someone have to lie to you and deceive you before you stop giving them the benefit of the doubt?

[.blank cd]

I have no particular love for Obama. I didn't even vote for him last time around.

It doesn't matter. Don't you know by now if you disagree with Sinfix, or know something he doesn't, you have literally had oral sex with the president?

[.blank cd]

Why would a logical person believe the testimony of an organization that is only offering it's testimony because someone leaked the lie they were attempting to keep hidden?????

You're believing what you're told by someone who is only telling you anything because they got caught.

How many times does someone have to lie to you and deceive you before you stop giving them the benefit of the doubt?

How are you so sure? Do you have evidence?

How do you know you're not being lied to?

[Sinfix_15]

How are you so sure? Do you have evidence?

How do you know you're not being lied to?

I question i wish you were capable of asking yourself.

[.blank cd]

I question i wish you were capable of asking yourself.

Lol. I'll ask myself next time I think Obama is listening to my telephone call

[Sinfix_15]

Lol. I'll ask myself next time I think Obama is listening to my telephone call

He told you that he wasnt. Praise the government, amen.

[.blank cd]

Rush Limbaugh told me they were listening to my phone calls. The Administration says they're not. So who should have more credibility, shock jocks and pundits without law degrees, or a group of Harvard graduated individuals? You tell me.

[Sinfix_15]

Rush Limbaugh told me they were listening to my phone calls. The Administration says they're not. So who should have more credibility, shock jocks and pundits without law degrees, or a group of Harvard graduated individuals? You tell me.

Harvard grads you say?

So education is a factor in deciding who you should trust?

Let's compare the grades of these men.
http://a57.foxnews.com/global.fncstatic.com/static/managed/img/fn-latino/news/660/371/Ted-Cruz-wins_BT.jpg?ve=1
http://images.politico.com/global/2012/11/barack_obama_frown.jpg

[Sinfix_15]

Ted Cruz, a highly respected Harvard grad who his professors call a genius and one of the most brilliant students theyve ever had, has a lot of interesting things to say in return about Harvard.


by the way, what do Obama's professors and classmates say about him?

[David88vert]

They could be doing more, you are right. But until I haven't seen the evidence that they are. I'm not going to trust them but I'm also not going to assume something of which I have no proof of.

All you have to do is post evidence that they are listening to the content of all those calls and I will agree with you. I'm basing it on the evidence I have heard, that's all. It sounds like maybe I just haven't heard all the details. No reason to assume I know everything that you know about this. It sounds like I'm just misinformed. I have no particular love for Obama. I didn't even vote for him last time around.

Let's think about this for a minute.

The NSA has lied, under oath, to Congress concerning this DOMESTIC SPYING program and its capabilities. Not just once, but multiple times, over several years, and as recently as in March 2013, when the NSA chief point-blank lied to Congress when asked specifically about it. Don't take my word for it, hear or read it yourself:
NSA Chief Denies Wired's Domestic Spying Story (Fourteen Times) In Congressional Hearing - Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2012/03/20/nsa-chief-denies-wireds-domestic-spying-story-fourteen-times-in-congressional-hearing/)

Now, considering that they had no problems lying to Congress, what makes you think that they are telling you the truth when they say that they do not listen to domestic phone calls or read domestic internet communications?

Rodgers gave his speech yesterday where he declared that the NSA is not reading your emails. He is partially correct. The NSA is not sitting there reading your emails - that would take way too long. What they do have are data centers that run programs on internet communications, including emails, scanning for terms, words, etc, that need more scrutiny. Applications can do this tedious work much more efficiently than humans. Need evidence? Look at the new data center in Utah.
NSA's Utah Home Is A 1.5 Million Square Foot 'Spy Center' (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/13/nsa-utah_n_3434175.html)

Of course, the NSA is denying that the center will be used for domestic spying. Instead, they want to say that it is to protect against cyberthreats. Anyone that works in computer software knows that the NSA is not the group that has the most impact on cyberthreats - its CERT, and they are not in Utah, and not part of the NSA - they are part of FEMA.

[David88vert]

How are you so sure? Do you have evidence?

How do you know you're not being lied to?

Who's got more to gain by lying - the leaker who might go to jail, or the group in charge of the most powerful spying progeam in the world.
Apply some logical thinking.

[David88vert]

Rush Limbaugh told me they were listening to my phone calls. The Administration says they're not. So who should have more credibility, shock jocks and pundits without law degrees, or a group of Harvard graduated individuals? You tell me.

Education is not related to credibility. You might need to review your reasoning abilities, as they are found wanting.

[.blank cd]

Education is not related to credibility. You might need to review your reasoning abilities, as they are found wanting.

Facepalm.

[.blank cd]

Apply some logical thinking.

When are you gonna start? Lol

[David88vert]

Facepalm.



If you believe that education equals credibility, then you are completely clueless.
A person can have a doctorate, and still be completely wrong, or deliberately lie. A person who doesn't even have a GED can be correct, and honest.
The two are not directly linked.
Now, an education can mean that a person is more likely to have more knowledge in a particular field that they have studied, and in that field their opinion might be more informed, but that does not mean that just having a degree from a university automatically makes you more knowledgeable in all fields.

I really should start charging you for all of the education that I provide to you.


When are you gonna start? Lol

Let's see - I get paid by a Fortune 50 company for my abilities to think and communicate with logic. You have a childcare facility, so you get paid for diaper changes.

[Sinfix_15]

Blank is an expert in understanding the psychology of people who still shit their pants.

[bu villain]

Why would a logical person believe the testimony of an organization that is only offering it's testimony because someone leaked the lie they were attempting to keep hidden?????

You're believing what you're told by someone who is only telling you anything because they got caught.

How many times does someone have to lie to you and deceive you before you stop giving them the benefit of the doubt?

I am not saying I believe the NSA, I am saying I don't know the truth so I am not going to assume anything until I see the evidence for it. Why are you trying to make me pick a side when I am obviously ignorant about the facts?


The NSA has lied, under oath, to Congress concerning this DOMESTIC SPYING program and its capabilities. Not just once, but multiple times, over several years, and as recently as in March 2013, when the NSA chief point-blank lied to Congress when asked specifically about it. Don't take my word for it, hear or read it yourself:
NSA Chief Denies Wired's Domestic Spying Story (Fourteen Times) In Congressional Hearing - Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2012/03/20/nsa-chief-denies-wireds-domestic-spying-story-fourteen-times-in-congressional-hearing/)

Now, considering that they had no problems lying to Congress, what makes you think that they are telling you the truth when they say that they do not listen to domestic phone calls or read domestic internet communications?

Again, I am not assuming they are telling the truth. I am certainly open to the possibility that they are lying but that is not sufficient evidence in and of itself.


Need evidence? Look at the new data center in Utah.

Of course, the NSA is denying that the center will be used for domestic spying. Instead, they want to say that it is to protect against cyberthreats. Anyone that works in computer software knows that the NSA is not the group that has the most impact on cyberthreats - its CERT, and they are not in Utah, and not part of the NSA - they are part of FEMA.

Yes I do need evidence. Thank you for providing more evidence than Sinflix is willing to give. While I do accept that it could be one piece of the puzzle, the NSA simply having a huge data center is still pretty far from conclusive in my opinion.

[David88vert]

Again, I am not assuming they are telling the truth. I am certainly open to the possibility that they are lying but that is not sufficient evidence in and of itself.
Yes I do need evidence. Thank you for providing more evidence than Sinflix is willing to give. While I do accept that it could be one piece of the puzzle, the NSA simply having a huge data center is still pretty far from conclusive in my opinion.

Fair enough.

On the data center - definitely not conclusive, but you will not be given the ability to get 100% conclusive evidence when all of the evidence is controlled by the agency in power that is trying to keep it suppressed.

[bu villain]

Fair enough.

On the data center - definitely not conclusive, but you will not be given the ability to get 100% conclusive evidence when all of the evidence is controlled by the agency in power that is trying to keep it suppressed.

Very true. My response is simply to be on guard and to recognize that it is a very real possibility that all our calls are monitored. Honestly, I have felt that way since the Bush warrantless wiretapping issue came up years ago. I would also support additional oversight right now. I don't need conclusive evidence to support that.

[Sinfix_15]

Yes I do need evidence. Thank you for providing more evidence than Sinflix is willing to give. While I do accept that it could be one piece of the puzzle, the NSA simply having a huge data center is still pretty far from conclusive in my opinion.

Why is your instinct to believe the government until proven otherwise? The government should have to prove the benefit of these programs to the people, not the other way around. In this particular instance, we have the government acting "on behalf of the people" in secrecy. If these programs are so good for the people, then allow the people to decide if they want them or not. So we're supposed to believe in the merits of a program the government has been hiding for 7-8-10 years?

Holding the government accountable should be a process that never ends. It should go on until the end of time..... at no point should we ever just say "do what you think is best" to our government and they should never act as such. What evidence do you need??? The government is violating your constitutional rights because they think it is whats best for you. It's not the government's decision to decide such things. The constitution is a contract..... between people and government, the government does not..... SHOULD not... have the ability to breach that contract because they decided it was whats best for you.

I dont see how any rational person can support this?

[David88vert]

Very true. My response is simply to be on guard and to recognize that it is a very real possibility that all our calls are monitored. Honestly, I have felt that way since the Bush warrantless wiretapping issue came up years ago. I would also support additional oversight right now. I don't need conclusive evidence to support that.

We are in agreement on that.

[bu villain]

This is why it is so frustrating to discuss such things with you. I DON'T SUPPORT THIS PROGRAM! But because I admit to being ignorant about how far it goes, you accuse me of blindly trusting the government and surrendering my rights to them. I am all for more investigations, increased oversight, etc but that doesn't matter to you because I won't assume the worst about a group you distrust.

[bu villain]

Directed at Sinflix obviously, not David

[Sinfix_15]

This is why it is so frustrating to discuss such things with you. I DON'T SUPPORT THIS PROGRAM! But because I admit to being ignorant about how far it goes, you accuse me of blindly trusting the government and surrendering my rights to them. I am all for more investigations, increased oversight, etc but that doesn't matter to you because I won't assume the worst about a group you distrust.

Distrust towards those who lie to you should come natural...

[bu villain]

Distrust towards those who lie to you should come natural...

I don't trust them!

[Sinfix_15]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=SegAoSpHJck

[BanginJimmy]

This is why it is so frustrating to discuss such things with you. I DON'T SUPPORT THIS PROGRAM! But because I admit to being ignorant about how far it goes, you accuse me of blindly trusting the government and surrendering my rights to them. I am all for more investigations, increased oversight, etc but that doesn't matter to you because I won't assume the worst about a group you distrust.

We have been told by pretty much everyone on the left that any investigation done by the GOP is nothing more than a witch hunt going after the black guy.



I don't trust them!

But you are giving them the benefit of the doubt. That would be like giving Bernie Madoff access to all of your bank accounts because he says he isnt conning people anymore.

[bu villain]

We have been told by pretty much everyone on the left that any investigation done by the GOP is nothing more than a witch hunt going after the black guy.

Good thing I'm not part of the left then because I welcome more investigation on this.


But you are giving them the benefit of the doubt. That would be like giving Bernie Madoff access to all of your bank accounts because he says he isnt conning people anymore.

No I am not giving them the benefit of the doubt. They are probably looking at our phone calls and lots of other invasive shit. However my personal hunch on the issue is not evidence and so I will not present it as such.

[BanginJimmy]

Good thing I'm not part of the left then because I welcome more investigation on this.

Do you honestly think we would know even half of what we know now about the IRS targeting if Dems were in charge of the House also?

You know we wouldn't because politics would win out, just like it did in the aftermath of Benghazi.

Sent from my Galaxy S III using Tapatalk 2

[bu villain]

Do you honestly think we would know even half of what we know now about the IRS targeting if Dems were in charge of the House also?

You know we wouldn't because politics would win out, just like it did in the aftermath of Benghazi.

I certainly agree with you on this. I'm not sure what I said to make you think otherwise.