It was wrong then, but not now? lol
Not to mention, that was for terrorists, Obama wants to know who is talking shit about him.
Obama's CARS.GOV Records All Files/Actions Of Users AND Share With Foreign Agencies!!
- Thread starter hellblazer
- Start date
It was wrong then, but not now? lol
Not to mention, that was for terrorists, Obama wants to know who is talking shit about him.
There's a difference between creating a Government program, which essentially turns U.S. citizens into spies against each other, and asking people to report blogs, etc... so the Whitehouse's PR department can troll them.
Isn't that what you guys are complaining about here in this thread? Unnecessary Government programs?
Nevermind, you are one of those fucking morons that bitched when Bush asked people to turn in terrorists, but think it's ok for Obama to collect a list of people that oppose his views.
You are a fucking retard and I would gladly pay anyone here that lives in your area $200 to mushroom slap you.
You are a fucking retard and I would gladly pay anyone here that lives in your area $200 to mushroom slap you.
Yes, but keeping an eye out for Terrorists is not "Unnecessary."
And what happens to the bloggers who are being "reported" ?
And why is there any need to report people to the govt with NON VIOLENT and non-criminal opposing views?
The video on here is WWII style propaganda: The White House - Blog Post - Facts Are Stubborn Things
It's such a sham to quote BO as saying "People who are happy with their coverage won't lose it"
- what about people who are not happy, but want to try another private insurance provider?
- what about people quitting their jobs?
- what if you try the public option, realize it blows, and want to switch back?
-What about in 100 years when everyone on a private plan is dead and no one has been allowed to choose a private plan. Won't the private option be 100% 'eliminated' then??
When that lady calls out the blog post saying "BO wants to 'eliminate' private plans" as being false, SHE is the one spinning the truth. In 75 year, private insurance WILL be eliminated.
Also, she just panders to poor/sick people when she says things like "Insurance companies won't be able to "unfairly" deny sick people coverage."
Why is it unfair for an insurance company to deny you coverage if your sick? THEY are taking on all the risk. They should have the say in who they cover. Otherwise they will lose money and go out of business. OR they will raise premiums on everyone else to pay for that sick persons risk.
Define for me, please, the term "terrorist" or "enemy combatant" while you are at it. Oh, I see, it's just the "bad guys" who will be monitored.
The problem is, who is defining those terms and at which point will that definition include you.
The NSA monitors everything, but I suppose they have those really cool filters that just picks out the Al Qaeda members and records their stuff. /s
Truth here . . it's more about those with money/power controlling things. The govt are just tools.
I never said it was okay to collect names, in fact, I said it was unnecessary. :action-smiley-052:
Fine, keep an eye out for "terrorists", but you can't say the creation of a government program for the sole purpose of these reports isn't unnecessary... but it's not like this is anything new. The government has been recruiting/hiring/asking U.S. citizens to spy on their neighbors for the past 50 years.
So what happens to these bloggers? I'm guessing the Whitehouse's PR department trolls their posts... but who knows, maybe they'll "disappear"... but I'm going with the trolling posts.
Better yet, you guys can all let me know, I reported this post for fun.
Uh...there is a yearly cap on legal immigration. It is in fact, very difficult to get in and stay in this country legally, and harder still to become a citizen. And asking if we should stop letting illegals in is like asking if we should stop allowing car theft. We don't allow it, but people break the law anyway.
I only point these things out because when you allow such drivel to fall out of your mouth, its hard for anyone to take any valid points you might have seriously.
There is a yearly cap, but it's not a reasonable one. I was speaking in reference to going back to the previous yearly caps before the 40's, when they were raised to unsustainable amounts.
The following table shows the yearly growth of Legal Permanent Residents into the U.S. from 1997 through 2007
(Source: U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, 2007 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics )
Well over 1 million people a year now, can't be THAT hard to get in, now can it? Unless it's hard because there are more immigrants applying than ever. So yes, it's harder for them, but that's only b/c of the number of applicants, not b/c of the US having a low quota...
About illegal immigration, do you REALLY think we are taking the right measures to stop it? It's not only about securing the borders better, but it's about not offering them incentive to come here illegally (i.e not cracking down on businesses that hire them, treating them in emergency rooms, keeping them in our jail system, Not to mention the dems pushing for other privileges like edu. scholarships). Plus when we even CONSIDER something like amnesty it just send the the message to other countries that it's ok for them to come here illegally.
All of these things positively reinforce the idea of coming here illegally to other immigrants.
So when i say that we need to reduce illegal immigration, i don't just mean building a never-ending wall. I mean stop giving them economic and medical reasons to sneak in.
really? I expected more than this, turbo. disagreeing with the political leanings of a network doesn't mean it can't have a valid point. I hate MSNBC and think Olbermann is a total tool, but they still have good points. Not reading it just because it's from Fox, we should be above that