Senate Approves Warrantless Phone Tapping for Next Five Years

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

We got your phone tapped
What you gon' do?
'Cause sooner or later we'll have your whole crew
All we need now is the right word or two
To make all it stick like glue
Then you through



​

 

[avon barksdale]

back to my pager

 

[VerbalIntercourse]

These aren't socialist policies. They're neoconservative.

The neoconservatives are progressives that were against the great society. They aren't rooted in the same philosophy as Traditional conservatism.

Socialism requires a reduction in freedom. It can't work without an expansion in government.


China unloaded stimulus and any policy it felt would spur economic activity almost instantaneously. There was no discussion, no parliamentary blocks or protesting. It's the liberal's wet dream.

 

[88m3]

pathetic

 

[The Real]

The neoconservatives are progressives that were against the great society. They aren't rooted in the same philosophy as Traditional conservatism.

Socialism requires a reduction in freedom. It can't work without an expansion in government.


China unloaded stimulus and any policy it felt would spur economic activity almost instantaneously. There was no discussion, no parliamentary blocks or protesting. It's the liberal's wet dream.

Neoconservatism was influenced partially by liberals who thought liberalism had failed. That has nothing to do with socialism, and is explicitly a departure from liberalism, so neither of those two can be identified with neoconservatism. Ultimately, it doesn't matter what the genealogy of Conservativism is vs Neoconservatism, because the past of any phenomenon does not define its present arrangement, and presently, the modern Republican party maintains a monopoly on the development of neoconservative policy that the Democrats have yet to match, though they are certainly becoming that way, too.

The claim about Socialism relying on a reduction in individual freedom is so simplistic it's not even worth addressing unless you develop it further.

Lastly, authoritarian capitalism isn't any liberal's wet dream. Rather, it's the wet-dream of Republicans who promote the mixture of neoconservative social and foreign policy with neoliberal economics. That combination exists in the Democratic party, but isn't quite as extreme nor as forceful.

 

[VerbalIntercourse]

Neoconservatism was influenced partially by liberals who thought liberalism had failed. That has nothing to do with socialism, and is explicitly a departure from liberalism, so neither of those two can be identified with neoconservatism. Ultimately, it doesn't matter what the genealogy of Conservativism is vs Neoconservatism, because the past of any phenomenon does not define its present arrangement, and presently, the modern Republican party maintains a monopoly on the development of neoconservative policy that the Democrats have yet to match, though they are certainly becoming that way, too.

The claim about Socialism relying on a reduction in individual freedom is so simplistic it's not even worth addressing unless you develop it further.

Lastly, authoritarian capitalism isn't any liberal's wet dream. Rather, it's the wet-dream of Republicans who promote the mixture of neoconservative social and foreign policy with neoliberal economics. That combination exists in the Democratic party, but isn't quite as extreme nor as forceful.

China is not singapore yet. It's not an authoritarian capitalist state.

Socialism is anti-freedom at the most fundamental level. If a state want's to socialize a factory or utility, it can't just passively respect the property owner's rights to property. It has to exercise the state's monolopy on coercion in order to force compliance.

And once an industry has been socialized, it can't simply allow any person to willy-nilly enter into competition with the state owned factory.


As for social programs, I think the British response to widespread abuse of the unemployment programs is a great example of how bad things can get. Unemployment recipients now have their computers tapped and monitored for program compliance.

 

[TrueEpic08]

China is not singapore yet. It's not an authoritarian capitalist state.

Socialism is anti-freedom at the most fundamental level. If a state want's to socialize a factory or utility, it can't just passively respect the property owner's rights to property. It has to exercise the state's monolopy on coercion in order to force compliance.

And once an industry has been socialized, it can't simply allow any person to willy-nilly enter into competition with the state owned factory.


As for social programs, I think the British response to widespread abuse of the unemployment programs is a great example of how bad things can get. Unemployment recipients now have their computers tapped and monitored for program compliance.

Your conception of Socialism is incredibly ignorant, and based on a mere manifestation of a subset of its ideologies that manifested from the Third International (And really, one that has more affinities with Right-Wing/Fascist movements than the formulations of Socialism that existed before the Anarchist split and the Second International. Or Luxemburgism. Or the Libertarian Socialist movements in general. Or Autonomism. I could go on). I'm not sure you would know that, given your prejudices.

Also, your conception of freedom is borne from a false conflation of the freedom of reified capital and the metaphysical conception of freedom. When you say "freedom," you refer to the absolute, unimpeded freedom of the relations between a populace and the various manifestations of that reified capital, and take it as an absolute invariant, something that is of and commensurate with a free society, which is an utterly and absolutely ridiculous notion for anyone who traces any notion of the word freedom honestly (Though not surprising, since the freedom of the American nation itself during its formation was originally formulated due to its desire for freedom of trade).

Saying that China is not an authoritarian capitalist country is to be ignorant of Chinese history since the 1970s.

You're even off on the desires of American Liberals, and that was the one thing you were closest on by far. They don't want a police state, they're just so locked into the dominant rhetoric and ideologies of the country that they allow that to seduce them and cloak what's actually occurring within those seductive ideologies (It's more complex than this, but I interrupted my morning reading for this and I need to get back to it). This is, of course, how we got Obama as he is right now.

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

Neoconservatism was influenced partially by liberals who thought liberalism had failed. That has nothing to do with socialism, and is explicitly a departure from liberalism, so neither of those two can be identified with neoconservatism. Ultimately, it doesn't matter what the genealogy of Conservativism is vs Neoconservatism, because the past of any phenomenon does not define its present arrangement, and presently, the modern Republican party maintains a monopoly on the development of neoconservative policy that the Democrats have yet to match, though they are certainly becoming that way, too.

The claim about Socialism relying on a reduction in individual freedom is so simplistic it's not even worth addressing unless you develop it further.

Lastly, authoritarian capitalism isn't any liberal's wet dream. Rather, it's the wet-dream of Republicans who promote the mixture of neoconservative social and foreign policy with neoliberal economics. That combination exists in the Democratic party, but isn't quite as extreme nor as forceful.

Your conception of Socialism is incredibly ignorant, and based on a mere manifestation of a subset of its ideologies that manifested from the Third International (And really, one that has more affinities with Right-Wing/Fascist movements than the formulations of Socialism that existed before the Anarchist split and the Second International. Or Luxemburgism. Or the Libertarian Socialist movements in general. Or Autonomism. I could go on). I'm not sure you would know that, given your prejudices.

Also, your conception of freedom is borne from a false conflation of the freedom of reified capital and the metaphysical conception of freedom. When you say "freedom," you refer to the absolute, unimpeded freedom of the relations between a populace and the various manifestations of that reified capital, and take it as an absolute invariant, something that is of and commensurate with a free society, which is an utterly and absolutely ridiculous notion for anyone who traces any notion of the word freedom honestly (Though not surprising, since the freedom of the American nation itself during its formation was originally formulated due to its desire for freedom of trade).

Saying that China is not an authoritarian capitalist country is to be ignorant of Chinese history since the 1970s.

You're even off on the desires of American Liberals, and that was the one thing you were closest on by far. They don't want a police state, they're just so locked into the dominant rhetoric and ideologies of the country that they allow that to seduce them and cloak what's actually occurring within those seductive ideologies (It's more complex than this, but I interrupted my morning reading for this and I need to get back to it). This is, of course, how we got Obama as he is right now.

 

[Shogun]

"People get the government they deserve"

 

[CASHAPP]

@newworldafro

WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama has signed into law a five-year extension of the U.S. government's authority to monitor the overseas activity of suspected foreign spies and terrorists.

The warrantless intercept program would have expired at the end of 2012 without the president's approval. The renewal bill won final passage in the Senate on Friday.

Known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the law allows the government to monitor overseas phone calls and emails without obtaining a court order for each intercept.

The law does not apply to Americans. When Americans are targeted for surveillance, the government must get a warrant from a special 11-judge court of U.S. district judges appointed by the Supreme Court.

 

[Kayla Fortenberry]

fukking crazy

 

[Type Username Here]

You can't have utopian socialist country without a reduction in freedom.

The british government keeps tabs on the computer activity of those receiving unemployment benefits now.

It's like this. The liberals want a government that can "act" like China-- a government without any restrictions or filibusters or political gridlock. I say, "fukk it". Let's just do this full force.

Rip the constitution into pieces and let's have a government like China. It's what the Obama supporters really want. They just don't realize it yet.

This is utterly false. Good peep the rankings of countries' rankings in terms of freedom index, freedom of the press, rights, etc..

Most countries on top are Socialist in nature.

 

[Type Username Here]

@newworldafro

The law does not apply to Americans. When Americans are targeted for surveillance, the government must get a warrant from a special 11-judge court of U.S. district judges appointed by the Supreme Court.[/B]

This is an utter lie.

If you believe this, I don't know what to tell you.

What you are saying is that the CIA and NSA needed this law passed to spy on foreigners. Is that what you believe?

 

[CASHAPP]

This is an utter lie.

If you believe this, I don't know what to tell you.

What you are saying is that the CIA and NSA needed this law passed to spy on foreigners. Is that what you believe?

When Did I say the words "I believe this"?



I posted it because I saw an update on Huffingtonpost and posted it in here to see what your thoughts are

 

[Type Username Here]

When Did I say the words "I believe this"?



I posted it because I saw an update on Huffingtonpost and posted it in here to see what your thoughts are

My apologies. I assumed erroneously.