Gyroscopic Investing

Posted: **Fri Jan 03, 2014 4:31 pm**

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government ... NSA-Spying

This could certainly make him popular with a lot of people.

"Paul will file the class action lawsuit soon in the D.C. District Court and that he will be filing it as an individual, not as a U.S. Senator...

The focus of the lawsuit will be how the NSA's actions violate the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. The lawsuit will target the NSA’s metadata program."

Posted: **Fri Jan 03, 2014 4:35 pm**

Some degree of NSA spying is unfortunately necessary because of the enemies that we face. There has to be a happy medium.

Posted: **Fri Jan 03, 2014 4:37 pm**

If you like your happy medium.....

Posted: **Fri Jan 03, 2014 4:55 pm**

Reub wrote: <Quantity desired by politicians I favor> degree of <anything bad> is unfortunately necessary because of the enemies that we face. There has to be a happy medium.

Posted: **Fri Jan 03, 2014 5:03 pm**

Reub wrote: Some degree of NSA spying is unfortunately necessary because of the enemies that we face. There has to be a happy medium.

No there doesn't.

Posted: **Fri Jan 03, 2014 5:13 pm**

Reub wrote: Some degree of NSA spying is unfortunately necessary because of the enemies that we face. There has to be a happy medium.

If only there was some legal process for a judge to review evidence to determine whether conducting more intrusive searches is warranted in specific cases while protecting the privacy of innocent people.

Posted: **Fri Jan 03, 2014 5:35 pm**

This is an interesting issue because opinions aren't the typical left vs right. You have the "leave me the F alone types" and many of the 60s "liberal" types agreeing.

Posted: **Fri Jan 03, 2014 5:38 pm**

Reub wrote: Some degree of NSA spying is unfortunately necessary because of the enemies that we face. There has to be a happy medium.

My suggestion would be for the government to have complete and total freedom to do whatever it wanted to do, so long as it only exercised powers granted to it under the Constitution.

In other words, I don't mind the government doing it's thing as long is doesn't engage in illegal activity.

***

What's ironic is that virtually all of the acts of terrorism against the U.S. and U.S. interests probably never would have happened in the first place if the government had been acting within the constraints of the Constitution.

Think about it.

Posted: **Fri Jan 03, 2014 7:43 pm**

Reub wrote: Some degree of NSA spying is unfortunately necessary because of the enemies that we face. There has to be a happy medium.

A lot of the enemies we face have been created by outrage over our various behaviors in foreign nations. The NSA spying has only served to alienate what allies we had left. Even Obama's foreign popularity is at an all time low, partially over the fact that he's allowed or encouraged this level of spying. Not good.

Even so, I'm ok with some level of spying on adversary nations, but all domestic spying has to stop without a court order. And I mean a real court, not some phony baloney secret court that rubber stamps everything and blatantly violates the Constitution. But then again our real Courts violate the Constitution on a regular basis so we're hosed either way.

In any case, given that the courts have, with one exception, upheld the Patriot act as giving the NSA carte blanche to spy, steal, and otherwise invade our personal lives...I think this class action lawsuit will be extremely short lived and is nothing more than a publicity stunt. It's still worth doing as it keeps the issue in the public eye, what with the average American having the attention span of a two year old.

Posted: **Fri Jan 03, 2014 10:38 pm**

I respectfully disagree. The biggest threat to us is domestic terrorism ergo we require some domestic spying to keep us free.

Posted: **Fri Jan 03, 2014 10:59 pm**

Reub wrote: I respectfully disagree. The biggest threat to us is domestic terrorism ergo we require some domestic spying to keep us free.

I consider immigration "reform", along with the usual e.g. taxes related to global warming (given our present economic state), etc., etc. a much more imminent threat.

Reub I understand what you're saying, but you could e.g. nuc one or a few major cities and the US still recovers, but take our present unemployment and implement a progressive wish list....

Edit: corrected it to read unemployment.

Posted: **Fri Jan 03, 2014 11:03 pm**

Reub wrote: I respectfully disagree. The biggest threat to us is domestic terrorism ergo we require some domestic spying to keep us free.

Weren't the founding fathers of this nation themselves terrorists against the British Crown? If King George had the NSA and predator drones, do you think the USA would have ever existed?

Posted: **Sat Jan 04, 2014 2:07 am**

Reub wrote: I respectfully disagree. The biggest threat to us is domestic terrorism ergo we require some domestic spying to keep us free.

Do you have any evidence at all to support your assertion that the biggest threat to us (and by us I assume you mean the U.S.) is domestic terrorism? If you can't produce evidence that domestic terrorism represents an existential threat to the very existence of this nation, then your argument doesn't hold much water I'm afraid. Even then you still have to go on to argue whether sacrificing basic and fundamental privacy and rights guaranteed by the Constitution is worth the rather dubious security provided by the outrageous and pervasive level of domestic spying that's taken place against the U.S. citizenry.

Posted: **Sat Jan 04, 2014 2:07 pm**

Wiretapping and searches using warrants are nothing new in this country. I don't see anything wrong with using this sort of "spying" to weed out vile terrorists.

If you need evidence of the gravity of the terrorist threat then I guess that you don't remember 9/11 very well.

Benko, I agree that those other issues are important as well and my position is not mutually exclusive to those other threats.

Posted: **Sat Jan 04, 2014 2:10 pm**

Reub wrote: Wiretapping and searches using warrants are nothing new in this country.

Right. But that's not how the NSA does things. I don't think anyone's particularly outraged by conventional domestic surveillance that's (at least in theory) subject to public oversight and constitutional limits and can be challenged in court.

Reub wrote: I don't see anything wrong with using this sort of "spying" to weed out vile terrorists.

It's a good thing the NSA knows who the vile terrorists are beforehand so we can make sure they're only spying on them.

Posted: **Sat Jan 04, 2014 2:55 pm**

9/11 wasn't domestic terrorism, it was carried out by foreign nationals who infiltrated the U.S. under false pretenses. Even if we swap them out with the requisit western born terrorists to fit your scenario, you still haven't shown any evidence that terrorism represents a threat to the very existence of the U.S. If the best they can do is kill a few people here and there, well automobiles are making them look downright lazy.

Posted: **Sat Jan 04, 2014 4:35 pm**

RuralEngineer wrote: If the best they can do is kill a few people here and there, well automobiles are making them look downright lazy.

Exactly! They killed 3,000 people once 12 years ago. That many people die in car crashes every month. Medical errors kill that many every few days. If terrorism is such a grave threat, I guess this threat must be measurable by a means other than "number of deaths."

Posted: **Sat Jan 04, 2014 4:42 pm**

Sorry, but I disagree. Terrorism trumps auto accidents as an existential threat to this country.

It just does.

Posted: **Sat Jan 04, 2014 5:00 pm**

Reub wrote: Sorry, but I disagree. Terrorism trumps auto accidents as an existential threat to this country.

It just does.

Can you elaborate on how? I really am genuinely interested in your opinion, since I don't understand it. Right now, the only way I could see terrorism being an existential threat to our country is if it scares us so much that we abandon the principles that differentiate our country from some third-world kleptocracy.

Simonjester wrote: sort of a damned if you do damned if you don't existential threat, if you give up your freedom for security (mostly a false sense of) the terrorists win.. if you give them what they want, you loose your freedom by appeasing them..

subjecting our-self's to Orwellian conditions to beat them is a bit hard to call a win, when subjecting people to Orwellian conditions for a different reason with different leaders is what they* want for the world..

*politically radicalized terrorist types...

Posted: **Sat Jan 04, 2014 5:05 pm**

1. So now we're no longer talking about domestic terrorism, but just plain ol' terrorism so we can drop domestic spying altogether and just focus on foreign targets, yes?

2. "It just does." isn't much of an argument.

3. I'm not arguing that auto accidents are an existential threat to this country. But then again I don't think terrorism is either.

Posted: **Sat Jan 04, 2014 5:34 pm**

If I have to explain to you why domestic terrorism is a greater threat to this country than car accidents then I will just opt to forego the subject.

Posted: **Sat Jan 04, 2014 5:50 pm**

Reub wrote: If I have to explain to you why domestic terrorism is a greater threat to this country than car accidents then I will just opt to forego the subject.

I'm sorry to hear that. I promise that I'd listen.

Posted: **Sat Jan 04, 2014 6:33 pm**

Reub wrote: I respectfully disagree. The biggest threat to us is domestic terrorism ergo we require some domestic spying to keep us free.

I thought it was established earlier via a poll that the biggest threat to the us is "big government"

Ps I am against the fisa courts

Posted: **Sat Jan 04, 2014 9:31 pm**

Now for the national security version of the perfect liberty debate

.

Posted: **Mon Jan 06, 2014 9:59 am**

Desert wrote: This reminds me of this classic quote:

“Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.”?
? George W. Bush

Yes, that has to go onto the list of 100 top unintentional truths of all time.

Gyroscopic Investing

Rand Paul to lead class action lawsuit against Obama over NSA spying

Rand Paul to lead class action lawsuit against Obama over NSA spying

Re: Rand Paul to lead class action lawsuit against Obama over NSA spying

Re: Rand Paul to lead class action lawsuit against Obama over NSA spying

Re: Rand Paul to lead class action lawsuit against Obama over NSA spying

Re: Rand Paul to lead class action lawsuit against Obama over NSA spying

Re: Rand Paul to lead class action lawsuit against Obama over NSA spying

Re: Rand Paul to lead class action lawsuit against Obama over NSA spying

Re: Rand Paul to lead class action lawsuit against Obama over NSA spying

Re: Rand Paul to lead class action lawsuit against Obama over NSA spying

Re: Rand Paul to lead class action lawsuit against Obama over NSA spying

Re: Rand Paul to lead class action lawsuit against Obama over NSA spying

Re: Rand Paul to lead class action lawsuit against Obama over NSA spying

Re: Rand Paul to lead class action lawsuit against Obama over NSA spying

Re: Rand Paul to lead class action lawsuit against Obama over NSA spying

Re: Rand Paul to lead class action lawsuit against Obama over NSA spying

Re: Rand Paul to lead class action lawsuit against Obama over NSA spying

Re: Rand Paul to lead class action lawsuit against Obama over NSA spying

Re: Rand Paul to lead class action lawsuit against Obama over NSA spying

Re: Rand Paul to lead class action lawsuit against Obama over NSA spying

Re: Rand Paul to lead class action lawsuit against Obama over NSA spying

Re: Rand Paul to lead class action lawsuit against Obama over NSA spying

Re: Rand Paul to lead class action lawsuit against Obama over NSA spying

Re: Rand Paul to lead class action lawsuit against Obama over NSA spying

Re: Rand Paul to lead class action lawsuit against Obama over NSA spying

Re: Rand Paul to lead class action lawsuit against Obama over NSA spying