Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 d-usa wrote:
So are all civilian weapon owners just assumed to automatically join this rebel alliance?

How many fully operational battle stations does Darth Obama possess?

Darth Obama does have multiple squadrons of armed drones.

The Drone Wars, begun they have?

 d-usa wrote:
The Drone Wars, begun they have?

Dunno... think they've started arming Amazon's fleet of drones yet?

You guy's are great when you work together.

 d-usa wrote:
So are all civilian weapon owners just assumed to automatically join this rebel alliance?

Not to mention, of those 300 million + firearms in circulation in the US, how many of those "civilians" that own them are also military of some variety?? lol

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
The thing that I find most appalling in that whole situation, is that the NSA is quite clearly in violation of Executive Order 12223.

For those who are not sure what that is, EO 12223 was an order put in place after Watergate, because during the 1960s, Army Intelligence, the CIA, etc. were all actively placing spies and moles within the various "fringe element" groups (black panthers, the hippy peace movements, etc) and collecting intelligence on US citizens. This is kind of an obvious no bueno situation, so EO 12223 expressly forbids the collection/storage of Intelligence gathered against suspected US citizens. There are of course a few exceptions, but VERY FEW people have the authority to make that exception to the order.

Sorry, I couldn't let this stand. It was actually EO 12333 signed by President Reagan. Knowing it, and its exceptions is/was a vital part of my work.

Edit: And ninja'd on page 2. Shows what I get for stopping at page 1 for something that was nagging me. To make up for it:

 Evil Lamp 6 wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
The thing that I find most appalling in that whole situation, is that the NSA is quite clearly in violation of Executive Order 12223.

For those who are not sure what that is, EO 12223 was an order put in place after Watergate, because during the 1960s, Army Intelligence, the CIA, etc. were all actively placing spies and moles within the various "fringe element" groups (black panthers, the hippy peace movements, etc) and collecting intelligence on US citizens. This is kind of an obvious no bueno situation, so EO 12223 expressly forbids the collection/storage of Intelligence gathered against suspected US citizens. There are of course a few exceptions, but VERY FEW people have the authority to make that exception to the order.

Sorry, I couldn't let this stand. It was actually EO 12333 signed by President Reagan. Knowing it, and its exceptions is/was a vital part of my work.

Edit: And ninja'd on page 2. Shows what I get for stopping at page 1 for something that was nagging me. To make up for it:

Lol, I must probably fix the crap you break, so my knowledge of the EO comes in the form of the annual CI training we get

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Evil Lamp 6 wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
The thing that I find most appalling in that whole situation, is that the NSA is quite clearly in violation of Executive Order 12223.

For those who are not sure what that is, EO 12223 was an order put in place after Watergate, because during the 1960s, Army Intelligence, the CIA, etc. were all actively placing spies and moles within the various "fringe element" groups (black panthers, the hippy peace movements, etc) and collecting intelligence on US citizens. This is kind of an obvious no bueno situation, so EO 12223 expressly forbids the collection/storage of Intelligence gathered against suspected US citizens. There are of course a few exceptions, but VERY FEW people have the authority to make that exception to the order.

Sorry, I couldn't let this stand. It was actually EO 12333 signed by President Reagan. Knowing it, and its exceptions is/was a vital part of my work.

Edit: And ninja'd on page 2. Shows what I get for stopping at page 1 for something that was nagging me. To make up for it:

Lol, I must probably fix the crap you break, so my knowledge of the EO comes in the form of the annual CI training we get

If you're referring to the CHIMS equipment, that stuff actually held up pretty well for what we put it through. Only a handful of HDD failures and some complaints from our civilian counterparts that we were kind enough to "share" our equipment with.

 Evil Lamp 6 wrote:

]If you're referring to the CHIMS equipment, that stuff actually held up pretty well for what we put it through. Only a handful of HDD failures and some complaints from our civilian counterparts that we were kind enough to "share" our equipment with.

Sorry mate, that sounds like some Air Force or Navy shenanigans to me, I'm an Army 33W (now, most unfortunately labeled 35T)

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Evil Lamp 6 wrote:

]If you're referring to the CHIMS equipment, that stuff actually held up pretty well for what we put it through. Only a handful of HDD failures and some complaints from our civilian counterparts that we were kind enough to "share" our equipment with.

Sorry mate, that sounds like some Air Force or Navy shenanigans to me, I'm an Army 33W (now, most unfortunately labeled 35T)

I should be so insulted. CHIMS was most definitely used by the Army (97E/35M here). You fixed the other stuff that was mainly used by the 98H/G IIRC.

 Evil Lamp 6 wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Evil Lamp 6 wrote:

]If you're referring to the CHIMS equipment, that stuff actually held up pretty well for what we put it through. Only a handful of HDD failures and some complaints from our civilian counterparts that we were kind enough to "share" our equipment with.

Sorry mate, that sounds like some Air Force or Navy shenanigans to me, I'm an Army 33W (now, most unfortunately labeled 35T)

I should be so insulted. CHIMS was most definitely used by the Army (97E/35M here). You fixed the other stuff that was mainly used by the 98H/G IIRC.

And foxes... and actually, depending on the unit, we DO fix some Mike stuff

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Evil Lamp 6 wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Evil Lamp 6 wrote:

]If you're referring to the CHIMS equipment, that stuff actually held up pretty well for what we put it through. Only a handful of HDD failures and some complaints from our civilian counterparts that we were kind enough to "share" our equipment with.

Sorry mate, that sounds like some Air Force or Navy shenanigans to me, I'm an Army 33W (now, most unfortunately labeled 35T)

I should be so insulted. CHIMS was most definitely used by the Army (97E/35M here). You fixed the other stuff that was mainly used by the 98H/G IIRC.

And foxes... and actually, depending on the unit, we DO fix some Mike stuff

Yeah equipment and unit depending. Our 33W never touched our stuff in my unit. Still was great friends with them and played 40k with them. I want to say most of our stuff at the time was dealt with the contractors though. Either DoD or DIA, learning toward the latter.

 CptJake wrote:
We'll see what happens when it hits SCOTUS. This one isn't done yet.

I'd actually go a step further and say that NYC will get banged for having a de facto unlawful handgun ban, period, and that "may issue" is actually capricious, fickle garbage. It's so difficult and unlikely to get a handgun permit in the city I think they essentially have the same unlawful status quo Chicago did.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Still not actually an ad hominem argument. I was just giving a more exact amount and links to how many vehicles that the US military has to show how outclassed a civilian militia would be. I was reiterating my previous argument. If I called you an idiot and made personal remarks about you, then it would be ad hominem.

You do need people to drive and/or fly those vehicles, I'm afraid. I appreciate your willingness to speak on my behalf regarding my comfort level with dropping on US civilians, but I think you may be, as Bob Uecker would say, juuuuuuust a bit outside.

The other side seems to think that I am comfortable gunning down my government just because I'm a gun owner, so maybe both sides are assuming things here...

 d-usa wrote:
The other side seems to think that I am comfortable gunning down my government just because I'm a gun owner, so maybe both sides are assuming things here...

No. I do not assume that you would feel comfortable doing this.

However, I do feel that your right to keep and bear arms should you feel the need to do so (gun down your government), is worth protecting.



Another example of of the ignorance of an unconstitutional elitist liberal ruling class.

It's hard to take you seriously when you are maintaining two threads: one bitching about elitists being unconstitutional and one where you are an elitist bitching about constitutional rights of women.

This goes back to the whole "you not caring about the constitution except for the parts you like" thing...

 d-usa wrote:
It's hard to take you seriously when you are maintaining two threads: one bitching about elitists being unconstitutional and one where you are an elitist bitching about constitutional rights of women.

This goes back to the whole "you not caring about the constitution except for the parts you like" thing...

A woman's right to abortion is in the Constitution?

No. Seriously though.

It is not that I am AGAINST a woman's Constitutional right, as much as I am for not killing "potential human beings".

A woman's right to privacy between her and her physician is in the constitution.

That's why there are so many court cases that declare so many abortion restrictions unconstitutional.

Judging by your responses one might think that you don't really know very much about the stuff you talk about.

jamesk1973 wrote:
...Another example of of the ignorance of an unconstitutional elitist liberal ruling class.

*Sigh* You do realize what liberalism actually is don't you?

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

jamesk1973 wrote:
...Another example of of the ignorance of an unconstitutional elitist liberal ruling class.

*Sigh* You do realize what liberalism actually is don't you?

It's not the vegan militia burning our flags, reciting from the Quran, that take my guns and allow my women to fornicate with heathens and hippies is it?

 Alfndrate wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

jamesk1973 wrote:
...Another example of of the ignorance of an unconstitutional elitist liberal ruling class.

*Sigh* You do realize what liberalism actually is don't you?

It's not the vegan militia burning our flags, reciting from the Quran, that take my guns and allow my women to fornicate with heathens and hippies is it?

good one.
My point it that modern liberalism (as in not the dictionary definition) is defined by pushing for equality, natural and civil freedoms, and tolerance. Elitism is putting one group over another, and thus the opposite of liberalism. The reason I see for the "elitist liberal" thing is that people use liberal interchangeably with democrat and conservative interchangeably with republican instead of what they actually mean. I am liberal, but I am not a democrat (who are often accused of being elitist by republicans who, at the same time, choose one of the elite for their candidate), and disagree with many of the things they have done, or how they have done them. The problem is when people define parties by a definition that incact means either wanting change (liberal), or wanting thing to stay the way they are, or to revert to old ways (conservative).

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

*Sigh* You do realize what liberalism actually is don't you?

My point it that modern liberalism (as in not the dictionary definition) is defined by pushing for equality, natural and civil freedoms, and tolerance. Elitism is putting one group over another, and thus the opposite of liberalism. The reason I see for the "elitist liberal" thing is that people use liberal interchangeably with democrat and conservative interchangeably with republican instead of what they actually mean. I am liberal, but I am not a democrat (who are often accused of being elitist by republicans who, at the same time, choose one of the elite for their candidate), and disagree with many of the things they have done, or how they have done them. The problem is when people define parties by a definition that incact means either wanting change (liberal), or wanting thing to stay the way they are, or to revert to old ways (conservative).

I am using elitist in the manner that the liberals would put the needs, wants, and desires of the disadvantaged or the needs, wants, and desires of the middle and upper-class.

Because, WTF have those rich guys ever done for anyone?

Only start businesses, succeed, and hire people to work for them. You know an honest day of work earning some money to spent on your survival and comfort.

I know it's easy to hate them guys in the rich suburbs and their expensive vehicles and their advantaged offspring.

Yet I see time and again liberal lawyers getting into office on the promise to make those bastards pay. Yet, I have yet to run across a liberal cum politician who employed feth all.

They just want to tax and regulate the wealth away from the wealthy and into the hands of the poor.

Then they turn around and curse the corporation for moving jobs outside of the country.

Well gak, it's clear that their efforts toward industry and job creation is not valued here, so yeah, move them jobs out of the country.

Somebody thinks they are posting coherent well thought out responses.

But all I read is "rage rage rage filthy liberals rage rage cuss word rage rage cuss some more rage rage"...

Somebody is unable to read.

if I could interject a briefly on-topic comment; another federal judge has found the NSA program to be constitutional, setting the stage for a SCOTUS showdown.

Good, we need to spy on people to find out if they are rich enough to steal money from to pay for abortions, Obama-phones, and crack for liberals that are too lazy to work tax...

"Pauley called the NSA's surveillance programs part of the "the government's counterpunch" against the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, which he said happened in part because of a failure to "connect the dots" linking terrorists."

You mean like when Oliver North testified about him (bin Laden) at the Iran-Contra hearings?

Or

When Clinton ignored a CIA missive detailing the threat that bin Laden posed?

Or

When GW receive a memo warning of imminent terrorist attack and didn't both to pass to word to anyone?

Those dots?

SMH

 Ouze wrote:
if I could interject a briefly on-topic comment; another federal judge has found the NSA program to be constitutional, setting the stage for a SCOTUS showdown.

Ultimately, this is the old debate between viewing terrorism as a matter of national security or of law enforcement. Should there be special rules in the post-9/11 age (Patriot Act??) to make it easier for the feds to stop terrorism before it happens? If so, why limit that power to acts of terrorism? Instead of just extending it to other terrible crimes?

My take? I hope the SC strikes down the NSA program.

If this meta-data collection was within the NSA's purview and NOT a 4th Amendment violation why did they need a classified subpoena issued by the secret Patriot Act court?

If it was on the up and up they could have collected the data without a subpoena or at least without seeking a classified subpoena.

The fact that the NSA sought a classified subpoena meant they themselves had questions if not outright doubts about the constitutionality of their actions.

Hence, they sought a classified subpoena under the 4th Amendment violating Patriot Act in the first place.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Then we had the entire Congressional lying game.

The NSA does not collect data!

Er, okay the NSA does collect meta-data!

Um, the NSA did not listen to your phone calls

Well, actually we did. Sorta.

no, we were completely legal we sought a subpoena...no no no...a classified subpoena...We could tell you what was in it but then we would have to kill you.

We had oversight!

Hmmm, not as much oversight as we thought.

You can keep your plan and your doctor!

Unconstitutional!

Constitutional!