So Not Pc...

[Attactivist]

Come on reps, was this really necessary?

[HalfOfNothing]

Probably not, but then again how much of what any political comic publishes necessary?

[Madferit]

I lol'd. Sad but true.

[SEXY-FETUS]

You see. The republicans are more likely to ignore PC and in aot of cases, try as hard as they can to be as un pc as possible.
I know I do.

[cellardoor6]

It makes a point.

It's absolutely absurd when people put what they think is their own privacy above the lives of other people. First off, there privacy wasn't even really violated anyway because only people who contacted known terrorists had their calls listened to, normal everyday people weren't listened to. Secondly even if that was true, it's stupid to intentionally handicap our ability to prevent terrorist attacks just because some mindless liberals pictured George Bush is sitting in the oval office with headphones on, listening to them talking on the phone.

[Musician]

At 12/17/07 12:47 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: It makes a point.

It's absolutely absurd when people put what they think is their own privacy above the lives of other people. First off, there privacy wasn't even really violated anyway because only people who contacted known terrorists had their calls listened to, normal everyday people weren't listened to. Secondly even if that was true, it's stupid to intentionally handicap our ability to prevent terrorist attacks just because some mindless liberals pictured George Bush is sitting in the oval office with headphones on, listening to them talking on the phone.

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both. " - Benjamin Franklin

[cellardoor6]

At 12/17/07 01:11 AM, Musician wrote: "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both. " - Benjamin Franklin

"Any body who would willingly squander the ability to prevent a terrorist attack just because they want to have something to complain about Bush over is a fucking moron. Security > politics, especially when the security doesn't ACTUALLY take away anyone's liberty."
- yourmom

[Musician]

At 12/17/07 01:21 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 12/17/07 01:11 AM, Musician wrote: "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both. " - Benjamin Franklin

"Any body who would willingly squander the ability to prevent a terrorist attack just because they want to have something to complain about Bush over is a fucking moron. Security > politics, especially when the security doesn't ACTUALLY take away anyone's liberty."
- yourmom

In allowing the NSA to tap our phone calls we give up our privacy thus giving up some of our freedom and thus giving up some of our liberty.

[cellardoor6]

At 12/17/07 01:26 AM, Musician wrote:

At 12/17/07 01:21 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 12/17/07 01:11 AM, Musician wrote: "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both. " - Benjamin Franklin

"Any body who would willingly squander the ability to prevent a terrorist attack just because they want to have something to complain about Bush over is a fucking moron. Security > politics, especially when the security doesn't ACTUALLY take away anyone's liberty."
- yourmom

In allowing the NSA to tap our phone calls we give up our privacy thus giving up some of our freedom and thus giving up some of our liberty.

No, allowing the government to collect a database and listen to phone calls when there is probable cause that someone in the US has contacted terrorists or is conducting terrorist activity is called security. The only people whose privacy, freedom, or liberty would be taken away in the process would be people who have no business doing what they are doing in the first place.

You realize that your phone can be taped if you are engaged in criminal activity already? Police can do that in their jurisdiction. Therefore it's pretty stupid to suggest the government can't do it at the national level when the goal is to break up terrorist activity and the people whose phone calls would be listened to would be suspected terrorists.

[Sajberhippien]

At 12/17/07 01:30 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

No, allowing the government to collect a database and listen to phone calls when there is probable cause that someone in the US has contacted terrorists or is conducting terrorist activity is called security.

You DO realize that about any non-governmental political organization can be considered "terrorists", right?
Like *hrm* the ANTI-WAR peace organization Food Not Bombs. That is Food NOT Bombs, not Food with a Bomb in it.

http://www.commondreams.org/news2006/033 0-05.htm
http://www.ntimc.org/newswire.php?story_
id=3874

[Proteas]

At 12/17/07 01:26 AM, Musician wrote: In allowing the NSA to tap our phone calls we give up our privacy thus giving up some of our freedom and thus giving up some of our liberty.

Sitting there bitching about how the government should have done more to prevent 9/11, then bitching about how they went about assuring that it wouldn't happen AGAIN is neither logical, nor fair. Just like how whipping out that quote as if it were the be-all-end-all argument-ender isn't logical or fair, because you're allowing the quote to formulate and fight your argument for you... I mean, you just can't argue with ol' Ben Franklin, now can you?

[Elfer]

I don't get this comic. Are the people exasperated that NSA was tracking their phone calls, but failed to prevent 9/11? This whole thing is a weird anachronism!

Anyway, the attitude of "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" attitude is A) Creepy and B) Not always true.

[PantyWipe]

At 12/17/07 01:11 AM, Musician wrote: "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both. " - Benjamin Franklin

Yea but also take into consideration that Benjamin Franklin was talking about english soldiers that had to come over here by a month long boat ride and shoot guns that took 8 minutes to load after each shot.

He prolly never imagined in his wildest dreams Hali Babi flying an airplane at 500mph into our women and children.

fuck dude if it saved the life of one American, the feds can listen to every single time I buy drugs over the phone.

[Proteas]

At 12/17/07 02:05 PM, Elfer wrote: I don't get this comic. Are the people exasperated that NSA was tracking their phone calls, but failed to prevent 9/11? This whole thing is a weird anachronism!

What I don't get is how old this comic is supposed to be. Political cartoons are usually topical and up-to-date, I can't even find this damn thing on Ramirez' page on the Investor's Business Daily site for the last year of his work.

I did however find one from May of this year that was somewhat appropriate for this topic, seeing as how we're talking about 9/11. Just because a political cartoon is -- surprise surprise -- politically incorrect, doesn't mean it can't have a POINT.

[Splintered]

At 12/17/07 12:47 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: It makes a point.

It's absolutely absurd when people put what they think is their own privacy above the lives of other people. First off, there privacy wasn't even really violated anyway because only people who contacted known terrorists had their calls listened to, normal everyday people weren't listened to. Secondly even if that was true, it's stupid to intentionally handicap our ability to prevent terrorist attacks just because some mindless liberals pictured George Bush is sitting in the oval office with headphones on, listening to them talking on the phone.

Actually, I'd like to make a factual correction here.

The NSA have been collecting the conversations of every day people through the NSA Domestic Spying Program.

Not only that, but Internet traffic was intercepted.

[Empanado]

Well I don't really have a reason to meddle in this issue, but I'll just say this: People don't want their phones tpped or their Internet history spied on because they don't want anybody to know about THEIR SECRET PORN AND/OR PHONE SEX. They don't want people to listen to them ordering extra-small condoms over the phone or hiring an exotic escort who looks just like Ronald Reagan. So when someone says "you've got nothing to hide so you've got nothing to fear" is a lie. They've got something to hide alright, as we all do. The fact that it's probably nothing illegal doesn't make it okay for anybody to spy on it.
Furthermore, this definition of "known terrorists" seems pretty fishy. Even if there was an effective way of branding people as terrorists, a well-trained terrorist doesn't go around discussing anything on the phone. They use the phone to order pizzas, to call their girlfriends, to call in sick to work, to say hello to their children when they're away on a business trip, etc.
So in the end you'll have a bunch of records of the pizza guy's furry convention, some girl being a slut, some bald guy with glasses spending a thousand bucks on fat hookers, etc. It doesn't matter if the people listening to it re your stereotypical agents with a stone-cold look and sunglasses.

Terrorism is evil, but phone tapping is worse than evil, it's creepy.

[Attactivist]

What upsets me about this cartoon it that the publishers are trying to push their own agenda by useing 9/11 to back up their position. This has nothing to do with Bush. Maybe you should stop comeing up with creative ways to insult libs and accually say something meaningfull rather then half-assed.

[Musician]

At 12/17/07 01:30 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: No, allowing the government to collect a database and listen to phone calls when there is probable cause that someone in the US has contacted terrorists or is conducting terrorist activity is called security. The only people whose privacy, freedom, or liberty would be taken away in the process would be people who have no business doing what they are doing in the first place.

You realize that your phone can be taped if you are engaged in criminal activity already? Police can do that in their jurisdiction. Therefore it's pretty stupid to suggest the government can't do it at the national level when the goal is to break up terrorist activity and the people whose phone calls would be listened to would be suspected terrorists.

The NSA should have to go through the normal procedure of receiving a warrant if they want to spy on someones phone calls. Allowing wire tapping on anyone who is a "suspected terrorist" has far too much potential for abuse.

[cellardoor6]

At 12/17/07 07:17 PM, Musician wrote:

The NSA should have to go through the normal procedure of receiving a warrant if they want to spy on someones phone calls. Allowing wire tapping on anyone who is a "suspected terrorist" has far too much potential for abuse.

Nope, because the nature of the situation is not served by the current warrant system. You're talking about terrorist attacks, and terrorist cells which move quickly and act quickly. If the US had to wait for a warrant, the window of opportunity would be lost.

This isn't a nation we're fighting. The old rules that were designed for when conducting survellance on Soviets spies do not work today. The Soviets weren't plotting terrorist attacks, they were trying to attain information over protracted periods of time and therefore it was reasonable to wait for a warrant to go through every time a phone call was tapped and so forth, because those people would be caught anyway.

Today, the whole dynamic is different. The NSA system didn't just listen to random people, it created a database of patterns, and started traces when certain patterns of words were used, or when numbers between known terrorists were contacted by, or contacted people in the US. In order to move quickly, the warrant system that is used for spying on typical criminals, or Soviets spies, would not work.

[Splintered]

Nope, because the nature of the situation is not served by the current warrant system. You're talking about terrorist attacks, and terrorist cells which move quickly and act quickly. If the US had to wait for a warrant, the window of opportunity would be lost.

Then what makes you so certain taking the time to tap phones will not also erase this window of opportunity?

[SmilezRoyale]

I've seen much worse non-PC junk from leftists.

http://www.allhatnocattle.net/AuntJemima .jpg

They're connecting race and ideology, and calling the first African American woman of her positition a rather derogatory 'black' oriented term.

I love Open minded liberals, really i do, but only when they are open minded :D

________________________________________
________________________________________
____________

I personally don't mind being wiretapped; The government doesn't have time to waste wire tapping my calls, listening to my conversations, and then laughing about it with their friends.

If you fear the risk of people 'spying' on you're guilty behaviors consider that almost all of your information is readily available on the internet [if you do enough snooping]

[cellardoor6]

At 12/17/07 09:16 PM, Splintered wrote:

Nope, because the nature of the situation is not served by the current warrant system. You're talking about terrorist attacks, and terrorist cells which move quickly and act quickly. If the US had to wait for a warrant, the window of opportunity would be lost.

Then what makes you so certain taking the time to tap phones will not also erase this window of opportunity?

Lol what? Tapping a phone doesn't waste time, it is the purpose of using time correctly.

Tapping the phones will allow them to get information which can be used to thwart an attack, and if the info gathered from the tapped phone is actionable, they could send in people to detain people or prevent an attack at the same time.

[LordJaric]

At 12/17/07 03:25 PM, Empanado wrote: Terrorism is evil, but phone tapping is worse than evil, it's creepy.

You are assumeing that the government is going to keep that kind of useless information.

[Splintered]

As someone who has done a LOT of work in the security field, I can tell you that tapping a phone, or breaking an encryption can take weeks. So does knowing which phone to tap.

Since we're moving in to the digital age, let's use Voice-Over-IP as an example. Say you have two clients using Skype. Skype already has built in AES encryption. Say that they run their Skype over a mutually agreed upon TLS encryption, and the TLS encryption uses RSA with a 4096-bit key. (None of the software needs to be purchased, keep in mind).

TLS encryption with RSA 4068 can't be factorized in under a week. Anyone who uses a key under 2048 is an idiot. Skype's built in encryption isn't as advanced, but it uses AES and I believe it's in 256. That can take days depending on how fast your computers are.

Having an open Wi-Fi spot makes your job even worse of a nightmare, because anyone can set up an account anonymously.

Using disposable phones makes the problem even worse. Who is to say someone doesn't buy a prepaid, and then throw it out?

Tapping a phone can take a LOT of time. If you have the time to tap a phone, you have the time to visit a courthouse and get a warrant.

[Musician]

At 12/17/07 09:12 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: Nope, because the nature of the situation is not served by the current warrant system. You're talking about terrorist attacks, and terrorist cells which move quickly and act quickly. If the US had to wait for a warrant, the window of opportunity would be lost.

This isn't a nation we're fighting. The old rules that were designed for when conducting survellance on Soviets spies do not work today. The Soviets weren't plotting terrorist attacks, they were trying to attain information over protracted periods of time and therefore it was reasonable to wait for a warrant to go through every time a phone call was tapped and so forth, because those people would be caught anyway.

Today, the whole dynamic is different. The NSA system didn't just listen to random people, it created a database of patterns, and started traces when certain patterns of words were used, or when numbers between known terrorists were contacted by, or contacted people in the US. In order to move quickly, the warrant system that is used for spying on typical criminals, or Soviets spies, would not work.

blah blah government propaganda, we heard it all during the cold war. Our system is like it is for a reason, it's designed to protect our rights. Throwing a person's rights out the window just because they are a "suspected terrorist" is a load of horse shit. If the government wants to spy on a particular citizen they better be able to present a significant amount of evidence to prove that this citizen is indeed a threat.

[cellardoor6]

At 12/17/07 10:16 PM, Musician wrote:

At 12/17/07 09:12 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: Nope, because the nature of the situation is not served by the current warrant system. You're talking about terrorist attacks, and terrorist cells which move quickly and act quickly. If the US had to wait for a warrant, the window of opportunity would be lost.

This isn't a nation we're fighting. The old rules that were designed for when conducting survellance on Soviets spies do not work today. The Soviets weren't plotting terrorist attacks, they were trying to attain information over protracted periods of time and therefore it was reasonable to wait for a warrant to go through every time a phone call was tapped and so forth, because those people would be caught anyway.

Today, the whole dynamic is different. The NSA system didn't just listen to random people, it created a database of patterns, and started traces when certain patterns of words were used, or when numbers between known terrorists were contacted by, or contacted people in the US. In order to move quickly, the warrant system that is used for spying on typical criminals, or Soviets spies, would not work.

blah blah government propaganda, we heard it all during the cold war. Our system is like it is for a reason, it's designed to protect our rights. Throwing a person's rights out the window just because they are a "suspected terrorist" is a load of horse shit. If the government wants to spy on a particular citizen they better be able to present a significant amount of evidence to prove that this citizen is indeed a threat.

Blah blah blah uneducated liberal propaganda. We heard it all durin the 60's.

We get it, liberals don't care about rights unless they want to exploit peoples emotions for political purposes.

Liberals don't care if they violate the 2nd amendment. They don't care if their policies call for the government to increase its power and its influence in the lives of Americans.

But when a program is developed to root out terrorists or terrorist corroborators in the US, they shit a brick and pretend like George Bush wants to listen to their phone conversations with their similarly idiotic liberal friends.

Nevermind, you know... the fact that program was designed to protect people's lives, and the only people whose "rights" were taken away were people who contacted terrorists, or were contacted by terrorists and conducted terrorist activity.

[RedDreadSky]

It's like this: We want thing that clash with each other. We want more security, so we don't get bombed. We also want more privacy. So basically, we want the government to do more, with less. Pretty stupid.

[Musician]

At 12/17/07 10:32 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: Blah blah blah uneducated liberal propaganda. We heard it all durin the 60's.

We get it, liberals don't care about rights unless they want to exploit peoples emotions for political purposes.

Liberals don't care if they violate the 2nd amendment. They don't care if their policies call for the government to increase its power and its influence in the lives of Americans.

But when a program is developed to root out terrorists or terrorist corroborators in the US, they shit a brick and pretend like George Bush wants to listen to their phone conversations with their similarly idiotic liberal friends.

Nevermind, you know... the fact that program was designed to protect people's lives, and the only people whose "rights" were taken away were people who contacted terrorists, or were contacted by terrorists and conducted terrorist activity.

speaking of emotional exploitation, lets talk about the way 9/11 has been used despicably by conservatives to push laws like these. This system was created to protect people? funny because it blows due process to bits. I think it does much more harm than good, and I also believe the prevention of terrorist attacks can be accomplished without violating our rights. And even if it isn't possible, should we lower ourselves to their level? Loopholes like "suspected terrorists" will be the downfall of our democracy.

[cellardoor6]

At 12/17/07 11:00 PM, Musician wrote:

At 12/17/07 10:32 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: Blah blah blah uneducated liberal propaganda. We heard it all durin the 60's.

We get it, liberals don't care about rights unless they want to exploit peoples emotions for political purposes.

Liberals don't care if they violate the 2nd amendment. They don't care if their policies call for the government to increase its power and its influence in the lives of Americans.

But when a program is developed to root out terrorists or terrorist corroborators in the US, they shit a brick and pretend like George Bush wants to listen to their phone conversations with their similarly idiotic liberal friends.

Nevermind, you know... the fact that program was designed to protect people's lives, and the only people whose "rights" were taken away were people who contacted terrorists, or were contacted by terrorists and conducted terrorist activity.

speaking of emotional exploitation, lets talk about the way 9/11

Yes, in which Americans ACTUALLY died, and ACTUALLY had their rights taken away in which their lives were ended by foreign attackers.

That's a REAL issue.

has been used despicably by conservatives to push laws like these.

You mean an ACTUAL event was addressed by people who ACTUALLY care, and therefore they decided to pass defensive measures to prevent similar attacks in the future?

Got it.

This system was created to protect people? funny because it blows due process to bits.

Nope. It was designed to avoid time-consuming measures that would obstruct its ability to detect and break up terrorist activity.

The only people whose right to due process was taken away were people who would conspire with terrorists.

I think it does much more harm than good

That's because you're a brainwashed liberal and you're weak minded enough to swallow the propaganda that suggests George BUsh wants to listen to you while you talk on the phone about whatever it is you talk about.

The only people who should believe it does more harm than good are people who have something to hide, or... are like you... woefully vulnerable to the whims of liberals.

and I also believe the prevention of terrorist attacks can be accomplished without violating our rights.

Nobody's rights were violated by the domestic wire tapping. Probable cause allowed people's phone calls to be listened to, the only people whose rights were violated are those who either conspired with terrorists, or had incredibly peculiar and suspicious behavior.

And even if it isn't possible, should we lower ourselves to their level?

That's not lowering ourselves to anyone's level, it's called doing what is necessary, and in the process... NOT actually violating people's rights.

Loopholes like "suspected terrorists" will be the downfall of our democracy.

Idiotic liberals who like to keep their head in the sand and care more about their political power than they do about the wellbeing of their country will be the downfall of our democracy.

[Musician]

At 12/17/07 11:31 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: Yes, in which Americans ACTUALLY died, and ACTUALLY had their rights taken away in which their lives were ended by foreign attackers.

That's a REAL issue.

It's not an issue, it WAS an event, a tragic one. It's also an issue that conservatives continue to use to push their own agenda.

has been used despicably by conservatives to push laws like these.

You mean an ACTUAL event was addressed by people who ACTUALLY care, and therefore they decided to pass defensive measures to prevent similar attacks in the future?

Got it.

measures that destroy the basic rights of American citizens.

This system was created to protect people? funny because it blows due process to bits.

Nope. It was designed to avoid time-consuming measures that would obstruct its ability to detect and break up terrorist activity.

By your logic, we shouldn't even be giving these "suspected terrorists" trials, after all, a trial is a "time consuming" process. We have this procedures for a reason.

The only people whose right to due process was taken away were people who would conspire with terrorists.

wrong, it's people who are "suspected terrorists". The potential for abuse is astounding.

I think it does much more harm than good

That's because you're a brainwashed liberal and you're weak minded enough to swallow the propaganda that suggests George BUsh wants to listen to you while you talk on the phone about whatever it is you talk about.

Or maybe it's because I believe in preserving our rights, even if it means sacrificing some superficial security.

The only people who should believe it does more harm than good are people who have something to hide, or... are like you... woefully vulnerable to the whims of liberals.

shitty logic: "if you don't have anything to hide then you shouldn't mind wiretaps"

seriously , just because you don't value the right to privacy doesn't mean everyone does. This doesn't justify breaking that right.

and I also believe the prevention of terrorist attacks can be accomplished without violating our rights.

Nobody's rights were violated by the domestic wire tapping.

Wrong

Probable cause

You're an idiot. it takes more than probable cause to place a wiretap on somebodies phone (atleast pre-patriot act, but that's what we're debating). once again you're caught talking about something you know nothing about.

only people whose rights were violated are those who either conspired with terrorists, or had incredibly peculiar and suspicious behavior.

How do you know that if the government isn't even forced to submit any real evidence before tapping a phone? Answer: you don't. You have no idea whether or not these people really conspired with terrorists or if they just recieved a phone call from someone at Food Not Bombs.

And even if it isn't possible, should we lower ourselves to their level?

That's not lowering ourselves to anyone's level, it's called doing what is necessary, and in the process... NOT actually violating people's rights.

Yes it is.

Loopholes like "suspected terrorists" will be the downfall of our democracy.

Idiotic liberals who like to keep their head in the sand and care more about their political power than they do about the wellbeing of their country will be the downfall of our democracy.

Jesus you're a basket case. I'm not a politician, I have no agenda, and believe or not I actually base my opinion off of facts, NOT off of an undying hatred for liberals <-- you.