A Little Paranoia Is Healthy

Not really...everything goes into tinfoil mode if you discuss it enough, i.e., take it too seriously.

When "responsiblity" is mentioned the pyramid kind of turns upside down.

Thank you.

IMHO:

The problem with not participating in politics is you will be governed by your inferiors.

When all rational thinking voters disappear, or abstain from voting, a demagogue will be elected.

That sucking sound you hear is liberty going down the drain.

Good one. :)

The announcement about PRISM just came out. Basically everything you have done over the internet has been recorded for the last 6 years. The only requirement is that a NSA agent has to believe 51% that you are a foreigner. The Verizon phone records is nothing compared to this.

This is interesting.

First, all these recent revelations have been revealed years ago. I forgot the original name that the defense department used for their program many years ago, something akin to Total Awareness, but it was "dismantled, then renamed to something innocuous sounding. Nothing really changed.

Second, what is being revealed is no doubt, just the tip of the iceberg.

I am sure some of the information is not quite correct, but I also deeply suspect there is far, far more that we have not heard of. Such is the nature of secrete intelligence.

The original name was 'CARNIVORE' (I think). I believe the name it was changed to was DSC 1000 or DSC 6000....something to that effect.

.

You are exactly right, Carnivore is several generations old, and at the time it was already reviewing essentially all email and internet telephony.

.

I also agree that the recent re-disclosure of touchy subjects is interesting. It is worth considering what the other hand is doing while this one is waving the things that will definitely get our attention.

I remembered something like that too. Found it USA Today 2006-05-10

Good work. That was a great read.

The issue with these programs and the agencies that run them is really down to perceived effectiveness versus cost (monetary and liberty).

On one hand the media and governments hype the actual threat to the point where everyone is concerned about terrorism. Certainly, the audacity and spectacular nature of these attacks mesmerize the public's attention.

However, the actual carnage is something much less. More Americans have died from lightning strikes in the last 50 years than terrorism. Yet we do not spend billions of dollars to protect people from electrical storms.

The issue is one of possible worst case scenarios, which again, are blown out of context. Yes, there is the danger of rogue atomic bombs, EMP, or massive cyber attacks, but the effort to pull off such a spectacular event is Herculean and should not require the level of government security that we see today to keep them in check.

It is a case where these organizations must justify their worth. They are a very large boulder rolling down a very slippery slope; hard to stop even if proven ineffective.

The TSA and Homeland Security have had some impact, but again, look at their records for actually averting a crime and compare that with the total cost for the system and you walk away feeling that we are overspending.

Then there is the aphrodisiac of power. It is easy to envision that once you see the promise for stopping crime with larger and larger magnifying glasses that it is tempting to just keep going deeper and deeper into the hole - blurring the lines between protection and privacy. At some point you become all knowing and seeing.

This omnipresence has a price because the arbitrators of such power are only human and each has their scruples as to what is best for the rest of us.

Hitler's minions did not need direct orders from the Furor to commit the crimes to humanity they did. Given the power we always descend into that abyss, which was the exact reason our founding fathers saw the need for checks and balances.

What starts out as good intentions can easily be turned for ill depending on the individuals and the culture of the day. You only need to look at history to see that and the IRS is nothing more than a recent example.

All of this should have us asking is if we are paying too much for so little?

If they were worried about our security why would they make 11million illegal aliens legal instead of deporting them?

Yes, the resources spent on this protection does not line up with the actual danger.

The threat posed by 11 million trespassers who in general do no harm but provide cheap labor and pay (most of) their taxes pales in comparison to that posed by a loose group of actual enemies with access to money. That's even counting the small fraction of illegals who commit violent crimes or work to promote social ills (drugs, etc.).

I'm a little confused as to why the news agencies are acting like this spying is a major revelation, and Washington is pretending that this is a major security leak.

This has been going on for years, and anyone that was paying attention, knew about it. Heck, I think I've mentioned it on here many times.

I know that you know, but I'll reiterate...

Fusion centers are local data collection hubs; they operate outside of congressional oversight, so I think that it would be safe to assume that they are being directed by the executive branch.

http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v24n4/intelligence-fusion-centers.html

The details of our lives are not only being analyzed, but they will be stored:

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/

After January, the government will also have our medical records. I suspect that all of this is behind the big push push for amnesty; in an ironic twist, once they have files built on each and every one of us, the only people that will be enjoying our constitutional right to privacy, will be the people that are here illegally and living in the shadows.

In hindsight, the patriot act never should have been passed, or at least should have had an expiration date. Even as we speak, the definition of terrorist is being morphed into something completely different than was intended:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/07/03/homeland-security-funded-study-lists-people-reverent-of-individual-liberty-as-extreme-right-wing-terrorists/

Unfortunately, in light of recent revelations, it's become clear that we have an administration that is quite willing to use every agency and tool at their disposal, to finish turning the US into a one party socialist state.

Consider this from the context of the media.

This administration is now dealing with four major scandals. Although this really is old news, it acts like the PhD (Piled Higher & Deeper) of news.

The more interest this generates, the more advertising dollars it brings into what is an economically struggling media.

From the administration point of view, this is like the old adage - dilution is the solution to pollution.

It takes the eye and heat off of truly important scandals like Banghazi, State Department sex scandals, DOJ, and more importantly, the IRS scandal.

sensationalizing the medicro will do that....

I am concerned and troubled about some things, one of which I am concern about, is that the platform to get elected by the politician of being and having a transparent administration, only turning out to be the least transparent. With the exception of it's administration's 'leaks', ^{some strategically designed leaks (happens) , more of them incompetentecy.}

I think you mis-read the thread title. A LITTLE Paranoia Is Healthy.

The level of paranoia you show re the current administration was more appropriate 10 years ago, when we had prima facie evidence that people in very powerful positions, insitituting these measures for the first time, were indeed amoral adventurers who gave far less concern about honor and the affairs of "little people" than the current bleeding-heart crop.

But even then, there were enough conscientious people involved that the most damaging infringements on security and freedom (for us and the rest of the world) were tempered. It remains so today. Congress oversees this program, and have place the Judicial Branch in a key role. There will always be prima donna do-gooders like Snowden involved in the system to provide an extra layer of chaotic oversight.

Only if EVERYONE involved has a faulty ethical compass between security and freedom are we in serious trouble.

Al Qaeda ain't dumb. Some of them are very intelligent and impressively crafty. (9/11 took me by surprise, but in retrospect it was almost stupidly simple to pull off.) Right now we can have no doubt they are working to obtain WMD and figure out how to penetrate our new defenses with it. The threat is almost certainly real.

But as AH points out, even a WMD can "only" take out half a city or so, so the proportional level of security we should deploy is far short of a police state.

Only through hystrionics can one portray the current level of surveillance as a police state. At worst, the needle just needs to bend a little one way or the other.

Unfortunately, we're no longer talking about right wing conspiracy theories.

It goes beyond snooping; the IRS was intentionally utilized to target and suppress any group, (and even individuals), that stood in opposition to the current regime, in at least two years leading up to the last election. The EPA and justice department have been used in similar fashion.

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/052313-657569-gibson-guitar-raid-like-tea-party-intimidation.htm?p=full

I'd be happy to find out that I am suffering from unreasonable paranoia, but I could fill pages with factual cases that say otherwise.

My understanding is that the previous administration was no saint with regard to snooping, but the current administration has increased that level of snooping several orders of magnitude.

Personally, I am not so sure that those levels of snooping translate to really making our nation more secure from foreign threats. In other words, I feel that the loss of liberties we are seeing are not worth the so called advantages of security and expose citizens to the potential of significant abuse of rights.

I don't even have a problem with the snooping...if it is only being used for what we were told it would be used for; which is tracking down radical Islamic terrorists, period. Not that I think Bush was an angel, but I don't recall hearing about him using his power to attack left wing groups.

We now know for a fact, that the current administration is using our existing departments, agencies, and technology to thwart political opposition. People should be going to jail.

But as long as we're rifling through everyone's data and records, I think it's time to unseal the president's sealed records; I suspect that they would provide clues that would help explain what we are witnessing.

This is exactly why the founding fathers wanted limited powers and to distribute those powers over three branches.

One leader may have extraordinary power and do good with it, but the next may abuse it.

No matter how good a leader is he should never be granted any power (or the least amount of power required to do the job and no more) that someone else may use adversely.

I think that lesson has been lost on many people.

I don't know if this would be possible, but I'd like to see more input from our judicial branch of government.

Rather than ramming through unconstitutional bills, laws, etc., and waiting for a lawsuit to bring them in front of the supreme court, I would like to see something along the lines of having the supreme court review everything that is introduced by the president or congress, before it is ever voted on, with very strict constitutional guidelines in place.

I think we all might as well face it...the government, as a whole, simply cannot be trusted with the power that we have granted them. What we are watching unfold, is exactly what the founders intended to prevent from happening.

They never promised to limit snooping to radical Islamic groups.

They have mentioned terrorists as a target, but where it the hard and fast legal definition of terrorist?

They have mentioned terrorists as a target, but where it the hard and fast legal definition of terrorist?

That is a good question, and considering the definition of 'Work Place Violence' covers allot of territory. To cross that line into terrorism is way out there.

There is none; as a matter of fact, the definition of terrorist has morphed into including people that show a reverence for the US constitution...which is odd, because the people that are changing rules and definitions, take an oath to defend and uphold the constitution.

We were certainly led to believe, that the war on terrorism was specifically against the radical Islamists that blew up the world trade center, as well as their allies. This is no longer the case.

As I mentioned in my thread about the looming EPA onslaught, the DHS has been re-purposed to battle global warming, as well as destroying political enemies of the current regime... AKA- the new face of terrorism. We were warned in advance about the threat that the Boston marathon bombers posed, and it was ignored. Another aspect of our current line of thinking, is not to defeat radical Islam, but to defeat Islamophobia. I wish I could say it was simply political correctness run amok, but it is much more insidious than that.

If we take a look at the IRS scandal, the AP scandal, the Fast & Furious scandal, and look at the definition of terrorism, the US government seems to fit the bill as a terrorist organization.

ter·ror·ism

/ˈtɛrəˌrɪzəm/ Show Spelled [ter-uh-riz-uhm] Show IPA noun 1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes. 2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization. 3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

I don't remember the exact year, but it seems like it was in the 1980's or early 1990's the government was requiring all telcos to install a chip in all new telephones that would allow surreptitious monitoring of any phone call.They were also required to install a similar chip in their front end equipment.

All the investigating agency had to do was dial the first 6 digits of the number in same area code,and the listening equipment would send a special MTBF tone to the chip in receiver to activate it.It enabled listening even when the receiver was in cradle(hung up). This allowed eavesdropping on any conversation in any room where there was a telephone.

The antidote for this was to pick up your phone and break dial tone by dialing a single number,and not hanging up.You would soon get a load alert beep from the telco,which prevented remote monitoring.(or so I was told by an undisclosed source).

Supposedly,a warrant would be issued to get permission for the actual monitoring, but the chip would enable instantaneous call tracing.This was before cell phones were common.

I am sure the technology is light years ahead of that now.

I don't remember the name of the chip.Can someone help me out with that?

No clue, but my understanding is that technology (or a variant of it) was also installed into cell phones and I assume it still is an active program.

Here is more grist for the mill, as if we needed it:

http://www.infowars.com/what-else-will-the-governments-special-chip-in-your-cellphone-do/

Interesting, but more of a rant than actually real information and it is 2-years old. The idea of forcing cell phones off while moving is not going to fly if there is an emergency (911, or to a doctor etc.)

I rarely use my phone and it stays home most of the time. I'll take it only on occasions that I actually expect to use it.

When cell phones first came out they were a cool got-a-have-it thing. For me that buzz died quite awhile ago and the value of a cell phone has dropped to near zero. It is just another accessory that takes up space in my pocket.

When I think about it, I got along just fine without one before they became popular and I can do just as well without it now if I chose.

Today I finally realized why the lights are so much longer in Florida. It's because many people are texting while the wait for the green. Then it turns green and they have to sign off before they start driving (that's why only 3 or 4 cars can get through the light sometimes), but not before announcing they will be back at the next light.

Infinity transmitter

I am not a prolific phone user.Maybe 20 minutes a month,land line and cell phone combined,but I do not like the idea of being tracked everywhere I go.

I will install a battery disconnect switch on my cell phone, and only turn it on when I need it.

A dry contact relay ahead of my land line,with house side shorted out when not in use ought to stop prying ears.A ring detector circuit can be easily used to allow incoming calls.

Now,with my electrically charged hard hat,insulated shoes,and my Anti-Discombobultor Ray gun,I am ready to go.

Try this on for a n imaginary scenario:

A secret agency needs funds,but cannot go through normal channels,not even the penta. slush fund.

A government satellite launch goes wrong, and the rocket is self-destructed over the Pacific.

It cost hundreds of millions of dollars,all lost in a few seconds.Poof! Now how do we know that there was a real payload on that rocket?It could have been faked.With all the compartmentalization in government agencies,the right hand never knows what the left one is doing.Now there are hundreds of millions of dollars free for use by the secret agency.

Just a thought, about how to hide or disguise funds.Paranoid,yes.

Impossible? No.

Insofar as detecting a lie via telephone, voice stress analysis has been around for over 30 years, and is used by insurance companies when interviewing claimants,which is one reason they record all interviews.

There is also a technology that uses the brain signals to your vocal cords to generate words.No need to speak them out loud,simply think about them and a low level signal goes to the nerves,not enough to activate the muscles, but enough to be amplified and used.A small sensor is placed under the center of your chin,but in due time that will be eliminated,so no one will know you are talking.It currently has applications for the military for use by covert ops to allow soundless communication,but it is coming soon to a dealer near you.

There is concern the students could use it to cheat on exams, but that is the least of our worries.

They already have the ability to reconstruct images that you see from brain waves.It is crude in present form, but it is progressing.

The thought police uniforms have already been made, they are just looking for a few "good "men.*

Reality always lags sci-fi,but sci-fi is always prophetic.

*Definition of good men:Those that will follow orders blindly,without question,like robots,or Hitler's minions.

IMHO; of course, I could be wrong.

Check out this little tid bit"

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/irs-cancels-order-spying-equipment

And others at the same link

While this story isn't really pertinent to the thread, (or maybe it is), in the killing of the Somali pirates, A) I thought it was a little odd that a president would take so much interest in the kill, and B) Obama revealed himself as a micro-manager...nothing happens without his approval.

I'm not going to concern myself with NSA/IRS backlash, but when we look at what is happening on the ground in Egypt, Libya, Turkey and now Syria, it almost looks as if the US is a sponsor of terrorism.

The entire planet is on pins and needles; part of me appreciates the truly historical nature of what we are witnessing, but mostly, I'm scared.

You are giving too much credit to an administration that has little control over the events you describe.

The Mid East is on the track it is on precisely because of the backlash and unforeseen consequences of actions that date back decades.

However, if you want to examine some pivotal events in recent history, Iraq is probably the most significant tipping point in the cycle of chaos we see today.

For quite some time Iraq was the lever that kept Iran in check. The two countries kept each other busy enough to prevent a larger cycle of events from spiraling out of control. When we invaded Iraq the thought was that such a non-secular nation would be relatively easily accepting of democracy.

The problem with that ideology was that the Bush administration and its generals underestimated the Sunni-Shiite time bomb.

Unfortunately, the generals prosecuting the war were not the best generals we had at our disposal and this critical issue of the internal friction between the two groups was overlooked. It wasn't until the end of the Bush term and the beginning of Obama's term that our brightest generals were put into the theater. General Petraeus' surge was the turning point to reversing the downward spiral in Iraq, but it was already too late. Iran had long ago successfully placed its hooks into Iraqi infrastructure and the balance of power that had kept the Mid East in check was lost.

Syria is the only thing that is preventing Iran from its dream of ascending to the dominant power in the Mid East. If Assad falls it will curb Iran's aspirations, but not without blowback.

All of this may seem to you to be controlled by some puppet master in the West, but it is absolutely not. Obama's foreign policy is to tread lightly or not at all. It is his belief that the U.S. should remain on the sidelines and let matters take their course with a hands off approach.

There is some merit in this, but it is just as foolish to become geopolitically xenophobic as it is to be the world's unilateral cop.

At this point the Mid East is simply out of control. There is no way for any power to reign in what is unfolding. There are simply too many conflicting external powers using the Mid East to further their own agenda to steer the future of the Mid East. There are also way too many extraneous forces driving chaos into the mix. The latest factor is Ethiopia's Nile river dam project that is threatening military action by Egypt. Such events are seemingly unconnected to the Mid East, but have potential to suddenly change the geopolitical dynamics of the region.

However, the place to watch is Syria and the U.S. response. Unfortunately, Obama blundered by casting his "Red Line" in the sand. It was almost a dare and it appears it is forcing the U.S. into a loose-loose situation where it may have been better to divest ourselves of the situation or use/support other regional powers to achieve stability.

There appears to be no win here. Either side's victory will put the Mid East in a worse position than it was before the Arab Spring (which I see as a decisively negative player in the Mid East, contrary to what this administration hailed it as). The problem really is to accurately determine which outcome is the lessor of the two evils and try to guide events along that course. However, as we have seen all through history that path is often corrupted before it can be executed and things turn out much different than originally penned.

The whole point is, while it may be tempting to think that one external power or another is skillfully sculpting the geopolitical future of a region, the real fact is that no one power past or present has that omnipotent ability to shape the future.

Many have tried, but have found it a bitter, bitter lesson.

No, I certainly wasn't giving full credit to the administration...it's the nudges that concern me.

The illegal commitment of US troops in Libya, the arming and financing of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt,(as they shift to sharia law), the decision to arm the Syrian rebels, (which are likely comprised of Muslim Brotherhood Jihadists), and just within the last couple of weeks, we had promised to help Israel build a top secret military installation, and the Obama administration released all the details in an open bid format; needless to say, they are aghast.

So while we don't deserve all of the credit for the turmoil in the mid east, I think that the things that we have done have added to the general instability.

I think you will find those same traits in every administration.

We all have our favorites, but if you take an unbiased look you find that they are all guilty from blunders of one kind or another.

Despite all of the missteps, and there will be more, the good news is that we are refocusing our attention to southeast Asia after a long lapse.

I think the Mid East is going to go where it is going regardless of what anyone does, so disengaging from that region is not necessarily a bad thing.

Agreed, and I'm not excusing the republicans by any stretch.

Oil is no longer a valid reason for us to be involved in the mid east...I think we should leave those people alone and let them kill each other. While I disagree with the hard core libertarian stance of complete disengagement, I think that our meddling has done more harm than good in the long run. I always think it's a bad idea to provide arms to anyone over there; it seems to come back and bite us every time.

It will be interesting to watch what unfolds in Iraq; I believe I read that the Chinese are developing the oil fields. Nobody seems to be interested in messing with them, and I think they may be able to bring some economic stability. At any rate, I told my sister to hold on to the piles of Dinar that she got talked into buying.

Personally, I think the way to win the war against Islamic terrorism, is to convince the women that they don't have to live through a lifetime of abuse.

"Personally, I think the way to win the war against Islamic terrorism, is to convince the women that they don't have to live through a lifetime of abuse."

THAT is the most positive suggestion I've heard regarding the entire Region! To do so clearly includes communication and education.

Thanks. It's already happening in America. Muslim women are realizing, that as humans, they have rights here.

Now if we can just get our federal judges to stop bastardizing our constitution, and allowing Sharia law to trump personal freedom. Religious freedom does not include stomping on the constitutional rights of another individual...married or not.

I have to agree that is a very reasonable, if aid is to be giving, some may be counseling (such as education) or support (protection) to the women of the area.

The big question is...Why are our friends on the left side of the spectrum, completely silent about this abhorrent abuse?

I would really like to know the answer to that. It's one that I can't figure out on my own.

Happy, well treated women, will raise men that are civilized. It's just that simple.

As far as the OP; camera lenses and technology are no more evil than guns...it's how they are used. Good people must always triumph over bad people...or we are doomed.

Of course the lenses themselves are not the problem, it is their use and abuse that can be the problem,same as guns.Any inanimate object per se is not dangerous.Information is being stored, and for an indefinite period of time.Even if it is presently harmless,who knows what future use may be made of it by future officials that may have harmful intent?

You are correct about the women."The hand that rocks the cradle is the hand that rules the world."

From a poem by William Ross Wallace

I tend to get myself worked into a frenzy over the theft of our freedom...if we tell them to stop it, they will stop.

This divide and conquer crap, from our own government, ain't cutting it. We are all different, we are free people, and we will do what is necessary to keep it that way.

Republican, democrat, independent, libertarian...whatever; they work for us. WE are the bosses. They will do what we tell them to do. Period.

The massive chasms that exist between black and white, left and right....are pretend. They don't exist. I'm willing to fight to prove it. My government must now prove to me, that it is worthy of my trust...kinda like IRS regulations.

Government workers are their own bosses as well. They don't sign away their personal freedoms when they accept government positions.

They will also do what they want to do, whether or not it is within the legal framework. Even so, the framework has a lot of wiggle room.

You could even look at it this way: 20%-25% of a government worker's salary is paid by themselves. Add in their significant other and that's 50%...one more kid making income...a majority...if all in the same frame of mind. Who do they work for?

neat...

Never had a problem with government workers Pete; it's the people in the leadership positions.

Matter of fact, we are going to have to depend on the workers to continue blowing the whistle on the corruption that's coming from the top.

I agree with "whistleblowing" to a certain extent, but contacting a foreign-held newspaper and blowing to a Communist country reeks of traitorous behavior.

That knucklehead NSA contractor should have know that "whistleblowing" is easy to do in the gov't with the OPM, IG, etc. I know in my gut that his intentions are not warm and fuzzy towards the U.S.

At least Julian Assange is up front about his recruiting tactics.

There are many avenues that a gov't worker (contractor or not...anyone in the building) can utilize...stealing documents and spilling to foreign powers not being one of them.

I don't know what to think of that guy. I read this morning that he lied on his job application, and shouldn't have even been working there. That's not good either, if the government isn't even bothering to check the applications of people that will be dealing with sensitive information. He definitely shouldn't be running to foreign governments.

I'm more concerned with the IRS mess, as well as the secret targeting of reporters and their families. I've assumed for years that our emails and other electronic communications were being monitored.

Yeah, this whole FISA (F=Foreign) courst system smells suspiciously like that shadow gov't stuff. More fodder for another Nick Cage movie I guess.

The way I look at it all is that the whole system does more good than harm...much more. I have already offered up a small portion of my privacy by swearing to serve and uphold and all of that.

The biggest part that kills me is that a lot of these jokers who call themselves whistlblowers and whatnot bypass the systems put into place wholly. Every person in gov't service signed a pledge, swore an oath, and stated they would not divulge any information.

How they get away with this crap is beyond me. Then, the public views them as Robin Hoods...yeesh.

To be properly labeled a whistleblower, there should/must be fraud, waste, abuse or criminality exposed. By this definition, I don't consider Snowden to be worthy of the term "whistleblower." Give him a little credit for lighting a fire under the security:privacy debate, but yeah he broke his word and the law.

" Every person in gov't service signed a pledge, swore an oath, and stated they would not divulge any information."

I have a problem with that, when the IRS is used to bring the hammer down on political opposition to the current administration, and influence election outcomes.

Fast and Furious? Sorry, I don't believe that all of the lies and cover-ups are tied to national security. We can't give government the green light to break the law and ignore the constitution.

You have a problem with swearing an oath in general, or being locked into not divulging information?

We have many layers of alternatives available to in the gov't sector. Whether you are a Post Office worker, member of the military, civil service, whatever...

Any one of those alternatives does not include a caveat that we can spill to a foreign-held media source and flee the country and then hop from threat-nation to threat-nation.

Funny thing is, a lot of Nazis ended up in Ecuador, too. There is a rather disturbing trend of Neo-Nazism there, too.

What's is Snowden's race again? Julian Assange's?

I don't have a problem with swearing an oath, but I do have a problem with government breaking the law.

Given that the president and congress take oaths to defend and uphold the constitution, my guess is, that oaths don't mean much in Washington.

The big question is...Why are our friends on the left side of the spectrum, completely silent about this abhorrent abuse?

If a tree falls in the forest and you're not there to witness it, do you assert that it didn't fall? If you spent time on DailyKos or HuffingtonPost, I think you'd see the issue of women in Islam talked about. It might be partially overcome by recognition and discussion of the larger problems of whole populations being subjected to dictatorships, fundamentalism, genocide or anarchy.

I think TMZ (celebrity news website) is where a large portion of the population gets their news.

And how is TMZ different from any other viewer ratings hungry news network?

All of the their news is entertainment. Kardashian and Kayne, Beiber etc. The other networks have at least some world news. I think most people don't even know national or world news.

Well the other so called news, really isn't news if they don't ask tough questions, or do any indepth digging for actually facts...... IMO

Yeah, I am so glad that Anderson Cooper, Rush Limbaugh, Jon Stewart, and Dennis Miller are looking out for my best interests.

I sleep much more soundly knowing that.

</sarcasm>

What do entertainers have to do with the news?

</more sarcasm>

There was a time in my life that I couldn't stand the sound of Limaugh's voice, and I thought that Glenn Beck was a complete nut job...now I have to listen to them just to get a clue about what's going on. There's no such thing as news or journalism anymore. I'm sure Nixon is rolling in his grave. By today's standards...nothing happened.

There is a lot of intelligent disscusion on this thread, but it is frustrating to read. Months ago, I stumbled across a video that covers much of what is being discussed here. I've mentioned it several times on different threads and have been told it's 'conspiracy theory' referenced to the removal by 'wikipedia' and 'google'. I foune the early version at 'archive.org' under 'thrive 1 1 1' . Then I watched it again at 'thrive.com' They ask for a donation of $25 on the initial page and I was told by a CR4 member a site that asks for a donation is a scam. This video can be watched for free in 22 languages. The active members have grown to 2 million + around the world...many with the same concerns as Kamarat. It discusses what has causeed and continues to cause corruption of our and other governments. I have asked others to watch it and tell me what they think. I have yet to get a response from anyone who has watched it. Is there an intelligent person on CR4 who will watch it and give me an intelligent critique? Or is everyone just going to bitch about what is until it's to late to make a difference?

"Or is everyone just going to bitch about what is until it's to late to make a difference?"

My watching it is not going to make a difference, so I will just pass.

The problem is that so many people really just don't care. So videos that are true or propaganda will not change people's hearts and minds because people will not change their own consciousness.

All these videos and shows do is feed a small sector of the population's insatiable vacuous apatite for drama.

More people in the US have died from lightning strikes in the past 50 years than have died from terrorism. However, do you see a public outcry to get the government to spend $47 billion per year (Homeland Security's annual budget) to protect us from lightning strikes?

That should tell you that the majority of people in this country have lost all perspective on reality. You really think some conspiracy video is going to change that?

The best people to watch, is the government themselves. They are still lying to us.

For anyone that's been paying attention, there were no big revelations made by this guy that's exposing the data collection....they're just mad that it's now common knowledge.

They are in the process of building what's probably the largest data storage facility on the planet, in Utah. This is from 2012, and says the same thing:

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/

I don't think that any intelligent person would believe that terrorist threats are coming in at a rate that would justify this type of "storage" facility. Combined with the ongoing "scandals", I think we all have a good reason to worry.

It's like J Edgar Hoover never died, and just continued amassing information into the digital age. He would be proud.

I shudder to think that these people will be running our healthcare.

YOO HOO! I SEE YOU!

Check out this link for high resolution....

http://www.gigapixel.com/image/gigapan-canucks-g7.html

so, if these types of facilities were so well know that they appeared in print and digital formats available world-wide...why do American spies feel that they need to release the classified details to unfriendly governments?

money

</rhetorical_q>

It certainly wasn't freedom.

Hey, look! Co-joined twins. :)