With dem backing, house passes NSA spying bill

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
8,542
Reaction score
331
Points
83
Disgusting. If I had a Democratic rep, I'd be furious. I'm not furious at Eric Paulsen because he's a sycophant who does whatever Paul Ryan tells him.

Pelosi, Schiff, et al should be ashamed of themselves.
 

diehard

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
31,597
Reaction score
35
Points
48
It is OK for you to know this wasn't a renewal of FISA. It was only section 702 and the Intercept link incorrectly described what happened. It's okay, you've never had the facts. justthefakenews.
 

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
8,542
Reaction score
331
Points
83
It is OK for you to know this wasn't a renewal of FISA. It was only section 702 and the Intercept link incorrectly described what happened. It's okay, you've never had the facts. justthefakenews.
The acronym FISA:

- Appears 0 times in Minnesota's post
- Appears 0 times in The Intercept article
- Appears 0 times in my post

The bill also consolidates the FBI’s legal authority to search those communications without a warrant. Under current rules, the NSA shares certain kinds of information it collects under Section 702 with the FBI, whose agents can then search it in the course of investigating crimes unrelated to national security. In a secret court hearing in 2015, a lawyer for the Justice Department compared the frequency of those searches to the use of Google.
On Thursday, the House failed to pass an amendment to the bill offered by Rep. Justin Amash, R.-Mich., which would have required federal law enforcement agents to get a warrant before searching NSA data for information on Americans. The amendment was defeated 183-233, with 125 Democrats voting for it and 55 Democrats against, including Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif..
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
40,475
Reaction score
1,272
Points
113
Disappointing. And good on Rand Paul for being the only one to have a fit about it.
 

diehard

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
31,597
Reaction score
35
Points
48
I triple dog dare you to, just this one time, actually make a substantive argument. What did the Intercept get wrong?
It is totally pointless to explain things to people incapable of comprehending the facts. You've proven in this thread you have no idea what 702 is. No idea.
 

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
8,542
Reaction score
331
Points
83
The sad part is that this thread could have easily been a non-partisan discussion. There are plenty of Republicans who supported the Amash amendment. At one point in time Republicans fancied themselves the party of limited government and protection of individual rights. But diehard is incapable of actually discussing the substance of an issue and must resort to name-calling and insults to overcome what is apparently a massive degree of insecurity. And thus, like so many before, the thread is ruined.

Admit it: the President, after a couple of hours in which he was confused on his own position, the President's opinion was that the bill should pass without the amendment. At that point, no further understanding or discussion was necessary for those who adhere to his every command.
 

diehard

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
31,597
Reaction score
35
Points
48
The sad part is that this thread could have easily been a non-partisan discussion. There are plenty of Republicans who supported the Amash amendment. At one point in time Republicans fancied themselves the party of limited government and protection of individual rights. But diehard is incapable of actually discussing the substance of an issue and must resort to name-calling and insults to overcome what is apparently a massive degree of insecurity. And thus, like so many before, the thread is ruined.

Admit it: the President, after a couple of hours in which he was confused on his own position, the President's opinion was that the bill should pass without the amendment. At that point, no further understanding or discussion was necessary for those who adhere to his every command.
The OP ruined this thread. You are a moron.
 

Minnesota

Active member
Joined
Jul 2, 2017
Messages
664
Reaction score
49
Points
28
The OP is a link to an article.
He’s sensitive because I routinely own him. He won’t refute the article because he’s a chud with a blind reverence for Trump and he craves an authoritarian right wing government for some reason. These guys also don’t have any real politics outside of resentment, so they’ll never criticize Trump for anything—that wouldn’t trigger the libs.

Diehard is an insecure guy with very low intelligence.
 

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
8,542
Reaction score
331
Points
83
I have to say that this is something that I would have thought would have bothered Section2 and CRG
 

diehard

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
31,597
Reaction score
35
Points
48
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/CIJGH9RS2Fc" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>
.
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
42,332
Reaction score
543
Points
113
I have to say that this is something that I would have thought would have bothered Section2 and CRG
it does. I obviously support Rand Paul. I doubt you would say boo if Obama was pres.
 

diehard

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
31,597
Reaction score
35
Points
48
You should have watched my video of Rogers before you posted.
 

JimmyJamesMD

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
6,716
Reaction score
195
Points
63
Can we just say this is a joke. Boo republicans. Boo democrats. Boo Trump.
 

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
8,542
Reaction score
331
Points
83
You should have watched my video of Rogers before you posted.

You didn't explain, but I'm *guessing* that your video is meant to convey the fact that Section 702 doesn't allow surveillance of Americans without a warrant. Unfortunately, though, the discussion in the video is not meant to be an exhaustive discussion of the law, only a review of a particular situation.

The problem is that security agencies ARE allowed to read messages of Americans that are caught up incidentally. The amendment that Republican Representative Amash introduced would make that illegal. It would also make explicitly illegal the previous NSA practice of proactively scanning Americans' communications with international contacts. They stopped doing that, but they want to retain the ability to do so.
 

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
8,542
Reaction score
331
Points
83
it does. I obviously support Rand Paul. I doubt you would say boo if Obama was pres.
Well, I called out Schiff and Pelosi in my first post.

I doubt you would avoid murdering kittens if Trump weren't president. Geez, speculative counterfactuals are a blast.
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
42,332
Reaction score
543
Points
113
Well, I called out Schiff and Pelosi in my first post.

I doubt would avoid murdering kittens if Trump weren't president. Geez, speculative counterfactuals are a blast.
Because Schiff and Pelosi voted with Trump.
 

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
8,542
Reaction score
331
Points
83
Because Schiff and Pelosi voted with Trump.
Actually, what happened is I watched the movie Citizenfour on HBO and was truly frightened. As a result I installed Privacy Badger and User-Agent Switcher for Chrome and began using a VPN.

Please note this post from almost 8 months ago:

3) There's no question that the Obama administration took a different approach to national security than I'm comfortable with. This includes not only surveillance, but also prosecution of foreign wars.
http://www.forums.gopherhole.com/boards/showthread.php?76257-Widespread-illegal-spying-under-Obama-revealed-by-FISA-courts&p=1394047#post1394047

(BTW, read through that thread if you'd like to see some posts from people who only care about warrantless spying when it suits them)

It's so great, though, that you argue with one of the people in the thread who agrees with you. Tribalism at its finest.
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
42,332
Reaction score
543
Points
113
Actually, what happened is I watched the movie Citizenfour on HBO and was truly frightened. As a result I installed Privacy Badger and User-Agent Switcher for Chrome and began using a VPN.

Please note this post from almost 8 months ago:



http://www.forums.gopherhole.com/boards/showthread.php?76257-Widespread-illegal-spying-under-Obama-revealed-by-FISA-courts&p=1394047#post1394047

(BTW, read through that thread if you'd like to see some posts from people who only care about warrantless spying when it suits them)

It's so great, though, that you argue with one of the people in the thread who agrees with you. Tribalism at its finest.
I really don't recall you posting in the Obama era, only around the time of the election last year. But given your constant political spin, it's not hard to believe that your calling out of Dems is selective and only when it augments an attack on Republicans. It's fine. Maybe I'm wrong.
 

diehard

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
31,597
Reaction score
35
Points
48
Was the rogue element that conducted surveillance on the Trump campaign FBI or NSA? Does section 702 effect the NSA or the FBI? The Intercept has proven to be a left shill and provide misinformation. Progressives rely on that to make their bogus points.

How would you like the Trump administration to conduct political warfare on its opponents using rogue weaponized elements of national intelligence assets? That is exactly what Obama did. Think about it. I do not believe we have ever had as dirty and illegal President ever before as Obama. Clearly the worse President ever and obviously has nothing to do with skin color. Remember you are the racists.

I guarantee that not one of you had heard of 702 before this and do not know what it is today. Certainly not in accurate terms.
Progressives defending this activity are the lowest of the low and time is coming shortly.
 

Minnesota

Active member
Joined
Jul 2, 2017
Messages
664
Reaction score
49
Points
28
Was the rogue element that conducted surveillance on the Trump campaign FBI or NSA? Does section 702 effect the NSA or the FBI? The Intercept has proven to be a left shill and provide misinformation. Progressives rely on that to make their bogus points.

How would you like the Trump administration to conduct political warfare on its opponents using rogue weaponized elements of national intelligence assets? That is exactly what Obama did. Think about it. I do not believe we have ever had as dirty and illegal President ever before as Obama. Clearly the worse President ever and obviously has nothing to do with skin color. Remember you are the racists.

I guarantee that not one of you had heard of 702 before this and do not know what it is today. Certainly not in accurate terms.
Progressives defending this activity are the lowest of the low and time is coming shortly.
Another low information post that completely dodged the topic. Unqualified.
 

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
8,542
Reaction score
331
Points
83
Tina Smith voted against invoking cloture on the bill that would reauthorize FISA, but Amy Klobuchar voted yay. Really disappointed in Klobuchar.
 

JimmyJamesMD

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
6,716
Reaction score
195
Points
63
Tina Smith voted against invoking cloture on the bill that would reauthorize FISA, but Amy Klobuchar voted yay. Really disappointed in Klobuchar.
Klocuhar is a lightweight as Trump would say. She co signs on bills that don't matter, than votes party lines on other votes.

I don't know much about Tina Smith, but I think its pretty cool she voted against it. If she runs for the seat, I will definitely keep an eye on her for my vote.
 

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
8,542
Reaction score
331
Points
83
Klocuhar is a lightweight as Trump would say. She co signs on bills that don't matter, than votes party lines on other votes.

I don't know much about Tina Smith, but I think its pretty cool she voted against it. If she runs for the seat, I will definitely keep an eye on her for my vote.
I think you and I are agreed on this issue, but in this case I don't know if you can call it party line. AK was one of 19 Dems to vote yay, whereas 30 Dems voted nay.
 
Top Bottom