Welcome to the National Counterterrorism Center! We Already Know All About You!

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) wants to warn you about "the biggest new spying program you've probably never heard of" at the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC).

Some of the grim details:

On March 22, 2012 the Attorney General, the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) and the Director of NCTC issued an update to the 2008 rules for handling information on US persons. These were radical changes (to see how different please check out redline comparison we did between the 2008 and 2012 guidelines).

The biggest change regards the NCTC’s handling of “non-terrorism” related information on US persons. Previously, the intelligence community was barred from collecting information about ordinary Americans unless the person was a terror suspect or part of an actual investigation. When the NCTC gobbled up huge data sets it had to search for and identify any innocent US person information inadvertently collected, and discard it within 180 days.....The 2012 guidelines eliminate this check, allowing NCTC to collect and “continually assess” information on innocent Americans for up to five years.

Once information is acquired, the new guidelines authorize broad new search powers. As long NCTC says its search is aimed at identifying terrorism information, it may conduct queries that involve non-terrorism data points and pattern-based searches and analysis (data mining). The breadth and wrongheadedness of these changes are particularly noteworthy. Not only do they mean that anytime you interact with any government agency you essentially enter a lineup as a potential terrorist, they also rely on a technique, datamining, which has been thoroughly discredited as a useful tool for identifying terrorists. As far back as 2008 the National Academy of Sciences found that data mining for terrorism was scientifically “not feasible” as a methodology, and likely to have significant negative impacts on privacy and civil liberties.

The government can also share any of that information with any other entity it wants, public or private. People who lived through the days after 9/11 might find all this familiar, and find the words "Total Information Awareness" echoing through their heads. 

My blogging about Total Information Awareness, which we thought had gone away, and how it really hadn't, from back in 2004.

My 2010 American Conservative article about the government's increasing efforts and power in surveilling our electronic communications.

Ron Bailey from last year on the important cost-benefit question at the heart of these supersurveillance programs, one the goverment ignores: how much danger are we in from terrorism, anyway? (Not much.)

The ACLU has filed FOIA requests to learn more about how this info-sweep program is working.

ACLU fact sheet on the NCTC.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    All of this guarantees that the terrorists don't win.

  • ||

    And neither do we.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    All of us are included in the terrorist grouping. Pay attention.

  • Marshall Gill||

    When no one is a winner, everyone is!!!!

  • ||

    if everybody's somebody, then noone's anybody

  • Almanian's Evil Twin||

    I AM somebody! Nobody cares :(

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    God, you people are silly. Don't you know privacy is outdated because social mediaing Web 2.0ly Internet Cloud?

  • Almanian's Evil Twin||

    I will raise you +1 "CYBER TERRURZOFG!!11!"

  • ||

    and of course the war on domestic violence (never criticized in reason.com that i have seen) SUBSTANTIALLY increases the kind of non-criminal intelligence local police agencies take

    heck, when i was in hawaii, per policy, we took substantial non criminal intelligence pursuant to domestic violence policy

  • Almanian's Evil Twin||

    Blast - you've returned to your "derp-fy" identity.

    Thanks for letting everyone know you were involved in even MORE invasive bullshit in the course of your job. Cause the DOMESTIC VIOLANCE nearly did in Hawaii till you and your pals rode in on your white Harleys and saved the day.

    God bless you, Ociffer! God bless you, everyone!

  • johnl||

  • Bee Tagger||

    You know how we're always telling people who want higher taxes to go ahead and donate their money? I mean there's a website for specifically that purpose.

    It would be nice if the government would create a website for people to voluntarily turn in their account passwords, that way we could throw that in Republicans' faces.

  • ||

    officer at SPD accused of excessive force.

    note YET AGAIN, despite the reason claim about the pervasive blue wall of silence (reasonoids still stuck in serpico era mentality) The department launched the internal investigation after other officers who were present during the incident alerted their supervisor.

    "The officers at the scene wasted no time in letting their supervisor know," said Sgt. Sean Whitcomb, adding news of the incident had reached the acting chief within 90 minutes. Both Seattle Police Chief John Diaz and Seattle Mayor Mike McGinn were out of town.

    The involved officer has been placed on paid administrative leave pending the outcome of the investigation.

    Whitcomb said the department's leaders are pleased the other officers followed procedure and reported the incident immediately.

    "What they saw from a fellow colleague was behavior that appeared excessive and unnecessary, and unprofessional, and they didn't tolerate it," he said. "

    note also:" Sgt. Sean Whitcomb says it's clear what happened: "Excessive force and unprofessionalism," he said. "

    and again this happens over and over again - good cops turning in cops who do bad stuff.

    fwiw, imo based on the video (and note the officers do not interfere with videotaping), this is CLEARLY excessive force.

    not even a remotely close call

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    I think mostly the argument here at H+R is not that police never hold their own accountable but that they far too often fail to do so.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Bigot.

  • ||

    fair enuf. i disagree,but that's a fair cop, mate

  • Tulpa Doom||

    How often is too often?

    Drug dealers cover up for each other too but Reason doesn't rip into them daily.

    Speaking of which, here's a story of cops rescuing pit bulls.

  • ||

    reasonoids are like most ideologues. their mind fails to see evidence that contradicts their metanarrative

    a common thread in STORY after STORY of police misconduct is that the BAD COP was turned in by other cops

    it's amazingly common

    but i need to point it out because the cognitive dissonance of the religious true believers(tm) means that they miss details like this.

    they don't do it intentionally . that's what makes it so strong. it's unconscious. it's a natural physchological phenomenon

    people see what they want to see

  • Marshall Gill||

    Drug dealers cover up for each other too but Reason doesn't rip into them daily.

    Science, Tulpa, this is incredibly stupid, even for you. Perhaps the fact that drug dealers are not being paid by my coerced taxes? How about the idea that they are not employed by government? How about the idea that their purpose (supposedly) is to protect people.

    I suppose you think that they should write an article about every murder committed in the country? If they don't, they don't care about murder?

    I get it that there is a lot of cop hatred on this site. While I am not one of them (I don't like Dunphy because he is a full of shit imbecile NOT because he is a cop) THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO FUCKING SERVE US!

  • Tulpa Doom||

    The tax angle is legit but there are a shitload of other stories of govt nastiness paid for by taxes.

    Chances are that the tiny portion of my taxes used to pay Pittsburgh cops are less liberty-destroying, on average, than the lion's share that goes to imperious unaccountable bureaucrats and worse in Harrisburg and Washington. And I say that fully aware of some of the abuses (eg Jordan Miles beating) committed by Pgh cops.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    And my main point was, if it happens even sometimes that's "too often" in my view. Saying that some of the million or so cops in this country are power-abusing sacks of shit isn't saying much. A cop is far more likely to be a decent person than a politician, that's for damn sure.

  • Sevo||

    Tulpa Doom| 8.3.12 @ 9:46PM |#
    "And my main point was, if it happens even sometimes that's "too often" in my view."

    Sorta looks like your 'main point' was tu quoque. Or do you just toss in irrelevant comments 'cause you love reading what you post?

  • Tulpa Doom||

    Actually, the person I was responding to could be accused of moving the goal posts from "always" to "too often".

  • Coeus||

    "What they saw from a fellow colleague was behavior that appeared excessive and unnecessary, and unprofessional, and they didn't tolerate it," he said. "

    So they stopped it? Cause when I was younger and I saw someone hurting someone else, not tolerating it meant stopping it, not running to the principal.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Reminds me of this.

  • ||

    good on those spd officers for turning this violator in and i suggest he will be given due process and punishment.

    http://www.komonews.com/news/l.....=videoc=y

    the video is compelling

    RECORD YOUR LOCAL COPS. DO IT. PROTECT THEM FROM FALSE COMPLAINTS AND PROTECT THE PUBLIC FROM COPS DOING BAD SHIT!!!!

    (words from dunphy)

  • Ken Shultz||

    How much danger are we in from terrorism, anyway?

    We should balance that against how much danger we might be in from some future U.S. government as well.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Yup.

    Hell, I bet your chances of dying at the hands of a government agent are presently higher than being killed by a terrorist.

  • ||

    your chances of dying from a govt. agent are statistically close to zero unless you engage in behavior that warrants deadly force

  • Archduke PantsFan||

    Like RESISTING

  • Generic Stranger||

    Or whittling on a piece of wood.

  • Generic Stranger||

    Or crossing the road in your wheelchair.

  • Marshall Gill||

    Or holding your daughter's hand while walking down the street.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Or a seven year old girl sleeping in her bed.

  • ||

    Or...fried chicken.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Can you fucking read, dunphy?

    I made not one goddamn qualifying statement about what would cause one to die at the hands of a government agent, or whether those deaths were justified or not. Nor did I say that the chances of dying at the hands of a government agent were high.

    For the remedial readers *cough*dunphy*cough* I'll go over this one more time. If the probability of an American citizen dying in a terrorist attack is 'x' and the probability of said citizen dying at the hands of a government agent is 'y': I posited that 'x' is larger than 'y'. That is all.

  • ||

    the difference is the probability of dying at the hands of a terrorist is not proximally related to behavior

    the VAST majority of people shot by govt. agents CLEARLY were a justified shoot, and are convicted felons engaged in really bad shit etc

    victim of terrorism are truly random innocent victims... or maybe they are little eichmans? ;)

    AGAIN, assuming you are not a scumbag felon and/.or presenting a cop with DAMN good reason, your chance of being killed by a cop is about ZERO

    look at the people cops kill every year and only a tiny percentage are even remotely questionable.

    it's like comparing something to your chances of getting attacked by a shark

    well, if you surf murky rivermouths at dusk in central california, your chance of a shark attack is actually not THAT low

    if you live in kansas and never set foot in the ocean... well

    that's one of the things about terrorism. it is targeted at INNOCENTs

  • VG Zaytsev||

    look at the people cops kill every year and only a tiny percentage are even remotely questionable.

    I can think of at least 20 Americans that were killed in the last as a result of reckless driving by leos of various agencies.

    Which is tight there is a larger number than the number of people in the continental US killed by terrorist.

    Not to mention wrong raids / arrests gone bad, over criminalization that brings innocent people into contact with government enforcers and outright criminal acts by agents of the government.

    I'd say that over an extended period of time, the number of completely innocent people killed by agents of governments is at least two orders of magnitude greater than the number of people killed by politically motivated terrorism.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    look at the people cops kill every year and only a tiny percentage are even remotely questionable.

    What did Kelly Thomas do to justify being murdered? Aside from being homeless and an easy target?

  • ||

    Those cops committed capital murder, and in a just world, Old Sparky would have been brought out of retirement to send them to hell for what they did, but we don't really live in that world, do we, Dunphy?

  • Ken Shultz||

    It isn't just fear of the po-po.

    All that crap we hear Obama say about how we all owe our fair share to the government? About how everyone has to make sacrifices for the common good?

    If some future president, who's just a kid right now, takes all Obama's crap seriously? They could use this sort of information in all sorts of terrible ways.

    Who buys what sorts of ammunition? Whose speech trends libertarian? Who belongs to what religion? Over the course of the 20th century, it wasn't the terrorists that made the biggest splash. It was governments that kept careful track of such information that did the most harm.

    I know you're a cop, Dunphy, but not everything requires a defense of the police.

  • ||

    lol. i just post an article strongly condemning an obvious case of cop brutality and i get "but not everything requires a defense of the police."

    seriously. get over the delusion that i reflexively defend police

    i strongly condemn police misconduct. i just don't see it when it's not supported by evidence, as most reasonoids do, much like most liberals see corporate evul everywhere they look

  • Tulpa Doom||

    Sometimes I get the feeling the glibbies just respond to the handle rather than the comment. That would explain their hysteria over whether a new handle is really a commenter from the past.

    Also it would explain why responses to me often assume I love authority and want food trucks banned, even when the content of my post expressly contradicts those claims.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Or it could be the mixture of the condescension, poorly conceived arguments, the myopic moral superiority of an autistic thirteen year old, the playing the devil's advocate to exhaustion, or the piling on of poorly constructed analogies that you seen to have a penchant for using ad nauseam.

    Seriously, when you think that everyone else is the problem it's usually you.

    And if were just a bunch morally vacuous idiots then maybe you'd be happier posting somewhere else.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    All of which could only be identified by, you know, reading the comment in question. And none of which justifies lying about my positions, of course. If I indeed did those horrible things, telling the truth about what I write should be enough to make any readers lurch away from me in horror.

    If you visited Daily Kos and posted there, you'd think everyone else there was the problem too. It's beyond ironic that a political ideology that makes up less than half a percent of our society pulls the "everyone hates you so you're wrong" card so easily.

    If the good posters desert H+R due to the hostile and glib environment produced by a vocal minority -- as is already happening -- that only makes matters worse.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Look man, maybe I was a little harsh. I would like to approach this magnanimously, but from my perspective it seems as though you are blaming the reader for your poor communication skills.

    All of which could only be identified by, you know, reading the comment in question. And none of which justifies lying about my positions, of course.

    You want to imply that your arguments are miscategorized because those that respond to you are liars instead of entertaining the idea that perhaps you have not presented your ideas clearly. And making a whole lot of apples and oranges analogies doesn't make your position any clearer. Besides, when one takes the sort of pride that you do in playing devil's advocate you'll have to give your readers a little leeway in their interpretation of your words.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Maybe I wasn't clear enough in my wording and you misinterpreted what I meant. It's slightly below the surface of everyday political disagreements. If I were to go on to DKOS, I would think the commenters there wrong in their politics but I wouldn't consider them as a whole stupid, liars, or unserious because they didn't agree with me. Additionally, I would expect a barrage of insults and derision when going on a site dedicated to a specific ideology and pissing on the borg-mind.

    I intended the passage you're responding to as a critique your approach to your fellow commenters. You assume the worst and proceed thusly. As in, we are all unserious liars and you can counter that by being a thinking man of honor. To us this comes across as a moral superiority complex and flat out trolling, and when I say trolling I mean making comments that counter the sites prevailing notions only for the sake of argument.

  • General Butt Naked||

    It's beyond ironic that a political ideology that makes up less than half a percent of our society pulls the "everyone hates you so you're wrong" card so easily.

    Libertarianism didn't pull that card, I did. Form experience I can tell you that when everyone around you is saying that you are acting dickish, they're usually right.

    People here don't hate you because you're wrong or they're right. It's because a lot of the time you come off as a goalpost moving, condescending asshole.

    If the good posters desert H+R due to the hostile and glib environment produced by a vocal minority -- as is already happening -- that only makes matters worse.

    What's a good poster? What hostile environment? Who is the vocal minority? Who are these 'good posters' already leaving? How are matters bad and what is worse? Worse to you? or Worse for eveyone?

  • Tulpa Doom||

    It's because a lot of the time you come off as a goalpost moving, condescending asshole.

    See, I don't get that. Well, I can see that people might think I'm condescending because I "nitpick" at their comments, but the nits I pick are (in my view at least) fairly important. For example, above where I take issue with VG's "always" statement; some people might think it's a nitpick but the difference between "always" and "most of the time" is huge when you're accusing Dunphy of acting in bad faith. "Always" would pretty strongly indicate he's a shill for the cops, but "most of the time" could be reconciled with a person arguing in good faith.

    Some might think that's condescending but I'm just trying to get people (even those I agree with) to make valid arguments. Or people I disagree with to temper their positions so their arguments can become valid (assuming their arguments are invalid originally).

    As far as the goalpost-moving goes, I really don't get that at all. Rarely does one hurling that accusation at me specify which goal posts are being moved and the locations they're moved between. If one is going to accuse someone of arguing in bad faith one have to be specific...otherwise it looks like one is just grasping at a reason to ignore the other person's argument.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    MNG would be one example of a poster who's left already. He could be annoying at times, and wasn't a REAL libertarian (whatever that means) but he brought substance to the table most of the time.

    I don't think you can plausibly look at post-registration H+R (and even before) and say it hasn't become way more ideologically uniform. Couple that with some very nasty characters who insult and make false accusations at anyone who disagrees with them and you've got a perfect recipe for an echo chamber (like a junior-sized Kos).

    As for who the vocal minority is...I think you know who I mean. I don't include you in that group, for now at least.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    A good response to poor communication skills would be to reply that, "when you said '(insert quote)' it seemed like you meant '(insert interpretation)'." Someone replies to me like that I'm fine with it, as long as it's a plausible interpretation.

    The reply I tend to get is a barrage of insults and false accusations, so no, I'm not buying that explanation. IRL I'm considered an excellent communicator, particularly in my writing, so I'm doubly skeptical of that reasoning.

    A good rule of thumb is that a person making an unprovoked personal attack or accusation needs to exhaust the possibility that the other person is acting in good faith first. I'm not going to bend over backwards giving the benefit of the doubt to Randian et al when they insult me at the drop of a hat, that's for damn sure.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    seriously. get over the delusion that i reflexively defend police

    You do reflexively defend police when commenting on police abuse stories.

    You're delusional if you can't or won't acknowledge that fact.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    No, he doesn't. Plenty of times he has condemned the police (subject to ATFAPIC or whatever the acronym is).

    He even had to retract his initial condemnation of the police in the case of the Berkeley Occupy pepper spray incident.

  • Coeus||

    Yeah, at the time, he didn't realize how aggressively they were sitting.

  • Archduke PantsFan||

    If you're not genuflecting before the officer, you're resisting.

  • Coeus||

    Sounds about right. Fuck, he called me an asshole last night for not wanting someone to yell at me less than a foot from my face.

  • Sevo||

    Tulpa Doom| 8.3.12 @ 10:13PM |#
    "No, he doesn't. Plenty of times he has condemned the police (subject to ATFAPIC or whatever the acronym is)."

    Well, damning with faint praise...
    Sorry, Dunphy had my sympathies until several weeks ago when he made clear that in any disagreement, the cop is 'right' until proven otherwise.
    Sorry, cops are the janitors of civilization, granted *limited* use of force to clean up the streets.
    They are *not* granted presumption of 'right'.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Tulpa Doom| 8.3.12 @ 10:13PM |#

    No, he doesn't. Plenty of times he has condemned the police (subject to ATFAPIC or whatever the acronym is)

    Bullshit, Tulpa.

    His first reaction is always to defend the cops, and in an overly personalized manner, for every story of cop abuse posted here.

    As an example, go look at his reaction to the guy in FL that got shot answering his door at 1am a couple of weeks ago, where the cops didn't even announce that they were cops.

    Dunphy's first reaction was all that fucker got what he deserved....
    About a situation that he had no knowledge of involving cops that he had no knowledge of. All he knew is that they were to PoPo, which was enough for him to celebrate the murder of an innocent citizen.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    VG, a claim that something "always" happens requires more than one example as evidence.

    I gave an example where it didn't happen, so the "always" statement is false. If you want to say "most of the time" you've got a case, but not as much shock value.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    a claim that something "always" happens requires more than one example as evidence.

    Ok fair enough.

    How about usually, or almost always.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Ken Shultz: "We should balance that against how much danger we might be in from some future U.S. government as well."

    That wasn't about getting shot by a cop. Why would it require a defense of the police?

    your chances of dying from a govt. agent are statistically close to zero unless you engage in behavior that warrants deadly force

    That's supposed to be a defense of the police, right?

    P.S. General Butt Naked's response wasn't about the police either. Again, not everything requires a defense of the police.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Thank you, Ken.

    I was actually thinking about drone attacks that have killed a couple of Americans recently and the possible expansion of such operations.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    So why did you include (and italicize) the word "presently" if you're talking about the future?

    Forgive me if I'm condescending.

  • mr simple||

    You're not getting it, Dunphy. Ken is taking about general government malfeasance, which is clearly demonstrated in this article and many others on this website. Yet you want to turn it into a discussion on cop behavior. Can't we just agree that this unconstitutional search and collection of personal information by the federal government is a bad thing? That things are generally trending in a less free direction in his country? Don't be so arrogant as to make it all about you.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    Dunphy understands perfectly. GBN is talking about the "present" dangers to our lives from govt agents, and Ken implied that Dunphy is a shill for the cops.

    He may not be right, but don't say he doesn't get it.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I didn't say any such thing.

    I said Dunphy was defending the cops when the cops aren't really what I was talking about.

    Do me a favor and don't ever quote me, Tulpa. You're not very good at it.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    You aren't good at quoting yourself, either.

    "I know you're a cop, Dunphy, but not everything requires a defense of the police."

    There it is. Check it against your comment. You're implying that Dunphy always defends the police. If not, then why are you telling him not to always defend the police.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    "I know you're a cop, Dunphy, but not everything requires a defense of the police."

    There it is. Check it against your comment. You're implying that Dunphy always defends the police.

    Except that Ken made that comment in response to Dunphy reflexively defending cops as a result of the statement:

    Hell, I bet your chances of dying at the hands of a government agent are presently higher than being killed by a terrorist.

    Which
    a) does not mention cops and
    b) is demonstrably true.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    If we're talking about the present rather than some speculative future, nearly every American killed by a govt agent is killed by a cop. What other govt agents are killing Americans?

    If you're referring to the drone program, as far as the present is concerned, that's one or two Americans killed. Nothing compared to the number killed by cops.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "I know you're a cop, Dunphy, but not everything requires a defense of the police."

    You not understanding that suspecting Dunphy is demonstrably sensitive to cop issues--and he's a cop? That's not accusing him of being a shill...

    I don't believe I've accused Dunphy of being disingenuous ever. That's all in your head--it's nothing I ever said. Not in this thread or any other thread.

    No one should ever trust anything Tulpa quotes as being accurate. This is just one example, but there plenty of other times--Tulpa serially misquotes people.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    I quoted you perfectly. We just have a different interpretation of the quote.

  • Coeus||

    your chances of dying from a govt. agent are statistically close to zero unless you engage in behavior that warrants deadly force

    Tell that to the unarmed guy shot outside my apartment a few weeks ago.

  • Coeus||

    Oh, wait, you can't. He's dead cause he was dumb enough to call the cops to protect him.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    Shot by cops, or shot because the cops didn't get there?

  • VG Zaytsev||

    I believe he's referring to this.

    http://reason.com/blog/2012/07.....n-allegedl

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Get a load of the anarchists over here.

  • Archduke PantsFan||

    Only people who have something to hide should be concerned about privacy.

  • Rich||

    Previously, the intelligence community was barred from collecting information about ordinary Americans unless the person was a terror suspect or part of an actual investigation.

    If the community is collecting info about someone, isn't that person *by definition* "part of an actual investigation"? 8-(

  • Sevo||

    "the intelligence community"
    WIH is that?

  • TiggFooo||

    Sounds like those folks have WAY too much spare time on their hands lol.

    www.Anon-Do.tk

  • Archduke PantsFan||

  • Archduke PantsFan||

    Enough of Dunphy. Here's your Canadian Rock song of the night

  • General Butt Naked||

    How about BC honky tonkers The Corn Sisters?

  • Archduke PantsFan||

    Just say no to Neko Case.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Just say no to Neko Case.

    I was just trying to find some Canadian alt-country acts and that's what I found. I liked their name so I posted the video before listening to the song. I had to shut it off, as it was too annoying for my tastes.

  • Archduke PantsFan||

    Blue Rodeo.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Listening to '5 Days in May' right now.

    Much improvement over the the corn sisters.

  • Archduke PantsFan||

    I should hope so.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Nevermind, they kinda suck.

    Here's some guy from Nashville. His dad was some big shit back in the day. Some dude named Steve Earle, whoever the hell that is.

  • mr simple||

    How about some old Canadian folk. It even has a libertarian theme.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Oh man, those lyrics are great. Good shit, man.

  • Archduke PantsFan||

    Unfortunately, the lyrics are being interpreted as ironic.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Really? I don't understand how that's possible. It's pretty earnest.

  • Auric Demonocles||

  • Archduke PantsFan||

    Olympics make some people insufferable. I have co-workers who think they just need to adjust their exercise routines and while maintaining a full time job, they will still become as fit as full time Olympic athletes.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Well, full time Olympic athletes in what sport?

  • Archduke PantsFan||

    Today we were discussing Swimming or Heptathlon

  • Auric Demonocles||

    See, that's a bit different than say, skeet shooting or ping pong.

  • Archduke PantsFan||

    Also Beach Vollyeball.

  • Archduke PantsFan||

    No Justin Bieber, Natives don't get free gas.

  • Archduke PantsFan||

    No Dunphy representation on a thread about police abuse? QUEL SURPRISE
    http://reason.com/blog/2012/08.....nt_3181429

  • Archduke PantsFan||

  • markeric||

    Nice topic! I get a lot of information from this post of yours, keep sharing, you're a great blogger!
    Paper Cram | Test Questions

  • SiggFeee||

    Sometimes you jsut have to roll with it dude.

    www.Do-Privacy.tk

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement