NSA

NSA Has Deliberately Violated Privacy Rules, Showing That Sen. Feinstein is Still Full of Crap

|

Sen. Dianne Feinstein
U.S. Senate

Was it just a week ago that Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) told us that any National Security Agency surveillance of our phone and internet communication in violation of privacy rules was purely accidental, so never mind? Why yes, yes it was. Now comes the NSA itself admitting that some of those transgressions were, in fact, intentional.

On August 16, Sen. Feinstein, who is Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said in a statement:

As I have said previously, the committee has never identified an instance in which the NSA has intentionally abused its authority to conduct surveillance for inappropriate purposes.

Her House counterpart, Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI), told the Washington Post:

Human and technical errors, like all of the errors reported in this story, are unfortunately inevitable in any organization and especially in a highly technical and complicated system like NSA.

Now comes word that snooping in violation of even the flimsy rules established by the federal government was less error-y and more intentional, and that word comes from the horse's mouth. Reports Chris Strohm for Bloomberg:

Some National Security Agency analysts deliberately ignored restrictions on their authority to spy on Americans multiple times in the past decade, contradicting Obama administration officials' and lawmakers' statements that no willful violations occurred.

"Over the past decade, very rare instances of willful violations of NSA's authorities have been found," the NSA said in a statement to Bloomberg News. "NSA takes very seriously allegations of misconduct, and cooperates fully with any investigations—responding as appropriate. NSA has zero tolerance for willful violations of the agency's authorities."

The incidents, chronicled in a new report by the NSA's inspector general, provide more evidence that U.S. agencies sometimes have violated legal and administrative restrictions on domestic spying, and may add to the pressure to bolster laws that govern intelligence activities.

Whoops.

NEXT: Teens Developing Growing Awareness on Privacy Issues

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.

  1. Not intended as thread jack, but this nutpunch wouldn’t wait for the pm links.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..e-agitator

    1. Ok, then it’s our duty to make it like Afghanistan for the cops.

    2. Ha! I put on a cup after I read that link from Balko! I am unharmed!

    3. An honest cop, who would a’ thunk it?

    4. Then they should be getting E-1 through E-5 wages.

      Good for municipal budgets too.

      1. no shit…we would save a lot of money and the pay would fit the quality of work ^^

    5. SWAT Cop Stupid Shitstain Who Wouldn’t Be Able To Hack It In The Real Military and Plays Way Too Much CoD Says American Neighborhoods Are ‘Battlefields,’ Claims Cops Face Same Dangers As Soldiers In Afghanistan Because He’s a Mendacious Pussy Asswhipe

      FTFY

      1. Apparently that shitstain is ex-military.

        1. So? He has REMF written all over him.

          1. I have noticed that the soldiers who have seen combat are typically way more confident and relaxed.

            The REMFs who want to prove themselves seem to make up the jackboots in police uniforms.

            1. I tend to agree with you Outlaw, but then there’s always the McCain’s of the world – he seems like the type who wants to take revenge for the rest of his life because he was captured decades ago and can’t get over such loss of face.

            2. nah just most people who join the military are just egotistically jackasses that crave power and are just the scum of society. Over 99% of them i have had to deal with are complete morons and incompetent assholes who think they are a gift from god -_-

              1. nah just most people who join the military are just egotistically jackasses that crave power and are just the scum of society. Over 99% of them i have had to deal with are complete morons and incompetent assholes who think they are a gift from god -_-

                You’re an idiot.

    6. Black helicopters and mysterious warriors exist. They are America’s answer to the evil men that the anti-SWAT crowd wouldn’t dare face.

      A Shih tzu wagging its tail? I think I could face that down.

      1. Even if it’s making furtive moments? HUH!?

  2. Will she admit to being out of the loop, or will she admit that she’s complicit in privacy violations. Let’s watch…

    1. She’ll just say she mis-spoke.

      1. She’ll just say “BUT BOOOOOOOSH!”

        1. what about her nasty bush? I rather not think about that nasty Frankenstein.

    2. Define “unintentional”.

      1. Anything she later regrets.

  3. Sen. Feinstein is Still Full of Crap

    Wasn’t she born that way?

    1. Were you born a fat, slimy, scumbag puke piece o’ shit, Senator Feinstein, or did you have to work on it?!

      1. As long as you Senator while addressing her, it’s all ok.

        1. Bastard, I forgot that she did that.

          Oh well, not like I can hate her any more than I already do.

        2. Wasn’t that California’s other contribution to the world’s greatest deliberative body, Babs Boxer?

          1. Boxer is without doubt stupider than Feinstein. Just think about the implication of that.

          2. Yes, Ma’am, it was Boxer.

          3. ^Exactly!

    2. Sen. Feinstein is Still Full of Crap

      I think you guys are too harsh….at her age it’s probably senility plain and simple….McCain too!

    3. no she was made by some sick asshole into a pile of crap

  4. This would be hilarious if it wasn’t so sinister. Every single thing these clowns say in defense of the NSA ends up being proven to be a blatant lie within a few days. Every. Single. Thing.

    1. damn you for stealing my thoughts over teh internets!

    2. Yet the all of them that can be reelected will be. Every. Single. One.

      1. Well, Obama won’t.

        Maybe.

        1. “that can” excludes O’bummer.

  5. I really love how these assholes can’t get in front of the story on this. Every time they say something, it comes out a few days later they lied about that too.

    1. Well I don’t know if they are being told the truth anyway.

      Also the media will never call them on it so why should they care?

    2. It is like they secretly want the NSA to be destroyed. I can think of no worse way to try and defend these programs than by constantly lying in ways that will inevitably be shown to be false.

      1. So DiFi is finally good for something, even if unintentionally.

      2. We’re well on the way to another Church Committee, which may well gut a lot of the security apparatus. Unless we’re too far gone. In which case might as well get chummy with the Praetorian Guard.

      3. Could be incompetence.

        Or maybe you are right — they are trying to sabotage it because the NSA has dirt on every single one of them and they are hoping that voters revolt on it. They had just better hope we don’t sweep them away along with the NSA.

        1. I vote for incompetence.

    3. anon| 8.23.13 @ 3:04PM |#
      “I really love how these assholes can’t get in front of the story on this. Every time they say something, it comes out a few days later they lied about that too.”

      The smell of RMN in the air!

  6. They were desperate, arrogant and talking out of their asses. The made such appalling generalizations and unequivocal statements it was inevitable they would be shown to be liars. For , the committee has never identified an instance in which the NSA has intentionally abused its authority to conduct surveillance for inappropriate purposes to be true, either the committee must have been completely negligent in its oversight or the NSA must be different than any human organization in history. Of course there would be at least some instances of misuse and misconduct. There always is. It is the nature of any organization. Now, whether that misconduct is condoned, systematic or frequent enough to be a problem is another issue. But it will be there.

    1. Heads will roll. Lots of them. This shit is spiraling out of control, and the lies are being exposed more than we’re used to.

      1. You’ve said that with every scandal. Nothing will happen. This country is fucked.

        1. I’ve said repeatedly that this stuff doesn’t result in heads rolling right away. Again, Watergate took two years. In an era where people were more likely to be held accountable compared to today.

          This will take time.

    2. What will happen is they will differentiate between the NSA, which has never violated its authority, and the employees, who may have exceeded their authority individually and have been punished most severely.

  7. Ahhhh, I miss you not Sen Feinstein. My days as a Californian are behind me and I shall not regret leaving you and your ilk to rot in paradise lost.

    1. If only she had followed her patron, Jim Jones, to South America…

      1. Or if she was in the same room with Milk and Moscone.

      2. Funny how the Dem love affair with Jones went down the memory hole. One could only imagine the national myth that would have been created had a future Republican Senator and major Republican figures in a large American city been that closely associated with the leader of a later shown to be suicidal cult.

        1. John| 8.23.13 @ 3:16PM |#
          “Funny how the Dem love affair with Jones went down the memory hole”

          Willy Brown can’t remember a thing about the guy!

  8. OT

    You guys’ll love this. A quote from the guy I’m arguing with about the “income gap” at CNN.

    I suppose there’s plenty to say on the subject if you want me to keep going. Your right to private property is an illusion. There is no natural law that says that because you gained something through hard work or exceptional talent you get to keep it. The power to do that comes only from the social contract. When that contract breaks down, nobody owns anything that you can’t defend by tooth and claw.

    The reason why we have government is to reinforce that social contract and protect our private property. One of the cost effective ways achieving this mission is by making sure the income gap doesn’t get too big and cause catastrophic damage. Inequality is fine, right up until it’s not fine, and everything gets turned upside down.

    How many fallacies can you find in that single post?

    1. Natural law is a problematic doctrine. If you don’t believe in a God, where does it come from? What is the source of a higher law if man is the highest form of life and he clearly can’t agree on it?

      1. You can have natural law if it is prescribed by a god is not natural law at all. It’s still positive law, except you’ve moved the fiat prescription from man to god.

        So one would then ask, if we assume there is a god, what authority does he have then to rule and to dictate “law”? He or they could just be a bunch of tyrants too with their positive law.

        No, natural law would have to transcend the gods. It would have to be a logic that even they cannot deny. And that only one has to be derived from the principle of self-ownership.

        1. edit: “You cannot have natural law if it is prescribed by a god, for it would not be natural law at all”

        2. Because “natural law” doesn’t mean “from nature”. It means a higher law that exists before and above man that man can turn to to guide his affairs.

          The problem with saying that these laws are derivative from and obtainable through reason is that no one has seemed to come up with an agreed definition of what they are. Logic is only as good as the assumptions you feed into. You can make a strictly logical case for all sorts of absurd or even evil things if you start with perverse enough assumptions.

          What a higher law would give is not so much laws but assumptions from which man can reason out the proper laws. So for example, you start with the assumption that all men are of equal dignity, that it is wrong to kill someone without reason and so forth.

          1. John| 8.23.13 @ 3:25PM |#
            “Because “natural law” doesn’t mean “from nature”. It means a higher law that exists before and above man that man can turn to to guide his affairs.”

            Uh, so man is not of nature?
            Sorry John, you’re arguing for ‘supernatural law’. I want nothing to do with it.

            1. Uh, so man is not of nature?
              Sorry John, you’re arguing for ‘supernatural law’. I want nothing to do with it.

              Sure man is of nature. But natures laws tell man nothing about how to guide his affairs. You tell me what the laws of thermodynamics say about justice or property rights.

              If you don’t want anything to do with super natural law, good for you. But please do yourself a favor and stop pretending your beliefs have something to do with nature or that nature cares anything about what you think or believe.

              1. “Sure man is of nature. But natures laws tell man nothing about how to guide his affairs. You tell me what the laws of thermodynamics say about justice or property rights.”
                No, John, you tell me what the laws of thermodynamics say about magic guys.

                “If you don’t want anything to do with super natural law, good for you. But please do yourself a favor and stop pretending your beliefs have something to do with nature or that nature cares anything about what you think or believe.”
                OK, stop pretending there’s some magic guy handing down ‘ethics’.

                1. OK, stop pretending there’s some magic guy handing down ‘ethics’.

                  Who said I do? Do you really think theists believe in a old man in the sky? That God is just like man?

                  Beyond that, if you want to claim moral superiority, stop accusing theists of believing things on faith. That is all you are doing here. Is having faith that whatever laws you like and deduce are better than anyone else.

              2. But natures laws tell man nothing about how to guide his affairs. You tell me what the laws of thermodynamics say about justice or property rights.

                We’re talking about the nature of man here, John. How a man should “guide his affairs” is to be based on the kind of thing a man is. I don’t know where all this “nature’s laws” talk is coming from, but nobody’s biting on that red herring.

              3. You tell me what the laws of thermodynamics say about justice or property rights.

                That’s easy: don’t kill people, because entropy is a bitch and won’t let you put Humpty-Dumpty back together again.

            2. You don’t want super natural laws Sevo. You want your own laws. You want to be a law unto yourself. Well, so do we all.

              1. John| 8.23.13 @ 3:55PM |#
                “You don’t want super natural laws Sevo. You want your own laws. You want to be a law unto yourself. Well, so do we all.”

                Oh, John, the two-bit psycho-analyst!

                1. It is not psycho analyst Sevo. It is true. Whatever laws you deduce are your laws and your logic. There is nothing that says they are any better or worse than my laws.

      2. Natural law is a problematic doctrine. If you don’t believe in a God, where does it come from? What is the source of a higher law if man is the highest form of life and he clearly can’t agree on it?

        Balderdash. Buddhists, for one, refuted your argument about 2556 years ago. One can make a valid and sound argument that a universal set of moral and ethical principles can be deduced by one’s reason through study of how the world around him works.

        For example karma, as properly understood and not as it is often misunderstood in the West as the Cosmic Scoreboard, is nothing more than cause and effect. An observation of the natural world in the same manner as the laws of thermodynamics. Does entropy need a god?

        1. Sure you can make lots of arguments for a universal set of moral and ethical principles. But what makes yours better than mine? Show me a set of moral an ethical principles everyone agrees on and are not just ones that happen to appeal to you?

          1. But what makes yours better than mine?

            The fact that they are consistent with the observable laws of the universe*?

            *I don’t have a particular set in mind; just arguing against the assertion that a belief in natural law requires a belief in a creator god.

            1. The fact that they are consistent with the observable laws of the universe*?

              Since when does the universe care about ethics? There is nothing moral or immoral about the universe. It just is. Is a supernova moral? Is the gravitational constant immoral? Those questions don’t even make sense.

              There is nothing universal or necessarily observable about morality. If there was, we would all agree on it the way we do about things like the speed of light or the gravitational constant.

              1. Well, Hans Herman-Hoppe tried to derive a system of ethics from a set of axioms concerning existence. He calls it Argumentation Ethics, and it’s supposed to be an interesting exercise.

                I haven’t studied it closely, so I have no opinion on whether he did a good job (although I found Herman-Hoppe’s papers on immigration to be full of fallacies and poor reasoning so I take his claims to have “proved” shit with a great grain of salt).

              2. Since when does the universe care about ethics? There is nothing moral or immoral about the universe. It just is.

                That’s correct. However, you’re thinking about natural law backwards. One doesn’t judge the morality of the laws of the universe, the laws of the universe provide a framework in which to deduce moral principles.

                I think Rand argues it well when she gives the example of the morality of self-interest. She argues that the only purpose of existence is to exist. This can be deduced by observing the natural world. If one accepts that the purpose of existence is to exist, then actions that support one’s further existence are moral, i.e. they are in accordance with reason.

                There is nothing universal or necessarily observable about morality. If there was, we would all agree on it the way we do about things like the speed of light or the gravitational constant.

                That’s a good point, but you must remember that there was a time when humanity, collectively, was unaware of the speed of light or the gravitational constant. That didn’t mean they didn’t exist; just that they hadn’t been discovered as concepts. The argument for natural law is that just as we were able to use our reason to deduce the speed of light from observation of the world around us, we can do the same with morality; if we define moral principles as something that can be discovered by humans through reason and logic.

                1. She argues that the only purpose of existence is to exist.

                  Really? Maybe the purpose of existence is to at some point not exist. She thinks that but that is nothing but an assumption she choose because it appealed to her. It is hardly self evident.

                  This can be deduced by observing the natural world.

                  Only if you assume that the natural world has any meaning that can be deduced. All you can say about the natural world is that it is as it is. You can’t then make the jump that because nature is a certain way it is better or should be that way. Rand thinks she can because she is a lazy philosopher and is comfortable making leaps of reason. But you can’t do that and think while thinking about it rigorously.

                  All things in nature exist and seem to seek existence does not produce the conclusion “the purpose of existence is to exist”. You have to have a middle step. Some kind of assumption that says that the state of nature means something beyond just being what it is. And there is no reason to make such an assumption beyond Rand likes it that way and it gets her to the result she wants.

                  1. All things in nature exist and seem to seek existence does not produce the conclusion “the purpose of existence is to exist”. You have to have a middle step. Some kind of assumption that says that the state of nature means something beyond just being what it is

                    I’m not sure I follow you. Isn’t existence being what it is just another way of stating “the purpose of existence is to exist”?

                    1. Isn’t existence being what it is just another way of stating “the purpose of existence is to exist”?

                      Not necessarily. Who says it has a purpose? How do we know there is any purpose? Does the earth strive to exist? Does the universe at all? To make those sensible question we have to assume that there is some kind of end or purpose. And maybe there is not. Maybe there is just things and purpose or meaning is just something we project on them.

                    2. Well, the Earth* and the Universe aren’t organisms.

                      Again, the difference between where I’m coming from and your/Sartre/Camus/ Kierkegaard’s existential nihilism is that I believe it is possible to answer, through deductive reasoning, the question if life has a teleology.

                      I argue that life is self-teleological, which is slightly different than your argument that life is absurd (in the existentialist sense).

                      *Fuck Lovelock

          2. Show me a set of moral an ethical principles everyone agrees on and are not just ones that happen to appeal to you?

            I think that’d be a bad thing, because for everyone to agree on these morals they’d have to be forced upon the person without that person using their experience to reinforce said morals.

            So, yeah, they really wouldn’t be morals.

          3. This whole thread is interesting, but ultimately misses the mark.

            No one has mentioned praxeology (maybe I missed it). Human action is the fundamental aspect of reality, coupled with nothing more than an ethic that treats all people as equal (in social standing – not in ability or outcome), that is required to ultimately derive the moral and legal philosophy that libertarians generally subscribe to.

            The only way to refute the libertarian moral philosophy is to deny the logic of praxeology (futile, in the same sense that it is futile to deny the logic of math), or to accept an ethic that divides people into unequal classes.

            If you wish to belabor the latter, fine – I yield. I admit that my moral philosophy falls apart if it is to be accepted that certain people are privileged over others.

            My moral philosophy is better than yours, John, because it is correct, in the sense that it is logically consistent with reality. Yours stands only on fairy tales. There is no way to prove it correct, and it is therefore an exercise in masturbation to bother discussing it with others.

            (p.s., yes, I realize that I haven’t laid out the logic that I reference above — to do so would take too much time and space, and has been done by others far better than could I. Just look up praxeology. You could disagree with it, but you’d be wrong – in the same way that you could disagree with the assertion that 2+2=4… and be wrong)

        2. You need to read David Hume HM. He only makes a couple of good points. But the ones he does put rest to the idea of there being some kind of rationally deduced set of moral imperatives.

          1. I’ve read Hume, but I’ve always found Locke’s arguments for the existence of Natural Law to be more convincing.

            1. Hume is right. All of these “principles” have no basis in experience. They are preferences we pull out of the air.

              1. John| 8.23.13 @ 3:43PM |#
                “Hume is right. All of these “principles” have no basis in experience. They are preferences we pull out of the air.”

                Ones that promote social living? The ones co-opted by those who bleeve in the sky-daddy and then claim they came from the sky-daddy?
                Well, yeah, they were pulled out of the air like the ones about don’t jump off a cliff.

                1. Ones that promote social living?

                  Says who? You think they promote social living. Others disagree. You are just translating your preferences into observations.

                  1. John| 8.23.13 @ 4:02PM |#
                    “Ones that promote social living?

                    Says who? You think they promote social living. Others disagree. You are just translating your preferences into observations”

                    Yeah, John, ‘don’t steal’ is just something I made up.
                    Now tell us how your sky-daddy came up with all these things. I could use a laugh.

                    1. Yeah, John, ‘don’t steal’ is just something I made up.

                      Don’t steal is great right up until stealing produces more good than harm in that particular instance. Should I not steal from the army that occupied my country and burned down the fields? Is stealing to survive bad then?

                      What about lying? When the secret police show up looking for the person they plan to shoot, should I lie and tell them they are not hiding in my basement? Isn’t lying wrong?

                      Kant would say I should tell them where the person is because lying is wrong. That seems to be a pretty absurd result. These things are hardly self evident. If they were, the human race would have a much more peaceful existence.

              2. You are wrong, John. The NAP is not a preference pulled out of thin air. It is universal to human beings. No one, and I mean 100% of people, likes aggression against their person or property. The NAP is simply a statement of rational reality.

                Does the Golden Rule have more meaning because it came from The Great Sky Spirit?

                If God is the basis for all morality, which God? Allah and Jehovah and Jesus all see things differently.

                1. The NAP is not a preference pulled out of thin air. It is universal to human beings.

                  No its not. It is not universal to me. I think your rules are full of shit. There is nothing self evident about them. You are a hundred times worse than a theist. A theist is at least honest about where his ideas come from. You in contrast are just choosing things that appeal to you and pretending they have been handed down to you from something called Reason and are self evident even though you admit many or even most people don’t see it that way.

                  There is nothing self evident about any of it. And there is nothing more or less just or right. It is nothing a set of assumptions and principles that appeal to you. That is it. You like them and work for a society to live by them and think such a society is more appealing. That is nice and all. And hopefully that gives your life some meaning. But there is nothing lasting or universal about them. They are just your preferences. You pretend otherwise because realizing that is a pretty bitter pill for most.

                  1. But there is nothing lasting or universal about them. They are just your preferences. You pretend otherwise because realizing that is a pretty bitter pill for most.

                    Your love for the Existentialists is showing, John.

                    1. I love the Existentialists HM. You have me pegged. I just can’t see any other answer, outside of theism.

              3. On the contrary, Hume was wrong about pretty much everything.

                Why does man need a code of ethics at all? For shits and giggles, or what?

                1. Why does man need a code of ethics at all?

                  He doesn’t. Why should he?

        3. One can make a valid and sound argument that a universal set of moral and ethical principles can be deduced by one’s reason through study of how the world around him works.

          That’s actually what the ten commandments are. They weren’t “commandments” at all, just principles. You want peace of mind? Then don’t covet, don’t steal, don’t lie, etc. It was church-government that turned them into commandments. And there’s really only 5 or 6 of them anyway, the rest are just there so the prosecutors can pile on.

          1. From a linguistics-hermeneutics standpoint, I have to disagree. 7 of the commandments, in Hebrew, begin with the particle “lo,” which, when placed in front of a verb in the imperfect mood, is a marker for a negative command/imperative (basically, an ersatz prohibitive mood).

            1. My point is these were social norms that existed long before some Hebrews wrote them down and made them a justification for their church-government authoritarian actions.

              And being the authoritarians/bureaucrats, they couldn’t resist piling on.

      3. The evidence suggests very strongly that nature has no particular concern over any of the rights we commonly credit nature with granting us. Nature sends bears to eat us. Nature sends storms to destroy our property. Nature sends insect plagues to eat our food. Nature has enslaved us to our stomachs. Nature even seems determined to utterly destroy the universe as we know it either through the one-way march of entropy or through the prospect of a Big Crush. Nature gave us a limited ability to fight back against these impositions, but the rule of Nature seems to be that the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must. So why should we believe that rights are anything other than a human institution, established by humans for the regulation of conduct between humans for the benefit of humans?

        The idea that God gives us our moral laws is also problematic. Where does God get that authority?

        1. I agree with you Xenocles. As far as the issue of God’s laws, assume for a moment there is a God. God being an utterly different being and a being whose true essence is beyond our meager ability to comprehend, our ability to evaluate is laws is pretty limited. We are like children at that point. We can’t understand God so therefore we can’t understand the logic and the reasoning he is basing his laws on. At that point we are literally the kid who doesn’t understand that his parents don’t own the electric company.

          The appeal to a God given natural law is in that sense a punt. It is an appeal to authority. It is a base set of assumptions that really can’t be reasoned but just taken.

          1. It is a punt, and it is somewhat internally consistent. I just don’t see anything to recommend it over bootstrapping it for ourselves.

        2. But the nature you describe is all external to human action. Yes, they affect subsequent human action, but they do not come from human action.

          When people are saying “Natural Law” outside of science, they are talking about human actions. What human actions cause distress within oneself?

          If I steal from you, I cause you distress. But I also distress myself because I know there is a chance you will seek revenge for my action.

          As I’ve stated before, the #1 distress is having a false god. You do not have to be religious to understand this. One could say the police have turned “the law” into a false god – certainly all the laws regarding the war on drugs have only created more distress for the police (and the community at large) rather than alleviated any distress.

          (I’m not saying I know what “the true god” is, but it is not hard to identify false gods for the false gods are the ones that cause you distress. The two biggest false gods are the government and the church – two institutions that are always distressed and never satisfied.)

      4. I think natural law can be made sensible when it’s defined as that law which best creates least conflict/leads to most flourishing/whatever metric you prefer, given the facts about man and his environment. In this case, it’s a positive study of cause-and-effect, not an ethical argument. You should respect natural law because it’s in your interest to do so, not because of some appreciation for a higher power or “nature.”

    2. Tony hangs out at CNN too?

      1. Cruising for libertarians just wasn’t stimulating any more.

    3. My head hurts from reading this nonsense. What kind of bran damage must one be visitid upon with to see the world this idiotically?

      1. Their entire world view is based on envy. For them inequality, rather than being a relative term is an absolute bad. The NBA, for example, is a pretty unequal place. The lowest paid veteran makes probably 1/60th the income LaBron James does if you count endorsements. But I would happily be a towel waiving 12th man making my cool million or more veteran minimum. The only way I view that as a bad thing is if I can’t get over my envy of James. Compared to most of the rest of the world and nearly all of human history, the poorest American is what the veteran making the minimum NBA player is to you and I. Liberals just can’t set aside their envy and hate long enough to see it.

        1. You keep saying liberals can’t set aside their envy, but I’d say the ones making the arguments above aren’t doing it from a point of envy and hate, they are doing it from a point of ego and hate.

          I was going to say “guilt” instead of ego, but someone who truly felt guilty or even fortunate for a higher station could simply be charitable and shut the fuck up about it.

          That is why it is mostly ego that makes such arguments; the concern for those less fortunate is completely insincere (and somewhat childish) because there is no effort to reflect on the past experiments and reevaluate. IOW, expressing one’s concern is more important to these people than results. The only answer these people ever have is “up the dosage”, and they conveniently ignore all the other dosage increases that made the problem worse. And that isn’t coming from ignorance, it’s coming from arrogance.

          The strange thing is how common the “up the dosage” prescription comes from the public sector and how rare it is in the private sector. That’s why academics, miltary, police, firefighters, teachers, prosecutors, and even doctors begging for single-payer (public employees all) only ever advocate “up the dosage.”

          1. That is a very good point. Liberalism is at heart a narcissistic ideology. To assume that you can help someone is to give yourself a whole lot credit. And liberals tend to look at people and problems as props in their own personal psychodramas.

            1. It probably is worse than that John, for these people don’t just assume they CAN help you, they assume you need THEIR help even when you politely say “No, I don’t want your help at this time.” They can’t stop coercing themselves onto others.

    4. I see one giant non-sequitur. I think everything he says in the first paragraph can be rewritten to be reasonable, but where does the “income gap” come into it? What catastrophic damage is done? Why does anything get turned upside down?

    5. Oops. I started a shitstorm.

    6. In otherwords, this turd is a sociopath, that must have the restraints of govt and consequences to keep him from looting his neighbors. Well, you can tell a lot about a man by the way he rationalizes stealing I suppose.

  9. She creeps me out. I’ve seen video of her speaking and her face moves like a skin mask over something horrible.

    1. That’s because it is a skin mask over her undead face.

      1. This. I used to think that time would take care of the Feinstein problem, but now I realize that she is the walking dead and will haunt the halls of Congress, forever.

    2. She totally looks like Gollum/Smeagol.

      1. Why are Dem women so often so hideous looking? The woman is in her 60s. I wouldn’t expect to her look like Bar Rapheli. But my God, not like that. Can’t she just look like a normal, pleasant looking 60 something?

        1. She used to look like Annette Funicello, but all those years of service to the Prince of Darkness have taken their toll.

          1. In the same way some dog lovers start to resemble their dogs after a while, some politicians start to resemble their souls.

            1. Which is why Nancy Pelosi is dissapearing

        2. Why are Dem women so often so hideous looking?

          When your entire worldview is based around greed, envy and vindictiveness it takes a toll on you.

        3. The woman is in her 60s.

          …80’s….or did you mean you thought she was 160…which you could totally be forgiven for thinking.

        4. Feinstein is Gollum, Pelosi is the Emperor from Star Wars…any other comparisons?

          1. Warren kinda reminds me of a wookie for no reason at all.

          2. Wasserman is the Toxic Avenger.

        5. I can tell you why DiFi looks so nasty. She is a very nasty person full of a desire to control the people around her. Look at the way she fussed over the skirt lengths worn by women in her office during the Harvey Milk era.

          I expect that pleasant people want nothing to do with her, so her social interactions are entirely with people who want something from her, and so rather than congenial relationships, it’s all use or be-used ones.

          Decades of stress and emotional turmoil will destroy your body and age you. I’ll bet it’s been decades since she’s been comfortable and relaxed around other people, or even when she’s alone.

          1. One of my high school classmates ended up a reporter in California for a while. She interviewed Feinstein. She said she was the most rude, awful person she had ever dealt with. And my friend is a pretty big liberal. So that wasn’t political bias talking.

            Pelosi is the same way. She came and gave a speech at a girls’ high school my wife was working at. Pelosi showed up a half hour late and spent a half hour hawking her book, took no questions and left. Didn’t give a single “great to see all you girls” or any kind of interaction beyond buy my book and line my pockets. A lot of people at the school did a lot of work to set up her speech. She didn’t even given them a hello much less a thank you. She couldn’t have been more awful if she had tried.

            1. You have to attend the speech to know what’s going to be in it. 😉

              1. The thing is that she is so horrible and out of touch, I think she actually thought that she was doing everyone there a favor giving them the privilege of hearing her hawk her book. In her mind, they were lucky to even be in her presence so there was no reason for her to take any interest in them.

        6. actually, she is 80 years old. Born June 22, 1933.

          1. Isn’t is amazing how many of those who would rule us came of age in a different time, a different world, even.

            I vote Carousel!

          2. Amazing how these people are so addicted to power. You would have thought someone that age would want to retire and count their millions. All they know and value is power. They can’t face any other kind of life. What a horrible sad person you would have to be to still want to be in the Senate at that age.

        7. She’s 80.

  10. My eyes really should be brown. Dark, dark brown.

    No, they should be red. Glowing red.

  11. Those bastards took down Ron Bailey’s post!

    1. I was starting to wonder if it was an experiment to determine whether libertarians will argue about (literally) anything.

      1. Oh, sure, now that I’ve double posted it, it’s back. DAMN YOU BAILEY!

    2. So…It really was there, right?

  12. “Showing That Sen. Feinstein is Still Full of Crap.”

    Has she ever not been?

    1. It’s my understanding that initially she was an empty shell waiting to be filled with evil.

      1. Which suggests that her common nickname shouldn’t be “DiFi,” but rather, “Senator Chamberpot.”

        Truly, this person must be retired at the next electoral opportunity. The correction is long overdue.

  13. As I have said previously, the committee has never identified an instance in which the NSA has intentionally abused its authority to conduct surveillance for inappropriate purposes.

    Of course, the committee is infallible and has complete knowledge of all the doings of the NSA.

    Maybe DIFI really is that stupid to believe the James Clapper, who admitted to lying under oath to Congress, when he gives the “least untruthful answer.”

  14. Have those NSA analysts who intentionally broke the law to spy on American citizens been charged for their crimes? Say, charged with illegal wiretapping?

  15. We do not spy on millions of people.
    Well, ok, we do, but it’s all perfectly legal and within oversight.
    Well, it’s not ALL within legal guidelines, but there are only a few exceptions where we are acting illegally.
    OK, ok, there are actually thousands of exceptions, but they are all unintentional.
    Alright, maybe some of them are intentional. But it’s only a few, I swear! And we still have oversight!

    We good now?

    1. “We good now?”

      Until Snowden opens his yap again!

  16. Awesome headline at the WSJ:

    Double-Secret Probation for Bashar

  17. Sen. Feinstein is still full of crap?

    Has there ever been a time when she wasn’t?

  18. “Over the past decade, very rare instances of willful violations of NSA’s authorities have been found,” the NSA said in a statement to Bloomberg News. “NSA takes very seriously allegations of misconduct, and cooperates fully with any investigations — responding as appropriate. NSA has zero tolerance for willful violations of the agency’s authorities.”

    Excellent! Because the “NSA takes very seriously allegations of misconduct” and has “zero tolerance”, I look forward to seeing these folks publicly changed and prosecuted. Because, as we all know, when there are no consequences for abuses of power, those abuses will not only continue, but get worse. One has only to look at Radley Balko’s reporting on cops to know that is the case.

  19. “…very rare instances of willful violations…”

    In government speak, “rare” means no more than half the time.

    1. “rare” means the government has not yet been caught often enough to be forced to admit it.

  20. To be fair, the fecal matter that Feinstein is full of was introduced deliberately as a tumor treatment during recent brain surgery at UC Davis — the VETERINARY hospital, of course! 😉

    http://www.cdph.ca.gov/certlic…..County.pdf

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.