A Justice Department plan would loosen restrictions on the Federal Bureau of Investigation to allow agents to open a national security or criminal investigation against someone without any clear basis for suspicion...
Hey, I haven't done anything wrong. They can look at me any time.
Who could possibly be against this except someone with something to hide?
Hmmmm...?
10 comments:
Here's my hunch on what is behind this, politics. Elected pieces of shit are going to use the FBI to look into very rich folks lives to find dirt. Not criminal doing but dirt. Once they have that dirt the elected pieces of shit will blackmail these people for money.
This my friends is what happens when government grows itself such as the federal government has.
Everyone knows that Clinton went after Bill Gates/Microsoft because he didn't give the democrats money. So Janet Reno and the DOJ sued Microsoft and that started the dot com melt down. So if anyone things these dirt bags will not use the FBI reports to blackmail private citizens for money, you live in LaLa Land.
Scare tactics. We already have warrantless wiretaps and Internet monitoring, and "national security letters" that bypass the need to bring in a judge or local prosecutor.
I think the thrust of this is that the Obamessiah will save us from an overbearing government and McCain is Big Brother Bush's third term.
I ain't buyin' it.
It BEGAN in a Republican-dominated Congress with a republican president.
Meanwhile, Obama spoke in Virginia, saying "I am a strong beleiver of (sic) the Second Amendment. Nobody's going to take the guns of law-abiding Virginiansaway from them."
So just follow ALL those "reasonable regulations" -- current and future -- and you'll be left alone -- UNLIKE people in Illinois where Obama is from.
Sure we will.
Defender hits it well and to back up his statement look at the actions of the GOP. When WJC was prez the republicans had both houses of congress and passed a bill to drill for oil in Alaska. WJC vetoed it. The proof that this was just a joke on the people is, once Bush was in office why did then not bring that bill back up to drill in Alaska?
What we have is a big Dog and Pony show by self serving pieces of shit who could care less about the citizens of this country. Anything they do they do for themselves first and the country second.
I'm telling everyone, this is about getting dirt on the very rich to blackmail them.
Law enforcement would never make a mistake and raid the wrong address.
BATFE would never punish a person for a simple equipment malfunction.
Better ten guilty go free than should one innocent be wrongly punished.
These and other fairy tales brought to you by Homeland Security, here to serve and protect.
I have a lot of stuff to hide: my privacy. It doesn't matter if I am doing anything the government considers "wrong" or not. I am not harming anyone and I do not welcome snoops into my home. Period.
"Who could possibly be against this except someone with something to hide?"-David
Everybody, even the pragmatists who have nothing to hide. Everybody except those incarcerated. They are the only people in the country who can alibi every minute of their lives. The rest are in danger of being a "convenient clearace" or statistical padding.
McCain evades McCain-Feingold law:
The Federal Election Commission voted to approve belatedly McCain’s withdrawal from public financing for the primaries. That means McCain is not bound by the spending limits that restrict candidates who do accept primary-season matching funds. -- AP
Confirming AvgJoe's assessment.
AvgJoe:
And MSFT couldn't possibly have actually been a predatory monopolist?
Exercising my right to privacy is not an admission of guilt. The old "if you've got nothing to hide" line is just the police's tactic of guilt-tripping honest citizens into complying with their demands to infringe upon our rights.
Welcome to the Fourth Reich.
Gott Mitt Uns
III
Post a Comment