sorry drunk post

The FDA can't guarantee it'll get dangerous foods off the shelves within even a few years. It couldn't halt BP from ditching millions of gallons of neurotoxic, carcinogenic dispersants into the gulf after Deepwater Horizon. But it's sure as sin make sure your life isn't ruined by an unclear genetics report--as if there were any way people could imperil theirselves with the information.

Hacked account. Xfd. Why would someone joke about that? So much shitposting in this thread. I wonder who's paying?

That answer wasn't remotely relevant, nor were the replies. Good to see some paid trolls about--this issue must be important to someone.

If Reagan didn't support aparthead, he wouldn't have vetoed the comprehensive anti-apartheid Act of 1986. Reagan is only idolized by sheep and their shepherds.

You seem to think that people can just up and leave their ISP and choose a new one, but you're ignoring the fact that most people only have two options at the most. it's no surprise other countries have left us in the dust as far as broadband speeds are concerned.

Or any other disinfornation troll on here who plays apologist for the Obama administration / NSA. There are many.

Wikileaks doesn't simply tell us that entities are corrupt and expect us to believe it at face value. There are always specific examples.

Where have you been? Just go into amy thread about Edward Snowden or assange.. or global warming, even. The phrases to watch out for are "narcissist" and "al gore", respectively

Reich was targeted ferociously by a government controlled in part by pharmaceutical corporations. True fact. If only those who make our food today were given such scrutiny as Reich, who had his machines and lab destroyed and his papers burned.

That doesn't mean their leaders are being entirely honest. So? Here's what you just said: "So a lot of this European and Latin American angst is... cynical pols." You're representiong the qualms to be only on the part of a corrupt government, when in fact everyone shares them. Not to mention, the qualms themselves are entirely reasonable--we effectively co-opted their internet to spy on them. Your tepid explanation that the US would do "shit that works" (I bet you'd say they'd do it "real good", too!) is a weak nondistinction. Brazil's seeking to circumvent the US by attaining direct network access to China. You wouldn't deem that to be "shit that might work"?

Seriously, those last three sentences just tumbled right out of your butt. Dennis Miller, is that you? Get the fuck out of here.

So other countries who don't like their leaders directly spied on (angela merkel) are just "angsting"? Would you say the same if the US were the victim? Fuck you.

This isn't even controversial. The idea is to collect information and use it retroactively to target people. This thread is full of shills like yourself, trying to emphasize some concept of the NSA's ineptitude rather than the evil of what it is doing.

Bullshit, the bill of rights is not about what government can do. More about what it can't

You call them "leaks" as if to imply their release was intended by the involved agencies. It wasn't. Leaked documents have illustrated how similar tactics were employed to cast doubt on wikileaks, claiming it was a cia plot. You really expect us to buy into this argument you're having with your sockpuppet?