Yes the government has been doing this for 7 years but now Verizon has hooked them up with data as well. The governments capabilities of surveillance are only growing.
That's my point. I'm pretty sure the guy empowered in 2008 and 2012 was not expected to continue doing the things from 2006. He's a fraud and you should repent. Reject the two party system, and accept third parties as your savior!
Speaking of 2006, He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named was voting YEA on the USA PATRIOT Act. http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00029
Hah, Wyden voted nay.. coincidentally he is the senator whom the NSA director lied to about this whole spy operation.
Even the nutjob who authored the "USA PATRIOT Act" - Representative Jim Sensenbrenner - admitted: “I authored the Patriot Act, and this is an abuse of that law†Not realizing, apparently, that his law violates the US Constitution, our supposed Supreme Law of the land. Doh!
I thought that's what we elected people for... you know, to have knowledge of that. Isn't that like the number 1 statist response: BUT WE ELECT PEOPLE IN ORDER TO HAVE ACCOUNTABLE GOVERNMENT
I saw an "adds by Google" that was anti marijuana legalization. I will now be boycotting google Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
I'm fairly certain that a company pays for that ad and google puts it up, the ads by google is google's own advertisement of it's advertising capacity and I don't believe the ad in anyway reflects google's stance on marijuana legalization.
Alright, I'll take your LG off your hands if you'd like. </blockquote> I wish. We have a contract. Ill probly have my wife switch to another company when it expires Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
I'm fairly certain that a company pays for that ad and google puts it up, the ads by google is google's own advertisement of it's advertising capacity and I don't believe the ad in anyway reflects google's stance on marijuana legalization. </blockquote> Believe it or not the adds are screened before put out. You can't just advertise anything. If tjey go against Google's views they wont out them up Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
You've made a large leap in logic here. Just because google considers the ad to be ok to "air" for lack of a better term, doesn't mean it's something that they support. If advertising companies only advertised things and products they agreed with they would go broke. If you want an example of what I'm talking about look at late night infomercials. You'll notice that there is often a disclaimer that the network/station doesn't endorse the product or what it claims.
LOL, Ari Fleischer gave Obama a shout-out for continuing on with the policies of the Bush administration \tAri Fleischer: Obama Carrying Out Bush's 4th Term
That's exactly what I was thinking. When Julian Assange leaked all that info, the first thing the government did was go after his credibility. I have no idea whether or not he's a creep, but the issues he brought to light are important either way. I think the government will use this data to target and blackmail anyone who goes against their agenda. Any independent who might have a chance of winning office could be targeted. Any activist, anyone except the most compliant. I censor myself online because I don't want to raise any unnecessary red flags, and there's something wrong with that.
You've made a large leap in logic here. Just because google considers the ad to be ok to "air" for lack of a better term, doesn't mean it's something that they support. If advertising companies only advertised things and products they agreed with they would go broke. If you want an example of what I'm talking about look at late night infomercials. You'll notice that there is often a disclaimer that the network/station doesn't endorse the product or what it claims. </blockquote> It would be naive to think they would just let anything through. Stephen Colbert is a great example. He paid for and signed a contract for commercial air time on a major station. When they saw the add the decided not to put it on because it directly conflicted with their side. Sure they don't always only put things theu agree with, bit.you can be sure many of their adds are approved by someone before put out. Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
The bold is conjecture, you don't know that so please don't state it as fact or use it as a supporting point for your argument. Secondly, having adds be approved by them is still not the same as them giving their "approval" of the ad. Finally my point is that it's asinine to be boycotting Google over this.
The bold is conjecture, you don't know that so please don't state it as fact or use it as a supporting point for your argument. Secondly, having adds be approved by them is still not the same as them giving their "approval" of the ad. Finally my point is that it's asinine to be boycotting Google over this. </blockquote> I can't see bold on my.phone. Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
I enlarged the text. It's pretty easy to see what I thought was conjecture but I'll c/p it anyway; When they saw the add the decided not to put it on because it directly conflicted with their side. Nothing to say about the rest of my post?