or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › NSA: Checking the Phones
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

NSA: Checking the Phones

post #1 of 215
Thread Starter 
Again. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...5-10-nsa_x.htm

Slightly different than listening in on american-to-overseas calls, this case involves secretly compiling a list of every phone call of every american. not suspects, not people calling pakistan and iran. everyone.

to be clear, they aren't listening. they have gathered nearly every phone record. my opinion is this is disgusting. reprehensible. all done under the guise of anti-terrorism. i think its an egregious overstepping of authority. i'd like to commend qwest for being the only phone company to refuse. what do you guys think?
post #2 of 215
These facists just keep getting worse and worse.

Enough is enough.

Viva la revol.....

oh wait - they're probably monitoring the Internets, too.


Never Mind.

Move Along.

Nothing To See Here.
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #3 of 215
2 tin cans and a string is the answer....
post #4 of 215
Thank God (or the gods) that I don't live in the US anymore, or I would give up on phones altogether. With all the fuss about the tapping, any terrorist with a brain half the size of GW'S will have stopped using phone-based com systems and will have switched to some other form, perhaps back to the good and trusted mail system.

The whole thing is getting out of hand and is pretty scary. It makes you wonder what they are doing that hasn't been dscovered yet.

Bush just gave a short news conference with NO Q and A period wherein he refuted the claims that anything was illegal. He looked rather pathetic and harried... Any trained security guard or even a drunk bouncer would stop him based on his eye movements; he is definitely hiding something, and it aint't likely to be very good.

Is "half the size of" giving GW too much credit?

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #5 of 215
Thank goodness for USWest is now Qwest. Glad I live on the West Coast.

Pretty ridiculous stuff and has to be somewhat attributed to post 9/11 political cover for spook empowerment. Still, I don't think this can all be entirely placed on the shoulders of the neocon cabal. If you look at what little we know about what the NSA has been doing like Echelon and all that during the 90s it seems likely that they've been bending or breaking the rules for quite a long time.

There'll be some media for this and maybe a few dog and pony show investigations. I can't imagine though that any fundamental change to truly respect privacy or civil liberties will be forthcoming.
post #6 of 215
And tapping the internet as well

The intelligence services know that terrorists don't use the internet, telephones or any other electronic communications. That includes the imaginary ones dreamed up by this administration to scare the crap out of the sheeple.

This is nothing to do with catching "terrorists". Terrorism is the convenient excuse and easily digested justification employed by rotten-to-the-core agencies serving a power-crazed, rotten-to-the-core administration in its longterm bid to transfer power from representative public offices to unelected private corporate and privileged parties.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #7 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by FormerLurker
oh wait - they're probably monitoring the Internets, too.

Yeah, but which ones? I think we is teh safe.
post #8 of 215
What I keeping thinking about is the whole "we're only monitoring people with links to the terrorists" line that we've been getting.

Then I imagine the old "7 degrees of Kevin Bacon" game and wonder how many degrees might seperate anyone from some nefarious "evil-doer". At a certain point you can link anyone to anyone.

Sen. Leahy had some line about "how can they claim that there are 10-20 million people with al-Qaida ties in the US?"

It's the "7 degrees of al-Qaida" game...that's how.
post #9 of 215
I wonder if having an Arab name is a flag? How about knowing , working for, having an Arab client? Kind of makes you wonder what their criteria for surveillance is.
post #10 of 215
Don't worry... we aren't doing anything without a proper warrant.

Don't worry... we don't always bother with a warrant, but we're only tapping international phone calls to suspicious people outside of the country.

Don't worry... okay, we've been monitoring practically all domestic telephone traffic without any warrants whatsoever, but we're only looking at who's calling whom when, it's not like we're listening in on conversations or anything like that.

Don't worry... ?
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #11 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by ColanderOfDeath
There'll be some media for this and maybe a few dog and pony show investigations. I can't imagine though that any fundamental change to truly respect privacy or civil liberties will be forthcoming.

There was some manner of investigation being conducted, and it shut down yesterday. Why?
Quote:
The government has abruptly ended an inquiry into the warrantless eavesdropping program because the National Security Agency refused to grant Justice Department lawyers the necessary security clearance to probe the matter.

The inquiry headed by the Justice Departments Office of Professional Responsibility, or OPR, sent a fax to Rep. Maurice Hinchey, D-N.Y., on Wednesday saying they were closing their inquiry because without clearance their lawyers cannot examine Justice lawyers role in the program.

We have been unable to make any meaningful progress in our investigation because OPR has been denied security clearances for access to information about the NSA program, OPR counsel H. Marshall Jarrett wrote to Hinchey.
post #12 of 215
Please Bush, don't protect us from terror. i don't think we can take any more of this.
I'm surprised the MSM is picking this up full force.
post #13 of 215
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
There was some manner of investigation being conducted, and it shut down yesterday. Why?

the audacity is ridiculous.

why do we need the NSA? idk. i'm sure they have some purpose but it can't possibly include spying on americans. if it does, then the whole government is suspect. i can't accept a government that willfully lies to its populace and, literally, spies on them. They clearly have demonstrated that they are acting without care for our interests. imo, the agency should be shut down. cut off all funding. i think all the intelligence agencies and TLAs should be heavily investigated. i, for one, don't trust them with whatever secrets they have.
post #14 of 215
There are worse things, and things of a similar nature, that have been done, and that are still going on.

The Alien and Sedition Acts, the suspension of Habeaus Corpus, the FBI's unlawful taps (under Hoover, before recent laws made them 'legal'), FDR's attempted stacking of the supreme court, the abuse of auditing by the IRS (the White House points at citizens to audit), the RICO laws, the DMCA, Andrew Jackson's unilateral relocation of native americans (trail of tears--which was decried by congress), the FCC, LLC's, ID without cause, the drug war, etc.

I don't understand why people get worked up over phone tapping when the government has been able to view anything you've bought, sold, or borrowed anytime they want via the income tax laws.

Yeah, tapping is bad, mkay.. but for god's sake, it's been going on long before Bush, and no matter which republicrat you elect in '08, it'll be going on long afterwards.

There's no use complaining about it, as long as they know you don't care enough to vote for someone against it (note: who will ACTUALLY move against it), nothing will change.

I have no faith that the American people will stop with the "us against them" thing enough to get rid of the "lesser of two evils" mentality. The USA PATRIOT Act was signed by both parties, have fun with your mess!


I used to vote libertarian, now I don't vote.
Mac user since before you were born.
Reply
Mac user since before you were born.
Reply
post #15 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by slughead
There are worse things, and things of a similar nature, that have been done, and that are still going on.

Quite true. Doesn't make this OK. But still true.

Quote:
Originally posted by slughead
the FCC, LLC's

Just out of curiosity, what is your problem with the FCC and LLCs (I assume you mean Limited Liability Companies)?

Quote:
Originally posted by slughead
I don't understand why people get worked up over phone tapping

Let's try to be a bit more precise here. What is alleged is not phone "tapping" but rather the collection of records of who called who. Still disconcerting, but quite different. George might know that I called my wife but not what I said. That's the difference.

Quote:
Originally posted by slughead
when the government has been able to view anything you've bought, sold, or borrowed anytime they want via the income tax laws.

Hmmm...partly true.

First cash transactions are not easily traceable to a particular person.

Second...well...you're right...if you use a check or credit card...it is in a database somewhere. In fact, one day, when entering receipts into Quicken it occurred to me how easy it would be able to put together a fairly accurate map of how, where and when my day was spent. Timestamps on receipts and all that.

post #16 of 215
Thread Starter 
"First, our intelligence activities strictly target al Qaeda and their known affiliates. Al Qaeda is our enemy and we want to know their plans," says President Bush (1). Senator Leahy said {this wasn't a direct response to gwb, but a separate quote from a separate article on the same subject}, "Are you telling me that tens of millions of Americans are involved with Al Qaeda?" (2)

The president of the united states has lied, publically, to the American people. Today. Does this singular act itself warrant impeachment or censure? imo, yes. i don't think the president should ever lie so arrogantly about something which is now public knowledge. several members of the administration have explicitly lied, or implied and insinuated complete falsehoods. i have no faith that they can properly execute the war on terror.

1. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/11/wa...r=1&oref=login
2. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/11/wa...rtner=homepage
post #17 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by thuh Freak
lie so arrogantly

Just out of curiosity, would it be OK if they lied...but not arrogantly?

post #18 of 215
Whats really screwed up about this is that the Justice dept cant even investigate the NSA because they say so, Anyone say a Govt within a Govt who answers to No One? America no longer stands for anything decent, Its secret govt is out of control and no longer answers to the people. Its a quasiMilitary corporation ran body immune to any wrong doing. Liberty,Freedom & Justice are dead in the U.S. it appears. Time for impeachment.
VOTE OUT ALL INCUMBENTS! Its the only way we can clean up Congress.
Reply
VOTE OUT ALL INCUMBENTS! Its the only way we can clean up Congress.
Reply
post #19 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
Don't worry... we aren't doing anything without a proper warrant.

Don't worry... we don't always bother with a warrant, but we're only tapping international phone calls to suspicious people outside of the country.

Don't worry... okay, we've been monitoring practically all domestic telephone traffic without any warrants whatsoever, but we're only looking at who's calling whom when, it's not like we're listening in on conversations or anything like that.

Don't worry... ?

That's it exactly.

When the first NSA wiretapping story hit, the standard defense was "Well, you have to trust the president in time of war. He's protecting us from terrorists, and why would anyone believe that he would abuse his power, you pathological Bush haters?".

The obvious answer to which was "Why should any of this be based on trust?"

Where in the constitution is faith placed in "trust"? It seems pretty obvious from the way our government was designed that the founders, in fact, didn't think "trust" was going to be much of a bulwark against tyranny.

We have a constitutional system that provides the oversight of checks and balances precisely because the founders took a dim view of unbridled power being wielded by any one branch. They knew that power wielded without oversight is an invitation to abuse.

Moreover, we have a system in place to allow judicial oversight of exactly the kind of things the NSA has been up to, recognizing that certain circumstances may warrant an expedited process.

But even that wasn't enough. Bush's answer to everything is "I can do whatever I want and nobody's the boss of me. Terror."

And now that we see they have taken things further than they admitted, and have no reason to believe that they have taken other measures that might be even more disconcerting, and Bush has basically told us via his myriad "signing declarations" that he feels he isn't constrained by any law he doesn't like, but the terrorists win if we are allowed to know and anyway, only someone consumed with hatred would not trust Bush to make appropriate use of his secret, unmonitored and un-investigable powers and super extra-legal capacities because terror terror terror!

And this is the stance of people who, for years, have brayed about their love of freedom and limited government and how they are just so much more digging the constitution and Our Way of Life than those nasty liberals.

Turns out all it takes is to wave the terror boogyman flag and these sons soil want nothing more than the police man state to cover their asses, freedom be damned.

Wanker motherfuckers. Really don't deserve to live in my country.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #20 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Just out of curiosity, what is your problem with the FCC and LLCs (I assume you mean Limited Liability Companies)?

The FCC regulates something that belongs to states. For satelites and stuff, that's OK under the interstate commerce clause, but for radio stations and devices located and transmitting RF within a state border, they constitutionally have no juristiction.

Oddly enough, a better case could be made for regulating the internet than local radio and television.

As for LLCs, they are a relatively recent invention (FDR--30's/40's). Well not exactly, LLCs before FDR were formed for specific purposes like corporations working in tadem with state and federal governments to perform tasks, and were prompty disbanded afterwards.

"Limited Liability" is BS. You should be able to sue a PERSON, not a corporation, if a corporation does something wrong. That may be upsetting to some who see the coruption in the current tort system (also an outrage), but believe me, the system DID work before FDR.

Also, suing the government shouldn't be so hard either. The idea was that the government shouldn't be doing much at all, let alone something that may cause someone injury. When the government became the nation's largest employer (under FDR), that's when the government decided it was no longer liable for its own actions. Note: you can still sue the government, but not as an individual; as a 'class' (eg 'class action'), and only when they allow it.

I know it seems crazy--our whole corporate world is illegal--but believe me, the shareholders would make damn sure their corporations weren't evil if they were held personally responsible for the corporation's actions.

The green and libertarian parties support this. It's not a change-to thing, it's a change-back thing.

In a perfect world, the tort system would be more fair. I'm in favor of a "reasonable doubt" and "loser pays" policy for law suits. The way things are now, the person with the best case wins, and even if they don't, they only have to pay for their own part of it.

But crazy me thinks that the government should match what they pay for the procecution in criminal cases to defendants. Wacky, right? You know, the government paying to give you a fair trial?

Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
First cash transactions are not easily traceable to a particular person.

Yeah but it's illegal not to report even cash transactions.
Mac user since before you were born.
Reply
Mac user since before you were born.
Reply
post #21 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by thuh Freak
Senator Leahy said {this wasn't a direct response to gwb, but a separate quote from a separate article on the same subject}, "Are you telling me that tens of millions of Americans are involved with Al Qaeda?" (2)

Obvious man says: Leahy's a lying sack of crap, he voted for the USA PATRIOT Act which gave the government many of these powers.

No, he's not lying about the tapping thing, he's lying about his lack of responsibility. He's also lying about having concern, as it's nearly assured he'll do absolutely nothing about it.

If you want the president not to do something, and you're in congress, the LEAST you could do is vote against giving them the power to do it.. oh but wait, it all must be Bush's fault somehow.

The USA PATRIOT Act was actually two omnibus crime bills, and much of the wording was written by the SAME democrats who are now weeping aligator tears over what the Executive is doing with it.

I believe Leahy himself co-authored the USA act, which had much to do with monitoring online traffic.

Oh I'm anti Bush, but I'm also Anti-people-who-are-the-problem-complaining-about-it-while-doing-nothing
Mac user since before you were born.
Reply
Mac user since before you were born.
Reply
post #22 of 215
So the administration's stand is going to be:

Anti-Big Brother = Anti-Freedom® and Anti-War on Terrorisim®



I realize this isn't the first administration to spy on Americans, but it's the first IIRC to be so blatant and uncaring about it. This administration needs to go NOW! And I don't just mean Bush, we need to take down Cheney, Rumsfield, General Hayden and probably a few others who had their fingers in that pot. Is there any contingency in the Constitution for having an incompetent President AND an incompetent VP? Special elections?

There is one upside to this, if there is no leadership change at the top, at least General Hayden now has about a 0% chance of being appointed CIA Director...
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
post #23 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by slughead
Yeah but it's illegal not to report even cash transactions.

So?

They aren't traceable to an specific person so who gives a crap?
post #24 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by slughead
Obvious man says: Leahy's a lying sack of crap, he voted for the USA PATRIOT Act which gave the government many of these powers.

If you want the president not to do something, and you're in congress, the LEAST you could do is vote against giving them the power to do it.. oh but wait, it all must be Bush's fault somehow.

The USA PATRIOT Act was actually two omnibus crime bills, and much of the wording was written by the democrats who are now weeping aligator tears over what the Executive is doing with it.

Oh I'm anti Bush, but I'm also Anti-people-who-are-the-problem-complaining-about-it-while-doing-nothing

Congress never even read the Patriot Act when it was signed into law shortly after 9/11. Why not? Just look what happened to Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Oakland, the lone House member to vote against the September 2001 resolution that Bush cites as authority for the National Security Agency eavesdropping. She was pilloried from here to the Yangtze and back, accused of being "anti-America" and a traitor. When Max Cleland voted against the Homeland Security Bill, the GOP ran ads comparing him with Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, showing their pictures side by side.

Now we wonder why its all falling apart. The real patriots get shot down, while the cowardly mainstream media stands by and watches.

Now Bush is saying that "Americans' privacy is 'sacrosanct'". http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/...rds/index.html Why would anyone believe that lying sack of shit or any other member of this administration? They have a track record of serial dishonesty and doublespeak about every issue you might care to mention.

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #25 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by slughead
The FCC regulates something that belongs to states. For satelites and stuff, that's OK under the interstate commerce clause, but for radio stations and devices located and transmitting RF within a state border, they constitutionally have no juristiction.

Fair enough. But for those that do cross state borders they do have jurisdiction. Fuzzy line at times I suspect.

Oddly enough, a better case could be made for regulating the internet than local radio and television.

Quote:
Originally posted by slughead
"Limited Liability" is BS. You should be able to sue a PERSON, not a corporation, if a corporation does something wrong.

So you have a general problem with the corporate model.
post #26 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla

So you have a general problem with the corporate model.

So do I: Corporations have as much legal rights as individual humans and here's now it happened

Unfortunately, its too late to change this crazy state of affairs, because its now "common law", even though the way it "entered the lawbooks" was suspect beyond all recognition.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #27 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by sammi jo
Congress never even read the Patriot Act when it was signed into law shortly after 9/11. Why not? Just look what happened to Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Oakland, the lone House member to vote against the September 2001 resolution that Bush cites as authority for the National Security Agency eavesdropping. She was pilloried from here to the Yangtze and back, accused of being "anti-America" and a traitor. When Max Cleland voted against the Homeland Security Bill, the GOP ran ads comparing him with Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, showing their pictures side by side.

Correction: Congress WROTE the patriot act, and the ones who were against it were pressured into voting for it (which you went into). Everyone there knew what it was, they feigned ignorance to get off the hook.

Personally, I'd vote for someone who stood up to this kind of pressure, like Feingold (the only senator to vote against the USA PATRIOT Act.) Of course, Feingold voted for other stuff which was about as bad as the Patriot Act, but we'll ignore that.

How did they know? Like I said before, it had been introduced before to congress under different names. How do you think they wrote it in ~20 days?

OH PS, and I'll say it again: part of the act was written by DEMOCRATS.

Don't blame the GOP exclusively, there's plenty to go around.

As you said, Bush is a lying sack of ____, but so are most Democrats and Republicans, and certainly 99% in congress.
Mac user since before you were born.
Reply
Mac user since before you were born.
Reply
post #28 of 215
And people at this website back in Dec. were telling me this would all just go away and be forgotten.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #29 of 215
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #30 of 215
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
post #31 of 215
Quote:

That's not fishy. No, not at all.
post #32 of 215
Because if we know what's going on the terrorists win.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #33 of 215
If we're not terrorized by our own government, then the terrorists win.
post #34 of 215
Quote:
George might know that I called my wife but not what I said. That's the difference.

It's only a matter of when, and not if, George will know what you said.
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
post #35 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by slughead
Correction: Congress WROTE the patriot act, and the ones who were against it were pressured into voting for it (which you went into). Everyone there knew what it was, they feigned ignorance to get off the hook.

A large chunk of the "Patriot" Act was drafted by Viet Dinh, the Assistant Atty General under John Ashcroft, in 2001. FYI, parts of the framework of the "Patriot" Act were put together under the auspices of a British legal team, some months before 9/11. Yes, a few key members of Congress and Senate had input, especially members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees. Congress as a body, did NOT as you put it, "write the Patriot Act".

Quote:
How did they know? Like I said before, it had been introduced before to congress under different names. How do you think they wrote it in ~20 days?

They didn't. tThose 349 pages took months to draft.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #36 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by Gene Clean
It's only a matter of when, and not if, George will know what you said.

If he doesn't already. How could we possibly know, and how could we possibly take his word for it?
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #37 of 215
I live abroad and my wife is stunned by the requirements on me as a citizen of a "free" country.

Americans who live abroad have to pay US taxes if their income is above a certain limit. Everyone has to submit tax returns. There are two countries in the world that have this requirement: the USA and Eritrea.

We also have to report to the US government all of our bank account numbers in all banks throughout the world if we have savings that total more than 10,000 dollars.

My wife does not have a passport and the IRS declined her initial application for a ID number when we included (as they had sugggested themselves) a photocopy of her driver's license that was then declared true by the prefectural governmor himself. She had to submit another whole stack of crap at the American Consulate, where she was treated as a criminal (a point I raised with the consul, who didn't really care and reaked of CIA anyway). Basically, any document not created in the US was treated as suspect, even within the coutnry of origin and in a country with who the US has a great relationship. At the consulate, my wife declared that based on the way she had been treated, she never wanted to visit the US. Saves me a lot of travel money!

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #38 of 215
OK...now before everyone gets hysterical and goes off all half-cocked and...oh wait...never mind.

post #39 of 215
Quote:
Originally posted by Bergermeister
Thank God (or the gods) that I don't live in the US anymore, or I would give up on phones altogether. With all the fuss about the tapping, any terrorist with a brain half the size of GW'S will have stopped using phone-based com systems and will have switched to some other form, perhaps back to the good and trusted mail system.
\\

Alberto Gonzales in on record refusing to answer the claim that they have been openning citizens first class mail . . . . now why would he refuse to answer or speak to that claim?

soon they'll change the name of the CIA to the NKVD.
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
post #40 of 215
And change USA to USSA.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › NSA: Checking the Phones