What does the NSA think about bobistheoilguy.com?

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
It's not a left or right issue. It wasn't then, and it isn't now. It's the fact that the Govt cannot be trusted with the safekeeping of all the data. Too many people like Snowden have access to it...


Their keeping of information that "may be useful" into the future or under future legislation is pathological.

Case in point, is the newborn heel [censored] test that is allegedly to screen for childhood diseases like cystic fibrosis etc.

Why on Earth do they need to then keep the cards in perpetuity ?

Just for when they decide that they need mandatory DNA testing, and don't want to rely on everyone giving it voluntarily.

 

[mechanicx]

I guess when it's not PC to profile a likely group that would be involved in terrorism, then you have to spy on everyone and it's only logical to treat everyone as a suspect. That seems inefficient and is a violation of rights.

I don't believe "to catch and stop terrorist" is the real and only reason for the accessing of everyone's private communications, but to prevent terrorism is the justification given. That doesn't really justify it anyway.

 

[SteveSRT8]

^^^Note that we have specifically stated that we do not monitor mosques!

The Israeli govt has proven that profiling is an excellent way to keep things in check. I don't see anything wrong with it since the connection is rather clear.

 

[mechanicx]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
It's not a left or right issue. It wasn't then, and it isn't now. It's the fact that the Govt cannot be trusted with the safekeeping of all the data. Too many people like Snowden have access to it...


Their keeping of information that "may be useful" into the future or under future legislation is pathological.

Case in point, is the newborn heel [censored] test that is allegedly to screen for childhood diseases like cystic fibrosis etc.

Why on Earth do they need to then keep the cards in perpetuity ?

Just for when they decide that they need mandatory DNA testing, and don't want to rely on everyone giving it voluntarily.


Right, they shouldn't be acquiring all the personal/private data to need to be safeguarded it in the first place. Think of it more as collecting evidence to use against you one way or another. So it's impossible for them to safeguard your information as long as they have it.

 

[mechanicx]

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
^^^Note that we have specifically stated that we do not monitor mosques!

The Israeli govt has proven that profiling is an excellent way to keep things in check. I don't see anything wrong with it since the connection is rather clear.


It doesn't surprise me. But it also wouldn't surprise if they do monitor them at least some, and they discover lots of shady and alarming activity. But being PC and liars keeping up the façade they don't tell the public what they observed.

 

[SteveSRT8]

Originally Posted By: mechanicx
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
^^^Note that we have specifically stated that we do not monitor mosques!

The Israeli govt has proven that profiling is an excellent way to keep things in check. I don't see anything wrong with it since the connection is rather clear.


It doesn't surprise me. But it also wouldn't surprise if they do monitor them at least some, and they discover lots of shady and alarming activity. But being PC and liars keeping up the façade they don't tell the public what they observed.


No way! The govt would lie? The most transparent one in history?

 

[mechanicx]

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8

No way! The govt would lie? The most transparent one in history?


Not honest, not transparent, not working in the public's best interest. Why would anyone trust them with personal/private data? That's why amendments like the 5th, 4th and 2nd and others were put in place in the first place.

 

[Nickdfresh]

Originally Posted By: Doog
I doubt any of those guys change their own oil. Except maybe the nerds in the IT programming department.

I just hope they don't realize that all of this talk about oil is really encrypted national security code.

Well I have to get back and load my 0w30 with some platinum HDEO so I give all of the unbelievers an OCOD.


I was stationed near the NSA, many of them do change their own oil in the facilities provided on post methinks...

 

[Nickdfresh]

Originally Posted By: Merkava_4
The U.S. Government is afraid of what the public will eventually find out - and that being the World Trade Center towers were not brought down by airplanes, but by a series of controlled demolition explosions. Those buildings were so tough and so strong, that a Boeing 767 going through one of them is like a pencil going through a window screen. You may now have a hole in your window screen, but that is only minor damage to its overall structural integrity. When the U.S. citizens finally realize what happened on that day, all this surveillance will make sense.

Incidentally, the 767's didn't bring down the Towers. The jet fuel igniting and weakening the beams and buttresses did. They sort of brought themselves down...

 

[cjcride]

I bet they come for Oil Info.

 

[dwcopple]

Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
Incidentally, the 767's didn't bring down the Towers. The jet fuel igniting and weakening the beams and buttresses did. They sort of brought themselves down...
have you read the boatloads of info that disprove that statement? Or do you always believe what the media tells you?

 

[97tbird]

NM - repeat post almost - (EDITED)

 

[TechnoLoGs]

Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
Originally Posted By: Tempest

It was OK when Bush did it though, right?

I'm sorry, but that begs the question: Was it OK when Obama quietly renewed it, in secret, after re-election, passing not only NDAA but also Patriot Act 3.0, very quietly, since the outrage over it has been well established? Are you going to try to tell me that he did not sign its renewal? He could have stopped it. He had the power. He could have said all sorts of things, "I believe in such and such and this goes too far and I will not sign the renewal of Patriot Act into law" OR "I will only sign an amended version that comes to me" or some such tomfoolery. (I am being wordy here to suggest alternate courses of action.)

He did not. He did just the opposite.

So, its OK when Obama does it?

 

[antiqueshell]

How do you explain WTC building 7?

BTW that building housed FBI offices as well.

Larry Silverstein, WTC 7, and the 9/11 Demolition

[video:youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHaF0H8zmcM#![/video]

 

[Jarlaxle]

Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
Originally Posted By: Merkava_4
The U.S. Government is afraid of what the public will eventually find out - and that being the World Trade Center towers were not brought down by airplanes, but by a series of controlled demolition explosions. Those buildings were so tough and so strong, that a Boeing 767 going through one of them is like a pencil going through a window screen. You may now have a hole in your window screen, but that is only minor damage to its overall structural integrity. When the U.S. citizens finally realize what happened on that day, all this surveillance will make sense.

Incidentally, the 767's didn't bring down the Towers. The jet fuel igniting and weakening the beams and buttresses did. They sort of brought themselves down...


Along with...
...inadequate fireproofing on the beams. (Directly from people who worked in the Towers: many beams had patches scraped off to attach things, and they saw beams with NO fireproofing at all!)
...what fireproofing there was, was an unknown quality. (Halfway through the construction, the use of asbestos was banned.)
...the elevator design (multiple shafts, running in the centre of the buildings) acted as a chimney, feeding the fires.

 

[Spazdog]

I don't think that the NSA is really that worried about what we post here.

This oil is overpriced/overrated, this oil is an outstanding purchase at store X, this oil has a rebate, we don't like Venezuelan oil, we dig Panther platform cars,and we argue about which fullsize truck is the best.

Not really making their "hot-word" 51% list.

....

well we weren't until now.

 

[TechnoLoGs]

Originally Posted By: antiqueshell
How do you explain WTC building 7?

BTW that building housed FBI offices as well.

Larry Silverstein, WTC 7, and the 9/11 Demolition

[video:youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHaF0H8zmcM#![/video]


Building 7 was allegedly blown to "cover the tracks."

Many many top secret files were inside. All Enron scandal documents and court info also disappeared.

You can see the classic "crim," and there is no real reason it should have come down as it did. it was blown.

The only other explanation is there would have to be a Ghostbusters-like tunnel or hot hot fire lava under it, to melt it into the ground, like a volcano.... That happened with the safe at WTC (safe on fire for 30 or 31 days, nothing could survive that, not even a fire-proof safe, sorry. Burning in jet fuel.)

So, the laws are supposed to retroactively prevent terror acts. great idea, pols.

 

[TechnoLoGs]

Originally Posted By: Spazdog
I don't think that the NSA is really that worried about what we post here.

This oil is overpriced/overrated, this oil is an outstanding purchase at store X, this oil has a rebate, we don't like Venezuelan oil, we dig Panther platform cars,and we argue about which fullsize truck is the best.

Not really making their "hot-word" 51% list.

....

well we weren't until now.


What about our Firearms forum, and my repeated questions about cash-only private sales?

 

[Nickdfresh]

Originally Posted By: dwcopple
Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
Incidentally, the 767's didn't bring down the Towers. The jet fuel igniting and weakening the beams and buttresses did. They sort of brought themselves down...
have you read the boatloads of info that disprove that statement? Or do you always believe what the media tells you?


"Boatloads of info" from whom? The profiteering Infowhores? The Loose Change lying idiots? Apparently you believe whatever that media tells you...

Nothing has been "disproved." There is only the hypothesis starting with the "inside job" assumption, then fixing of "evidence" to prove this hypothesis which is completely contrarian to the scientific method...

 

[antiqueshell]

This is something that has NEVER been adequately explained by any official report. LOL

NORAD Stand-Down The Prevention of Interceptions of the Commandeered Planes