Welcome to Bizarro Amerika!

you mean instead of working in conjunction with AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth to illegally wiretap and store the calls of tens of millions of Americans?

Leaders of a congressional subcommittee are urging the Department of Homeland Security to extensively monitor social media sites like Twitter and Facebook to detect "current or emerging threats."

The top Republican and Democrat on a House counter-terrorism subcommittee last month sent a letter to Homeland Security's intelligence chief encouraging department analysts to pore over huge streams of social media traffic.

Representatives Patrick Meehan and Jackie Speier said in the letter to Caryn Wagner, undersecretary of homeland security for intelligence and analysis, that they "believe it would be advantageous for DHS and the broader Intelligence Community to carefully parse the massive streams of data from various social media outlets to identify current or emerging threats to our homeland security."

Meehan, a Republican, is chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee's counter-terrorism and intelligence subcommittee. Speier is the panel's ranking Democrat.

The two lawmakers said such monitoring raises "privacy and civil liberties concerns" and suggested that the department issue guidelines which balance citizens' rights with the ability of analysts to identify threats.

Earlier this week, Homeland Security's National Operations Center published a long list of websites which they monitor for "situational awareness."

In an email to Reuters, Meehan said a hearing he had convened in December had "examined the evolving terrorist use of social media and effective intelligence and law enforcement responses."

Meehan added: "If terrorists are operating in Pakistan or communicating through social media sites like Facebook, we need to remain vigilant. Yet there are important civil liberties questions involving U.S. government monitoring of social media and Americans' Internet traffic. We are seeking answers on the Department's guidelines and procedures to ensure Americans' civil liberties are safeguarded."

Matthew Chandler, a Homeland Security spokesman, said the department's operations center monitors social media only "within the clearly defined parameters articulated" in published department privacy guildelines.

I'm glad our Republican House and Democratic Senate  (http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/01/13/us-usa-security-internet-idUKTRE80C06T20120113) agree with this!

 Nothing to see here!

If we have a Republican President in 2013

We've turned into a nation of pussies.  We really have.  The reason this continuation of the Patriot Act has legs, is that Obama and anyone running for President knows that more people are willing to vote against anyone who tries to dismantle it, at or least take some of it's teeth away.

I've talked to several people who are all high on the indignation list of yelling their freedoms are being trampled...but they're the same people who find value and a sense of safety in the very thing they supposedly rail against.  Because this couldn't POSSIBLY apply to them, even in the abstract.

Until there is a majority outcry, that can unseat a politician from his or her job...or hinder them from getting elected...this won't change.

I just don't see the concern. Other than this being another ploy to frighten the masses. Are we going to ban government employees from FB, Twitter and other social sites so they don't come across that crazed Idaho militia member or Ron Paul supporter with a KillObama site? Or Sayid Jarrah posting how to make a dirty weapon on FB from his cave in Afghanistan? How 'bout HuffPo and Drudge?

With the new millenia and new age of social inteaction, I applaud our intelligence gatherers for their gumption!

Don't terrorists use computers? Don't they use FB, Twitter, etc., and don't they post on HuffPo and Drudge, et al? Sure!

I for one am scared about the continual erosion of my personal freedoms. It started with Jr. and Obama has been keeping it running. The both of them have shit on due process.
Everyone wonders why Ron Paul gets such a run all the while being half bat shit crazy. There are numerous people like me sick of the government taking away my rights and intruding in my personal live all under the guise of protecting me from the terrorists.
The same people who were pissed with the Patriot Act 8 some odd years ago, I see them now justifying each assault of our personal freedoms.

There are a few reasons why Obama may not get my vote, and this issue is one of them.

how is monitoring drudge and huffpo an assault on your personal freedom?

I'm really tryin to see why this is even a story, much less some reason for mike to go all...."if it was Bush your head would explode" (not that he needs one since that's his only game anymore)

How is this anywhere near the wiretapping? Isn't there something to be said for "If you put it out there for the public to read it, the gov't might read it as well?"  I didn't read anything that said hacking secret site was involved, so what's the issue here?

I just don't want to see it used to take heated lively debates, or even borderline stupidity...and find justification to arrest and detain, otherwise, well meaning, decent people or even dirt bags...who, at times, can become inflamed and talk stupid shit.

Dammit. I thought at  least you would have gotten the LOST reference.

I hadn't read your post yet... ;)

I see it now.. ;D

We've turned into a nation of pussies.  We really have.  The reason this continuation of the Patriot Act has legs, is that Obama and anyone running for President knows that more people are willing to vote against anyone who tries to dismantle it, at or least take some of it's teeth away.

I've talked to several people who are all high on the indignation list of yelling their freedoms are being trampled...but they're the same people who find value and a sense of safety in the very thing they supposedly rail against.  Because this couldn't POSSIBLY apply to them, even in the abstract.

Until there is a majority outcry, that can unseat a politician from his or her job...or hinder them from getting elected...this won't change.

"I'm not meaning to start anything here but, you do realize that England was able to do what they did last week because they don't have these laws against tapping/eavsdropping.

MI-5 was intercepting emails and phone calls for months before they acted. Isn't that a good thing?"

I'm just glad you're here from what I hear I'm running people off.

yeah well, my legs are too short to run very fast.. ;)

I heard your little top heavy. ;)

you can't even imagine how many times I was told "If you don't do anything wrong, this law won't affect you" or "They can look all they want, I've got nothing to hide" ... one of the most hilarious replies I got on the nsa wiretapping was

of course the hard righties thought it was OK to be all 'European' during the Bush years...Now, it's the insult du jour saying that Obama want us to be more like 'Europe'.. hell, the tea party formed in part to stop him from committing this Fox-induced fantasy... ah, the irony..

by the way, the lil libertarian who started this thread has no problems with the Pat Act or any other 'tool' a president wants to use on the GWOT... so don't fall prey to his 'instigation' games..

And if the next Democratic President breaks some kind of law, and I bring it up on the board, how will you respond?

Interesting times ahead...

Since when did libertarian become a dirty word for liberals?

Since when did libertarian become a dirty word for liberals?  I guess it's all part of the process of slowly realizing that state power is more important to you than individual liberty.

Just to be clear, the post you quoted wasn't written by me.  Since you seemed to refer to me in this post (lil libertarian) I just wanted to make that clear since you didn't.

Since when did libertarian become a dirty word for liberals?

  I guess it's all part of the process of slowly realizing that state power is more important to you than individual liberty.

But I did go back and read that thread and it was a very good interesting thread.  What have we learned since that time?  You totally lost interest in "warrantless wiretaps" since January 2009!

And here is a bit of interesting prophesy from me in that very thread:

never said it was, never implied it was.. since he's not here to defend it, I didn't use his name..

didn't know it was, just think it's funny you consider yourself one..

but that's where you and I (and real libertarians) differ.. I think liberty is more important... I'm sorry you don't.

nope, just like the Pat Act.. I'm still against both.. but it's the law of the land now.. I've tried and tried to tell you that once these kinds of powers are given up, it's impossible to get them back... since you read that thread, maybe you read where I was told that during wartimes we give these powers up, but when it's peaceful we get them back (I think it was that one).. well HAHA to that... Once that power is given up, we don't ever get it back. I warned you repeatedly that it wouldn't just be GWB using it, and you were  fine with ...since ya know, you're the only one who really wants to win the GWOT and all.. but I'll tell you again, it doesn't matter who is in the big chair, they won't always be the one in that chair, so giving up liberties just because you like the (R) or (D) after their name is pretty fucked up..

if only you would have listened and been against it from the start.. maybe we could have done something then.. but nope, you abide by that party affiliation no matter what liberties or laws are broken..and now those laws are hear to stay..

I think you are fooling yourself if you think that you actually think liberty is more important to you than state power. 

I The TSP program?  I supported it when Bush was in office and I support it now that Obama's in office.  The Pat Act?  Just like when Bush was in office, I supported somethings in it and disagreed with others. 

more than you, yes.. case in point

how can you even pretend to be for liberty and be for those kinds of gov't infringement?  The fact is you can't. Which is why you are not a real libertarian, you've just gloomed onto the word to hide the (R) streak in you.. the same way you gave 'Huntsmen' for you presidential candidate answer.. When in practice, you vote for someone like Rick Scott. You can't be both, but you want to seem less partsian, when we both know you're not.. not in any way shape or form. But what about me? Am I partisan? Not as much as you think I am and more than I think I am.. huh, look at that, I can admit that along with being ok with being hypocritical on some (not most, but nice try) issues..

I'll answer your 'why don't you can when Obama does it' question again.. These things are the law of the land now,that horse has left the stable.. it would like re-arguing the Peterson trial.. The outcome is the same, the law was passed.. and in practice.. what good does re-hashing it do? Am I going to change the Peterson conviction? nope? and I ain't going to change the Pat Act or TSP program either.

You'll never get it since you are OK with giving up these liberties.. the fight is before it's given because once it's handed over, there ain't no going back...

what you are looking for now, the ONLY thing you are looking for, is to nit-pick, nothing more-nothing less..

you are simply the person Starla overheard  after Obama's election when they said "lets see how you like it"..  I'm not playing that game, if you've got something new? fine, let's talk.. but my arguments on  those topics remain the same...

http://freebeacon.com/trashing-tricare/ (http://freebeacon.com/trashing-tricare/)

TRASHING TRICARE
OBAMA TO CUT HEALTHCARE BENEFITS FOR ACTIVE DUTY AND RETIRED US MILITARY

The Obama administration’s proposed defense budget calls for military families and retirees to pay sharply more for their healthcare, while leaving unionized civilian defense workers’ benefits untouched. The proposal is causing a major rift within the Pentagon, according to U.S. officials. Several congressional aides suggested the move is designed to increase the enrollment in Obamacare’s state-run insurance exchanges.

The disparity in treatment between civilian and uniformed personnel is causing a backlash within the military that could undermine recruitment and retention.

The proposed increases in health care payments by service members, which must be approved by Congress, are part of the Pentagon’s $487 billion cut in spending. It seeks to save $1.8 billion from the Tricare medical system in the fiscal 2013 budget, and $12.9 billion by 2017.

http://freebeacon.com/trashing-tricare/ (http://freebeacon.com/trashing-tricare/)

TRASHING TRICARE
OBAMA TO CUT HEALTHCARE BENEFITS FOR ACTIVE DUTY AND RETIRED US MILITARY

The Obama administration’s proposed defense budget calls for military families and retirees to pay sharply more for their healthcare, while leaving unionized civilian defense workers’ benefits untouched. The proposal is causing a major rift within the Pentagon, according to U.S. officials. Several congressional aides suggested the move is designed to increase the enrollment in Obamacare’s state-run insurance exchanges.

The disparity in treatment between civilian and uniformed personnel is causing a backlash within the military that could undermine recruitment and retention.

The proposed increases in health care payments by service members, which must be approved by Congress, are part of the Pentagon’s $487 billion cut in spending. It seeks to save $1.8 billion from the Tricare medical system in the fiscal 2013 budget, and $12.9 billion by 2017.

Bush 'Strongly Opposes' Troop Pay, Benefit Initiatives
Talk about lousy timing.

With President Bush’s popularity scraping bottom in opinion polls, with U.S. casualties rising in Iraq in a force surge that has stretched soldier tours to 15 months, the Bush administration July 10 said it “strongly opposes” key military pay and benefit gains tossed into their fiscal 2008 defense bill.
Initiatives the administration “strongly opposes” include:

    A military pay raise for next January of 3.5 percent versus 3 percent endorsed by the White House.

    Lowering the age-60 start of reserve retirement annuities for reserve component members by the length of their future mobilizations.

    Expanding eligibility for Combat-Related Special Compensation to service members forced by combat disabilities to retire short of 20 years.

    Directing pharmaceutical manufacturers to provide the Department of Defense with same price discounts for TRICARE retail pharmacy network that are provided already on medicines dispensed from base pharmacies.

    The administration also grumbled that the Senate intends to block for another year TRICARE fee increases for under-65 retirees and dependents.

    The objections appear in a “Statement of Administration Policy” from the White House’s Office of Management and Budget delivered to Senate leaders as they opened floor debate on the defense authorization bill.

A day later, Senate Republicans, at White House’s urging, blocked amendments to the bill that would have shortened Iraq tours for U.S. ground forces and slowed frequency of wartime deployments. Republicans said the amendments really were aimed at changing administration policy in Iraq.
Here is more on Senate provisions that the White House opposes:

PAY RAISE – Like the House, senators favor a 3.5 percent military pay raise for 2008 versus the administration's proposed 3 percent to match private sector wage growth as measured by the government's Employment Cost Index (ECI). The White House calls the extra half percentage point unnecessary and notes that basic pay has jumped by 33 percent since 2001. The added cost of the bigger raise, $2.2 billion through 2013, is money “that would otherwise be available to support our troop,” said OMB letter.

The White House will lose this one. Congress intends to approve the ninth consecutive military raise to be set at least .5 percent above private sector wage gains, continuing to close a perceived “pay gap” with civilians.

However, a Congressional Budget Office report released in late June suggests no such gap exists. When housing allowances growth and associated tax advantages are weighed, the pay gap for the enlisted force, which advocates say started in 1982, actually was closed by 2002. Since then, the military pay gap has become a “pay surplus,” even excluding improvements in special pays and bonuses, CBO says.

Military associations dispute the CBO findings and support congressional efforts to continue to special military pay adjustments. The House in May voted to sustain the string of ECI-plus-a-half-percent military raises through 2012. The Senate bill deals only with the 2008 raise. When House-Senate conferees work a final compromise bill later this summer, the CBO findings could persuade conferees to adopt the Senate pay raise plan.

TRICARE INCREASES – Dr. S. Ward Casscells, the new assistant secretary of defense for health affairs, has said he intends to work with Congress and service associations on more modest TRICARE fee increases for under-65 retirees and their dependents than has been pushed so far by the Bush administration. The OMB letter doesn’t reflect that air of compromise.

By not allowing the TRICARE fees and deductibles to rise as the administration planned, OMB chided, the Senate is adding $1.86 billion, again “funds that would otherwise be available to support our troops.”

Since you brought up Bush, seems like he was all for (http://www.ptsdsupport.net/bush_opposes_troop_pay.html) raising Tricare fees as well as lots more things that hurt the troops. During wartime.

That's just one year, his last. Want me to look up the rest?

As defense budgets grew over the past decade, Congress shrugged off complaints of runaway military health costs and blocked every proposal from the Bush administration to raise TRICARE fees sharply on retirees.

Defense budgets have stopped rising, however, and Defense officials today are sounding more confident that Congress will follow last October’s $5-a-month bump in TRICARE Prime enrollment fees for working-age retirees with more substantial fee increases for retirees of all ages.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Arm Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, outlined plans Jan. 26 to lower defense budgets over the next 10 years by $487 billion in compliance with the Budget Control Act passed last spring to dampen growth in federal debt.

http://freebeacon.com/trashing-tricare/ (http://freebeacon.com/trashing-tricare/)

TRASHING TRICARE
OBAMA TO CUT HEALTHCARE BENEFITS FOR ACTIVE DUTY AND RETIRED US MILITARY

The Obama administration’s proposed defense budget calls for military families and retirees to pay sharply more for their healthcare, while leaving unionized civilian defense workers’ benefits untouched. The proposal is causing a major rift within the Pentagon, according to U.S. officials. Several congressional aides suggested the move is designed to increase the enrollment in Obamacare’s state-run insurance exchanges.

The disparity in treatment between civilian and uniformed personnel is causing a backlash within the military that could undermine recruitment and retention.

The proposed increases in health care payments by service members, which must be approved by Congress, are part of the Pentagon’s $487 billion cut in spending. It seeks to save $1.8 billion from the Tricare medical system in the fiscal 2013 budget, and $12.9 billion by 2017.

9/20/2011 - WASHINGTON (AFNS) -- Military retirees would pay an annual fee for TRICARE-for-Life health insurance and TRICARE pharmacy co-payments would be restructured under the deficit reduction plan President Barack Obama released Sept. 19.

"If we're going to meet our responsibilities, we have to do it together," Obama said during a Rose Garden speech to announce the President's Plan for Economic Growth and Deficit Reduction. The plan reduces $4.4 trillion from the $14.7 trillion federal deficit over 10 years through a combination of spending cuts and increased tax revenue.

For the military portion, Obama said the government will save $1.1 trillion from the drawdown of forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, which are to be complete at the end of this year and in 2014, respectively.

The plan includes savings of $6.7 billion over 10 years by establishing "modest annual fees" for members of TRICARE-for-Life, which becomes a second-payer insurance to military retirees who transition to the federal Medicare program upon turning age 65. The change would begin with a $200 annual fee in fiscal 2013.

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123272713

To bring the TRICARE plan more in line with private and other federal plans, the president's proposed plan would eliminate co-pays for generic mail-order drugs, while shifting retail co-pays from a dollar amount to a percentage co-pay. The change would apply to military families and retirees, but not active-duty service members.

Since you brought up Bush, seems like he was all for (http://www.ptsdsupport.net/bush_opposes_troop_pay.html) raising Tricare fees as well as lots more things that hurt the troops. During wartime.

That's just one year, his last. Want me to look up the rest?

from what I read earlier on another site, he's going to ask them to pay $200 a year for tricare? I don't know if that's 'trashing' it..but you guys are the ones demanding debt reduction, so you had to know that meant some things would get cut..



so why exactly do you guys whine when he makes cuts?

Well I remember your reaction to that, so I was curious as to your reaction now that Obama's doing it.

I wasn't editorializing on them.  I was just making a point to Howey.

I wasn't editorializing on them.  I was just making a point to Howey.

sure  you weren't..

Do tell!

Which was what?

sure  you weren't..

I think it's safe to say this is another thread where he's painted himself in a corner and won't return. Seems like those threads are pretty common lately.  ;)

Merely the hypocrisy of your reaction to the news of cutting benefits for active military and retirees.  I was particularly curious given your status as a retiree.   Oh the outrage about tricare when their was a Bush in the White House!

What was my editorial position then?
!

It's called "shared sacrifice". Remember last year when your comrades raised all that hell about the debt ceiling? You reap what you sow...


Of course, nowadays, the Republicans aren't paying any attention to that agreement either.

Look  up, up... a little more... yeah, right there... "What if Bush did this?" This is your 'editorializing thread' you started to complain that if Bush did 'this' the left would all over it.. you don't even have to say a word when you post stories on something Obama does, the title explains exactly what this thread is about..

IF you were just showing this to Howie... well, you'd have started your own thread saying "Hey, Howie".. since you didn't and because of where you put it, your editorializing is perfectly clear..

I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing the comparison  to the debt ceiling.  Maybe you should break it down for me.

Military pay raises, funding for veterans health care and the Post-9/11 GI Bill could be sacrificed to new fiscal realities as the result of the deal signed by President Obama on Tuesday to raise the federal debt ceiling, according to the Military Officers Association and veterans groups. The law requires the federal budget be cut $2.1 trillion over 10 years.

The White House said it plans to cut $350 billion from the Defense Department budget (excluding war funding) over the next decade. Retired Air Force Col. Michael Hayden, the association's deputy director for government relations, said this means "everything is on the table," including military pay.

While Congress historically has been reluctant to freeze military pay, the 2011 Budget Control Act signed by Obama on Tuesday makes it clear upfront that military pay is no longer off-limits in budget discussions. If the administration and Congress fail to make the required reductions, then across-the-board cuts in discretionary funding will be triggered through a procedure known as sequestration. The law gives the president "authority to exempt any [military] personnel account from sequestration," but only if "savings are achieved through across-the-board reductions in the remainder of the Department of Defense budget," states a House Rules Committee analysis of the bill.

Hayden said, "This leaves pay raises up for grabs," as Defense crafts a new budget to meet cuts planned by the White House. He also expressed concern that cost-of-living increases for military retirees could end up sacrificed in the Pentagon budget-cutting process, although by law they are protected from sequestration.

For once, you actually understood my point.  However I was not editorializing about the pro or con of the Tricare cuts, only that Howey was in red alert mode over much more minor issues during the Bush administration.  The key of course, is that it was the Bush administration.   That was the real issue to him.   Who was offering the cuts, not what the cuts were.

For once, you actually understood my point.  However I was not editorializing about the pro or con of the Tricare cuts, only that Howey was in red alert mode over much more minor issues during the Bush administration.  The key of course, is that it was the Bush administration.   That was the real issue to him.   Who was offering the cuts, not what the cuts were.

Was I? What were the "much more minor" issues during that time I was in "red alert mode" over? Because what with all the possibilities agreed to in the above-mentioned deficit agreement, I'd say we (retired military members) made out pretty damn good with our small sacrifice. Especially when some, not me because mine are all free, will be saving money on medications in the new budget, plus more.

In an effort to mislead Americans about President Obama’s proposal for the TRICARE program for military retirees, Mitt Romney falsely accused the President of slashing benefits for military retirees. “He’s going after TRICARE,” Romney said. “Saying, ‘Ok, we’re going to raise the co-pays. We’re going to cut the benefits.’ Why is it we go after military families?”

Romney is completely mischaracterizing the President’s proposal while ignoring the reasons why such a policy is necessary. TRICARE spending has more than doubled since 1999, with military personnel costs making up approximately 34% of the Defense Department’s annual base budget. A moderate increase in premiums would help maintain the TRICARE program’s sustainability while still making sure that military retirees pay significantly less for their coverage than comparable private or public sector options.

That’s why the Joint Chiefs and senior enlisted military leaders support the proposal, as well as quite a few Republicans. Senator Lindsey Graham said, “It’s hard to ask those who’ve done the most to secure our freedom to give more, but I’m willing to do it,” noting that “if we don’t do something in terms of health care growth and entitlement retiree benefits, you’re going to compete the retired force with operational needs and that’s just not where we want to go. Senator John McCain also supported similar cost-saving changes to TRICARE, noting that “national health care costs have risen significantly.”

To say that the President is cutting benefits for veterans and military families before all else is wholly untrue. President Obama believes we have a sacred trust with those who wear the uniform of the United States of America and that “it’s a commitment that begins at enlistment and must never end.” Here are just a few of the ways President Obama has put veterans’ health care and well-being first:

    President Obama boosted the Veterans Affairs budget to ensure veterans receive timely access to necessary benefits and services they’ve earned. By signing the Veterans Health Care Budget Reform and Transparency Act, the President secured funding for veterans’ medical care a year in advance so that the VA can operate with sufficient and predictable funding. His policies will help make sure that over 500,000 veterans who were previously denied care will be eligible for VA health care by 2013. Looking forward, President Obama has also requested a 10.5% increase in funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs in his budget for 2013.

    The President also put in place and improved the most generous educational benefit for veterans since the original G.I. Bill of 1944. The maximum benefit under this bill will allow veterans, service members, Reservists and National Guard members to receive an in-state, undergraduate education at a public institution at no cost.

    Under the VOW to Hire Heroes Act signed by President Obama, businesses will receive a maximum $9,600 tax credit for hiring veterans with service connected disabilities who have been unemployed for six months or longer. The President has also proposed a Veterans Jobs Corp to put up to 20,000 veterans back to work over the next five years and has challenged businesses to hire or train 100,000 unemployed veterans or their spouses by the end of 2013.

In contrast to President Obama’s plan for veterans, Romney said his plan would be to privatize veterans’ benefits by “creating a voucher system.” Like the vouchers in his Medicare privatization plan, these vouchers, as the New York Times’ Paul Krugman points out, would “be inadequate, and become more so over time, so that veterans who don’t make enough money to top them up would fail to receive essential care.”

Romney’s plan to cut spending would force the same difficult choices that Republicans like Sen. Graham warned against. If Romney spared entitlements like Social Security and cut all other programs equally, he would have to slash veterans’ benefits by $456 billion over the next decade.