Comments on: All the Better to Hear You With

By: All the better to hear you with. « Born on State Highway One

All the better to hear you with. « Born on State Highway One — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 00:13:35 +0000

[...] All the better to hear you with. I’ll just link to the comic, because it’s big. [...]

By: garrett

garrett — Mon, 25 May 2009 02:36:00 +0000

punk obama,, punk obama.. punk Obama… O did i mention Punk Obama wait there is more…. Big ears Obama..LOL.. OK Ok iLL level.. he’s just another political Liar.. Duh like you guys didnt know this..WoW.. Ok how about this..he views america like a standard Automobile, but when he is finished we will be riding in a pimped up car with rim’s and a kick ass grill..lol.. O and high off the ground..LOL Gimmy a break Obama is a Major Mistake. did i mention big ear punk..lol..

By: Jaboa

Jaboa — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 03:55:01 +0000

This is hilarious! Obama here is stooping to a lower level and doing the same thing as Bush and Cheney!
Personally though, I found it kind of offensive that you made them children– while I am for Obama, I respect Bush and Cheney for leading our nation for 8 long years and do not regard them as children.

By: T-Roach

T-Roach — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 20:00:36 +0000

It’s unreal to me that people are able to so completely miss the point, when they argue that we should allow wiretapping, because “I’m not saying anything illegal” or “maybe we could have prevented 9/11.”
First of all, making a general and acceptable practice out of spying on the public brings with it all the myriad problems of panopticism (wiki this, if you don’t know what it means). Not even mentioning the various theories about what happens to a people when it becomes a mere object of information to its government, rather than a subject participating in its activities; and even IF the government had heard some terrorists planning 9/11 over the phone, and had been able to prevent it; there is no way, once this machine has been set into motion, to stop it down the line. If we give this power to a current administration whose methods and ideologies we like (and even IF they genuinely would use it ONLY for good), we have set the maxim in place that the government now has this power (or CAN be given this power, if someone [voters?] deems it necessary), forever. It’s all fine and good to give this power to the great and wonderful Bush or Obama, both of whom obviously have pure and altruistic intentions at heart, but down the line when some less pure administration gets their hands on this power, you’re not going to be so eager to be observed, without your knowledge, at potentially any moment of your life. You have effected given the government the power, forever, to enforce any policy they later put into effect, based on having watched you perpetually. See the visceral “1984″ or the more subtle “Discipline and Punish” for some clear expositions of this. The precedent we set here is extremely dangerous.
And secondly, the mere argument for giving up the right to privacy for the sake of security is blatantly hypocritical, especially coming from many on the right who support the freedom to own guns. As someone pointed out above, that argument could be directly adapted to show that nobody should ever be allowed to own guns, to speak freely in public, to protest the government in any way, to have a drivers license, or to do just about damn near anything that potentially could be misused to do harm to people. Just because some people could potentially use the phones to communicate with evil intent, does that really mean that we must now all be willing to completely sacrifice the possibly dangerous ability to merely communicate with each other privately? By that logic, you better be damn well prepared to sacrifice a lot, I mean a lot, of your personal freedoms in the name of safety.
Sorry for writing the novel.

By: Liam

Liam — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 20:46:58 +0000

The problem with the leeway given to law enforcement under the PATRIOT Act was that even if a judge rejected the request for a warrant, law enforcement could go ahead and do it. All hearings were secret, and the only oversight the court had was the ability to file paperwork that had to be sealed for the purpose of national security.

By: MntlWard

MntlWard — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 02:50:04 +0000

Since when were the targets of wiretaps notified when a warrant has been issued to tap their phone?

“Hey, just dropping by to say we’re going to be listening in on your phone calls for the next few days. Please be sure to call all your partners in crime and discuss your plans in great detail.”

In those circumstances where a law enforcement agency feels the need to listen first and get permission later, the FISA Court serves that purpose.

By: Brandon

Brandon — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 22:19:02 +0000

Everyone kept telling me that he said he was going to pull the troops out of Iraq and bring them home.

However, this was a huge misnomer. He said in multiple interviews he was putting them into Afghanistan where they “should have been in the first place.”

He hasn’t lied yet. It’s just that everyone isn’t really listening to what he is really saying.

By: Josh

Josh — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 20:43:31 +0000

Some great points made here regarding citizen surveillance not being consistent with a transparent government for the people or, really, with the Bill of Rights.

That said, this forum may not be the best place to express our concern. Email the White House: http://www.whitehouse.gov/CONTACT. Tell ‘em how you feel. Unfortunately, the way our government seems to work (regardless of the party in charge), is that silence equals agreement. So expressing our dismay is great – let’s just make sure we’re aiming at their eyes and ears.

By: Liam

Liam — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 16:15:17 +0000

By that logic, we should ban guns, cars, and anything pointy, because they’re all potentially dangerous. It’s the argument that the country in 1984 was absolutely perfect, because since Big Brother gave nobody privacy, there was no possible way for any seditious action to occur.

In short, shut up. It’s hyperbole, and you have no idea what you’re talking about. I’d give you respect, but anyone who uses this kind of argument deserves none.

By: A-non

A-non — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 15:54:44 +0000

wtf everyone here is just giving legitimacy to warrantless wire taps, it VIOLATES the rights of the american people, I understand wiretaps are a successful means of catching criminals, but what is so hard about getting a warrant for said criminal, all a judge needs is probably cause and for something like a wiretap, it doesn’t have to be much. Somebody way up there just got pure lazy and bypassed the warrant. I personally have a device on my phone that emits a 200 decibel blast that shatters ear drums if someone tries to listen in on a tapped call, well maybe I do, maybe I don’t but Homeland security your move, I hope you have good benefit’s for your employee’s there’s gonna be a lot of deaf phone operators.lol but seriously get the fucking warrant and stop being pencil dicked, brown nosing, assholes, or they will find you…