Can you believe the OP? What a pile of cockamamie bs.

Sign of a severe deluded agenda there.

It's not just wishful speculation. Read around.

HuffPo was screaming the "NSA Admits Listening to Phone Calls" lede on its front page, as they are wont to do. They disappeared it right quick.

Actually, they buried it down the page and made a little change to the headline:

CNET Story Alleging NSA Can Listen To U.S. Phone Calls Without Warrant Faces Skepticism:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/15/nsa-phone-calls-warrant_n_3448299.html

But yeah, if they get to Nadler and scare him bad enough.....he may break.

You think the NSA can't tap your phone?

Of course you know they can tap your phone.

So what makes you think they do not tap your phone?

What evidence have you that the NSA does not tap your phone.

These are pretty simple and easy questions.... can you answer simply?

And I mean, listening, not just scanning the metadata?

I guess it's a matter of how paranoid people are going to be about this and what - today, tomorrow, or next month - should Joe Average be DOING? Hiding in a bunker? Running around holding their head with worry?

Or snarking at and namecalling people on messageboards because that's oh-so-activist?

That is the way you are.

They can tap your phone. They will tap your phone. That's their fucking job.

You are all over the board dancing here and there and not answering easy questions.

What is your agenda?

You push your assumption and challenge me to agree.

I challenged back. You didn't answer MY question either.

It's interesting that people accept the most sensational / damning claims about this issue as gospel and attack any follow-up that might debunk the original assertions - along with attacking and name calling the people who dare not march in lockstep with their anger or reverence for the Greenwald/Snowden tandem. Ironic.

There are many ANGRY people here, and the thing is, none of the other members of this forum are causing the problems that have them (and you?) freaked out.

Unlike some others, I guess I've learned to let the "news" cycles spin out longer than the first reports. We've just witnessed what happened with the non-scandals of the previous few weeks, but people are right on the bandwagon again.

or is it another example of exceptional journalism at work?

And I haven't seen any mainstream websites pick up on it.

IF it was true and could be backed up you'd think that it would be all over all the news websites.




Edited to add the article link below...

There is a Democratic Congressman from NY by the name of Jerrold Nadler. Any relation?

And just fyi in terms of 'everyone's talking' I did a news search on his name and got nothing.

I asked if you meant the Subway guy, and pointed out the the Democrat from NY is named Jerrold very clearly.
You got his name wrong, and you are saying HE got stuff wrong. It is ironic, and you should learn something from this. The emoticons just make it seem like insulting Democrats is fun for you. Which might be why TX has so few of them in office.

He'll decide to make a retraction right after his phone rings at 2:30 am. The first thing he'll hear when he picks up will be "shhhh".

I'll bet in the hostage video his eyes will be red and his clothes will look unkempt.

and apologize for his oversight.

hardly

The CNET reporter didn't even get confirmation from Nadler to make sure they understood him correctly before publishing this.

I think collecting the phone records of every American is already bad enough (a check of my posts will show that, I think), but CNET did not have enough to go on yet.

And run over.

Twice.

I always liked the congressman and wished I was in his district, but I am stuck with Michael Grimm-R