Starting wars that costs us trillions vs probing our finances to stop domestic funding of terrorism?
Starting wars that costs us trillions vs probing our finances to stop domestic funding of terrorism?
In reply to yamaha:
Nixon isn't a crook in this day and age.
Kenny_McCormic wrote: In reply to yamaha: Nixon isn't a crook in this day and age.
QFMFT!
Kenny_McCormic wrote: In reply to yamaha: Nixon isn't a crook in this day and age.
No, he's a scape goat, just like he was then.
bravenrace wrote: No, he's a scape goat, just like he was then.
OK, so I'll have to change that to drunk driving like i'm a Kennedy then?
yamaha wrote:bravenrace wrote: No, he's a scape goat, just like he was then.
You mean like Kennedy wouldn't be considered a drunk in this day? I don't think the definition of drunk has changed much.
This is a topic that deserves some thoughtful discussion. Thank you GPS for giving the thread an inflamitory (to some) title. Thank you also to coolusername for immmediately turning into a flounder fest.
In reply to Type Q:
QFT, we're busy here threadjacking.....
In reply to bravenrace:
Depends on which Kennedy I'm referring to now, doesn't it? 
Press muddles stuff as usual. A Suspicious Activity Report ("SAR") is not the same as reporting cash transactions over $10k.
SAR's are filed only if the banks suspects a criminal act is involved. A criminal act would include someone trying to structure around the $10k threshold.
$10k+ cash transaction reporting has been around a long time. And by the way, EVERY business in the U.S. is supposed to report these to the IRS, not just banks.
The only thing that has changed here is the data is being made available to the intelligence agencies in addition to the IRS, FBI, etc. Your "privacy" was already gone-- now you are just getting some new voyeurs.
Basil Exposition wrote: The only thing that has changed here is the data is being made available to the intelligence agencies in addition to the IRS, FBI, etc. Your "privacy" was already gone-- now you are just getting some new voyeurs.
Yep. The whole "The CIA does not spy on Americans" thing is really just crossing off one of several thousand government agencies that can spy on Americans off the list, leaving the FBI, Secret Service, countless state, county, and city police departments, state Fish and Wildlife Services, etc...
Type Q wrote: Thank you GPS for giving the thread an inflamitory (to some) title.
I could have gone with "Believe In America" as well but nobody remembers who that guy was and it didn't allow for clever wordplay on "Change".
I also don't think there is much need for thoughtful discussion. You either buy that this is for your our good and the government will make sure that it isn't abused because they work for us or you are upset because you know in almost every single case in the history of governments, that has never been true.
PHeller wrote: Starting wars that costs us trillions vs probing our finances under the guise of stopping domestic funding of terrorism while funding and supplying terrorists and drug cartels and bombing random brown people?
Fixed that E36 M3 for you broseph.
IBTL
Grizz wrote:PHeller wrote: Starting wars that costs us trillions vs probing our finances under the guise of stopping domestic funding of terrorism while funding and supplying terrorists and drug cartels and bombing random brown people?Fixed that E36 M3 for you broseph. IBTL
More or less, a lot more of the stuff that happened from 2001 on was made up in the name of a witch hunt than the news would want you to believe. BBC has a nice doc on this, The Power of Nightmares.
also 
Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: You either buy that this is for your our good and the government will make sure that it isn't abused because they work for us or you are upset because you know in almost every single case in the history of governments, that has never been true.
Option #3 - You actually believe our govt is coordinated enough to do something with this information... Hell, it only took them 11 years and untold billions to find and kill one guy.
poopshovel wrote: I like Bob Costas.
no one can argue that it is the best pie.
yamaha wrote: In reply to Type Q: QFT, we're busy here threadjacking.....
True, not all are drunks, some just pop a few Ambien for the road.
I really like the title. It is both clever and humorous. Lighten up, Francis.
You'll need to log in to post.
