I knew the title would make you liberal bush haters cick it in a new york minute.

Exert from a editorial in Sunday's New York Times December 12, 2009.

"The government is increasingly monitoring Facebook, Twitter and other social networking sites for tax delinquents, copyright infringers and political protesters." http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/13/opinion/13sun2.html?_r=1


Will the monitoring of social networking sites by government agencies produce similar outrage with a Democrat in the White House? We all know the ones who yelled the loudest, and still complain about it. Lets see if they will still complain now.

There is a big difference. It was a violation of our civil rights when Bush did it. The Obama administration is doing it for our own good.

well I gave this thread 2 weeks for the outrage to be voiced. And as I and everyone knew there was none. Remember the days of the outrage of wiretapping. Remember the days that a program just existing was grounds for impeachment. Remember when the govermnent was out to get us. Remember when you were not a particin tool.

Main Entry: hyp·o·crite
Pronunciation: ˈhi-pə-ˌkrit
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English ypocrite, from Anglo-French, from Late Latin hypocrita, from Greek hypokritēs actor, hypocrite, from hypokrinesthai
Date: 13th century
1 : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings
3 : Democrat

I think you should rename them hyprocrat.

I knew this title would bring out the BUSH LOVERS.

Surely you guys know the difference between tapping my phone and reading what I put on Etater.

Tapping my phone without a warrant is ILLEGAL, GET IT?

Reading what is on a public internet site is not illegal. GET IT?

WHERE IS Patrick Coleman, aka Muddawg, to explain the Constitution to all of you?

I object to the smearing of the word " democrat". The use of a reference book to define one word is worthy:to use personal pique and smear to define a whole group is unbecoming and unworthy.

I don't see anything wrong with reading posts on public websites. Youtube, etater, what have you. Those are public forums where any person with a computer can access. I do have a problem with public websites, with private accounts. Twitter, messanger, facebook, myspace. These sites a person can not read posts by members unless they are accepted as family or friends. However the goverment according to latest information, can go into and read any posts or emails they want on these sites without being on the list of acceptable people.

So the goverment easedrops on my conversations on the phone is illegal. If the goverment reads these same conversations then it's not. I think this and the patriot act is are both illegal. Remember what Ol Ben said.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

It's okay now that Obama is doing it. It was only a bad thing when George W. Bush was doing it.

Other than the public forum, this is like the police or government sneaking into my house while I'm gone and reading my personal papers. No search warrant. If this was only with forums or public bulletins where any Joe, Bob or Fred could access read and post, I do not see anything wrong and would encourage it. But they are crossing the line when they read private emails, and IM's of people that goes into the realm of 1984.

There is nothing private on the internet. The internet is basically a public forum invented by Al Gore.

If you are worried about somebody reading your emails or Instant Messages you should be careful what you say because they can be read by others.