Skip to main content

View Diary: How PRISM will hurt US exports and manufacturing (47 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  PRISM isn't going to hurt anything, it's the (0+ / 0-)

    hyperbolic, inaccurate, overblown outing of its existence that may do damage.

    The govt is trying to prevent an indeterminate but significant number of unknown persons from killing its citizens. I'm all ears as to an alternative way of trying to do this without infringing on privacy.

    I hope to hell this never happens but I would pay to see the reactions of these privacy nuts if suicide bombers started blowing themselves up at their local malls.

    This is not an easy problem but all I've seen on this site is hysteria.  Apparently some disagree with the president's assertion that 100% security, 100% privacy and 0% inconvenience is impossible.

    •  Oh please (12+ / 0-)

      You are more likely to be killed by a police officer than a terrorist. How much effort are they putting into protecting you from them? Or if you live in a " right to work" state you are 50% more likely to be killed on the job, where is the effort to bring worker protections back?

      Shall I go on?

      •  Please don't as you're not making a lick of sense. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Sky Net, VClib

        What does the probability of being killed by police or being a victim of a workplace accident have to do with preventing terrorism from largely anonymous sources?  These ludicrous arguments can be made about practically anything.

        Maybe the reason why terrorist attacks are more unlikely has something to do with the effort put in to prevent them.

        Using your logic, more people die of cancer each year that will probably ever be killed by terrorists, so let's sit back, relax and wait for that dirty bomb to explode in NYC.  I guarantee that less people will die than will succumb to colon cancer that year.

        The president's first responsibility is to keep the citizens safe, so he really can't afford to be as frivolous about this as you are.

        •  How about we do the effective terrorist prevention (0+ / 0-)

          Stop the imperialist wars and commercial exploitation of these communities.

          Oh wait Blackwater et al can't profit from that.

        •  the NSA doesn't run on pixie dust (0+ / 0-)
          The president's first responsibility is to keep the citizens safe
          His first responsibility is to keep the constitution safe. That's why his oath of office makes him swear to do that and doesn't say anything about citizens.
          Using your logic, more people die of cancer each year that will probably ever be killed by terrorists, so let's sit back, relax and wait for that dirty bomb to explode in NYC.
          Our efforts to prevent terrorism cost around $200 billion a year right now. All medical research in the United States, both public and privately funded, adds up to about $90 billion a year. The NSA's budget is "black", you're not allowed to know how much money they spend. But a conservative estimate is about $20 billion, or around 2000% of our budget for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which is in charge of reducing the 50,000 people who die in car accidents every year.

          Many, MANY more people die of cancer each year, but it might be less if you took just a QUARTER of the NSA's budget and used it to double funding for the National Cancer Institute. Or quit fighting in Afghanistan and used that money to increase cancer research funding by 2,500%.

          The NSA spends ONE BILLION DOLLARS per American victim of terrorism in an average year. Just how many thousands of major, 9/11 scale terrorist attacks per year are we stopping that this is a reasonable allocation of resources?

      •  Agree 100% (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Horace Boothroyd III

        I'm seeing a lot of defenses of this spying program from many of the same people who routinely write about the evils of "stop and frisk". It's weird.

    •  More people die at the hands of cops and (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DRo, radical simplicity

      rent-a-cops than at the hands of terrorists. Perhaps, if the Government is so eager to protect American lives, that might - just maybe - be the place to start, rather than shredding the Fourth Amendment?

      "Violence never requires translation, but it often causes deafness." - Bareesh the Hutt.

      by Australian2 on Sat Jun 08, 2013 at 12:51:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Please cite one just one terrorist act that this (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      radical simplicity

      program has thwarted ( and please do not cite Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich since his claim has been completely debunked) since its inception.

    •  ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! (0+ / 0-)

      Unless, of course, that wasn't snark.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site