Comment: YES! Seriously, $88 BILLION in annual surveillance bill

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Yea, if you actually take (see in situ)

YES! Seriously, $88 BILLION in annual surveillance bill

and these monkeys can't tell or show us ANY applicable intel that they've apparently been gathering 'for our own safety' for all these years:

In the end, I wouldnt be suprised if either Russia, China, or whats most likely, the US, has satellite surveilance of the area when the attack occured and knows who was attacking who from where.

so...the solution? Let's pay them more...just so that they can't catch anything or anyone! yay!

to me govt has always been murderously comical, but seriously, slightly rhetorical, but shouldn't their ubiquitous absurdity be obvious, even to the most brainwashed of the sheeple?

isn't it about time, everyone, whenever someone mentions the word "govt" that immediately invokes the a "brand" that you associate the most disgust with? Imagine if Ted Bundy & Charles Manson were a Milk brand: like would you give your child that?

I will forever not 'get' how it is that in the hopelessly consumerist culture in America, that they never got to the point of judging govt like any other brand. And, frankly, considering all 'their' resources, they truly have the worst PR department; hell, think Charlie Sheen has a better PR-person than the US govt. LOL.

Predictions in due Time...

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul