Senators Push To Strip Telco Immunity - Congress 'short circuited' courts constitutional role...
Links: home · search · speed test · login · more ·
Senators Push To Strip Telco Immunity
Congress 'short circuited' courts constitutional role...
08:50AM Tuesday Sep 29 2009 by Karl Bode
tags: legal · business · privacy · wireless
Despite the Obama administration's decision to support immunity for the phone companies involved in the government's warrantless wiretapping program, a group of senator's are trying to strip the telco's of this protection, notes Techdirt. "Congress should not have short-circuited the courts' constitutional role in assessing the legality of the program," notes Russ Feingold, who with Chris Dodd and Jeff Merkley is pushing a new law to repeal immunity. "If the programs were actually legal, then let a court say that," notes Masnick. "If the programs were illegal, then there is no good reason to have made the telcos immune." Of course this was never about reason, it was about protecting the phone companies from billions in penalties and Uncle Sam from any further investigations into the depth of our domestic wiretap practices.
Related:- Wednesday Evening Links
- Thursday Morning Links
- Thursday Evening Links
- Friday Evening Links
- Monday Evening Links
- Wednesday Evening Links
- Friday Evening Links
- Wednesday Evening Links
|
Links: New Topic
Forums »
jc100 @ 29th Sep 08:54AM:
Hey Hey
I've always liked Chris Dodd.... Most times, he often works on the RIGHT ISSUES. Feingold does some memorable things too. Good luck climbing this mounting with nothing more than high hopes and not a chance in hell in your favor. Still, it's good to know what people actually think of their constituents once in a while.
reply
footballdude @ 29th Sep 08:55AM:
Obama losing control?
The President is having trouble getting his health care bill passed and now senators are openly opposing his position on this. Is he losing control of his party this soon?
--
The goggles! They do nothing! - McBain
reply
jc100 @ 29th Sep 09:01AM:
Re: Obama losing control?
I wouldn't call it losing control.... I would call it people thinking for themselves. It's nice for a change. The last 6 years under Bush saw nothing but a Rubber Stamp Drone ever so willing to pass MISTAKE after MISTAKE no questions asked. A man without dissent is a man who cannot truly lead properly. People must give opinions and offer insight into matters. Here here to these two. At least Obama isn't surrounded by 100 percent "YES MEN" as per previous President Emeritus, who disgraced this country in more ways than one.
reply
El Quintron @ 29th Sep 09:15AM:
Good on the Senator
Nice to see someone take the Telcos to task, they may think twice before participating in these shenanigans next time.
reply
expert007 @ 29th Sep 09:21AM:
Makes sense to me
I disagree with the immunity, but I've said along that it should be decided in the courts. Regardless of whether the initial wiretapping was legal, justified or not, it should be proactively addressed in a court of law.
reply
Time @ 29th Sep 09:43AM:
Re: Obama losing control?
said by jc100 :
I wouldn't call it losing control.... I would call it people thinking for themselves. It's nice for a change. The last 6 years under Bush saw nothing but a Rubber Stamp Drone ever so willing to pass MISTAKE after MISTAKE no questions asked. A man without dissent is a man who cannot truly lead properly. People must give opinions and offer insight into matters. Here here to these two. At least Obama isn't surrounded by 100 percent "YES MEN" as per previous President Emeritus, who disgraced this country in more ways than one.
As opposed to what it is now?
You lefties are just as blind as the far right in this country that supported Bush unquestionably. You are a hypocrite in that you are taking part in the EXACT same acts that you just criticized. We're never going to get anywhere when all the two major parties are interested in is power, and printing/borrowing more cash that we don't have.
You're right, Dodd and the Democrats are always working on the "RIGHT ISSUES". Let's just forget the fact that we have a major unemployment crisis to deal with, when several "economic stimulus packages" have been passed by the current/past administration that have solved absolutely NOTHING. People still don't have cash to go buy anything. Banks are still hoarding cash that was given to them courtesy of the tax payer. Did I mention that we have an issue with Afghanistan and our President is more interested in the Olympics, instead of meeting with General McChrystal to discuss his request? Disgracing your country is leaving your military in a dangerous situation with NO communication from the Commander in Chief. But as an anonymous Marine said in a recent Afghani footage release, "America doesn't care, America is at the mall".
Not that falling polls are any indication of public frustration with your party. The Republicans will be elected in the next cycle and nothing will change either. There is a similar status quo, whether a politician is left or right.
reply
jc100 @ 29th Sep 10:08AM:
Re: Obama losing control?
Hm... Did someone fail to go to school and learn the art of reading. WHERE DID I SAY the democrats were doing "OK". I said Feingold and Dodd were focusing on the RIGHT ISSUES. At least some people care about their constituents. No where did I state the rest were doing any bit better. Matter of fact, I said it takes dissent to keep a leader in check. Something BUSH DID NOT HAVE and what got us in the mess we're in. Ay?
As for the War in Iraq and Afghanistan... Who got us there....Do I really need to answer that question? 9/11? Do I need to even go there to say Bush screwed up Big time on handling everything.
In terms of Obama's performance, I'm NOT impressed. I hope his health care passes, but his overall performance is NOT AMUSING ME.
A) We should have NEVER given Immunity to these Phone Companies. Bush and Obama Supported.
B) Obama needs to focus on getting our ass OUT of these ENDLESS wars that Bush got us into. You want to know what is bankrupting this country? Try the cost of funding TWO WARS with no end in sight!!!! How many jobs could the TRILLION DOLLARS we wasted have created?
C) STOP BAILING OUT COMPANIES. Bush 700 Billion and Obama 1.5 Billion. Paltry to the SUM of 6 TRILLION Bush spent in his 8 years and added to our national deficit, none the less. However, companies DID NOT deserve a dime.
Maybe, before you JUMP to conclusions, YOU TAKE THE TIME to read my posts.... DODD AND FEINGOLD are on the RIGHT ISSUES. Frankly, Republicans can go to HELL.. and Democrats need to change their tune or follow due course.
reply
Kilroy @ 29th Sep 10:08AM:
Re: Obama losing control?
Obama should have known from the start that he would only have one term in office. Too much damage was done to repair in four short years, it didn't matter who won the election they were only getting four years unless they managed a major miracle. The situation isn't going to improve any time soon.
Back on topic, I don't see how congress approving anything is going to change the situation, unless it doesn't have to go before the president to be signed. Nothing stopping him from vetoing any bill from becoming law and the telcos have the cash to buy the votes they need, as we have seen time and time again. We have the best politicians that money can buy.
This may all be a publicity stunt and they know they have no chance on getting this through, but it makes them look good.
--
When will the people realize that with DRM they aren't purchasing anything?
reply
wifi4milez @ 29th Sep 10:09AM:
Let me fix that for you
"Of course this was never about reason, it was about protecting the
phone companies from billions in penalties and Uncle Sam from any further investigations into the depth of our domestic wiretap practices
--
"How do you tell a Communist? Well, it’s someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It’s someone who understands Marx and Lenin."
-Ronald Reagan-
»www.theadvocates.org/quizp/index.html
reply
TKJunkMail @ 29th Sep 10:16AM:
These Senators just trying to reward trial lawyer supporters
Just a way for a group of Senators to reward the trial lawyer firms that fund their re-election campaigns. This isn't about stopping wiretapping in US without warrants by the NSA. It is about making sure there are years of litigation against deep pocket companies in class action lawsuits. No one benefits from this legislation except ambulance chasing law firms and the Senators that depend on them for money. The 4 Senators co-sponsoring this bill depend on lawyers for the 1st or 2nd major contributor group to their campaigns. This is just payoff time.
»www.opensecrets.org/politicians/···cle=2010
quote:
Sen Dodd
Lawyers/Law Firms
Industry Total $1,673,971
Indivs $1,552,546
PACs $121,425
»www.opensecrets.org/politicians/···cle=2010
quote:
Sen Feingold
Lawyers/Law Firms
Industry $395,631
Total Indivs $384,131
PACs $11,500
»www.opensecrets.org/politicians/···cle=2010
quote:
Sen Leahy
Lawyers/Law Firms
Industry $444,365
Total Indivs $360,186
PACs $84,179
»www.opensecrets.org/politicians/···cle=2010
quote:
Sen Merkley
Lawyers/Law Firms
Industry $444,913
Total Indivs $441,413
PACs $3,500
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
reply
jc100 @ 29th Sep 10:17AM:
Re: Let me fix that for you
HAHAHAHAHAH
What crack are you smoking? So Wiretapping People without Court order and the Patriot Act have made you safer? You wish to quantify this with ANY PROOF. I got a rock. This rock wards off tigers in the United States. So long as you hold this rock, you'll never be subject to a tiger attack. It works I tell you. It works. BELIEVE me. Your straw man argument is saddening to see an AMERICAN so willing to give up their rights to feel safe.
While you're at it.
Stop Driving - 40,000 people a year die in Car Accidents. The Government should outlaw cars.
Outlaw guns. - 16-22,000 People are murdered a year with the VAST MAJORITY done by guns.
So on and so forth.
reply
jc100 @ 29th Sep 10:21AM:
Re: These Senators just trying to reward trial lawyer supporters
Who cares the Monetary Backing behind it so long as those held accountable are punished and the courts have a chance to right a wrong. Sometimes, one must lie in bed with an evil to correct another.
reply
morbo @ 29th Sep 10:21AM:
Re: Makes sense to me
said by expert007 :
Regardless of whether the initial wiretapping was legal, justified or not
it is/was illegal, it is/was not justified. see how easy that is/was?
reply
TKJunkMail @ 29th Sep 10:23AM:
Re: These Senators just trying to reward trial lawyer supporters
said by jc100 :
Who cares the Monetary Backing behind it so long as those held accountable are punished and the courts have a chance to right a wrong. Sometimes, one must lie in bed with an evil to correct another.
The only ones that will be punished are telephone customers. When will people(and you) understand that penalties against corporations only raise costs and the customers bills. It does nothing to the shareholders. All it does is make the lawyers richer and put more money in the pols election war chests.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
reply
b10010011 @ 29th Sep 10:31AM:
Re: Obama losing control?
said by footballdude :
The President is having trouble getting his health care bill passed and now senators are openly opposing his position on this. Is he losing control of his party this soon?
:uhh: :huh:
It's called checks and balences.
reply
anon @ 29th Sep 10:31AM:
Re: These Senators just trying to reward trial lawyer supporters
One would think that they would stop being a customer if found guilty of such an offense. Alas, not everything is completely black and white.
reply
Neyland @ 29th Sep 10:38AM:
Re: Let me fix that for you
We really don't know how well it worked because we don't have access to that information either.
However, the courts should review to complete the checks and balances. If changes need to be made to the law, then change the law, but use the system as designed.
reply
jc100 @ 29th Sep 10:41AM:
Re: These Senators just trying to reward trial lawyer supporters
Yes...but then said companies would think twice to cooperate in the future =). Plus, NOT ALL COMPANIES were guilty of collusion with the Bush Administration. Several opted out. So if those who were guilty wish to raise their rates, customers can go elsewhere, ay?
reply
jimbo2150 @ 29th Sep 10:49AM:
Re: Obama losing control?
said by footballdude :
The President is having trouble getting his health care bill passed and now senators are openly opposing his position on this. Is he losing control of his party this soon?
Theres nothing saying your party or anyone HAS to agree with the president. I voted for him and I certainly don't agree with all of Obama's ideas.
--
- "Techie" Jim
reply
CrazyFingers @ 29th Sep 10:49AM:
Eh?
...a group of senator's are trying to strip the telco's of this...
The "senator's" what?
The "telco's" what?
I'm dying to know what these two entities possessed and how this impacts this story. I guess we could do Mad-Libs:
"...a group of senator's wombats are trying to strip the telco's peanut butter of this protection,"
--
Burrow owl...burrow owl...
reply
tschmidt @ 29th Sep 11:02AM:
Re: Obama losing control?
said by Time :
Let's just forget the fact that we have a major unemployment crisis to deal with, when several "economic stimulus packages" have been passed by the current/past administration that have solved absolutely NOTHING.
The consensus is even with all its flaws the stimulus averted a financial collapse. What I find frustrating is now that the immediate crisis is over Congress does not seem to be in much of a hurry to address structural and regulatory issues that made it possible so we can avert the next disaster.
said by Time :
Did I mention that we have an issue with Afghanistan and our President is more interested in the Olympics, instead of meeting with General McChrystal to discuss his request? Disgracing your country is leaving your military in a dangerous situation with NO communication from the Commander in Chief.
I don't understand your complaint. Obama replaced the general in charge of Afghanistan and called for a new strategy. Afghanistan is going to be a tough problem to solve. Stay and risk further alienation of the population or leave and let the Taliban regain control of the country.
Falling polls numbers are inevitable when campaign rhetoric comes to terms with the reality of governance. As far the midterms I would not be so sure. GOP has moved so far to the religious right and has been so hypocritical in its opposition to the administration I fail to see how it will attract a plurality of voters.
As a Progressive it is with some glee watching GOP implode. At the same time we need a loyal opposition to balance whichever party is in power. Hopefully at some point GOP will be able to get its act together and put forth a cogent Conservative platform. In the short term my objection to this administration is that it is not being Progressive enough, but then I am aware it has an awful lot on it plate reversing 30 years of GOP policy that government is incompetent and evil and we should trust unfettered free markets to solve our problems.
/tom
reply
wifi4milez @ 29th Sep 11:23AM:
Re: Let me fix that for you
said by jc100 :
So Wiretapping People without Court order and the Patriot Act have made you safer? You wish to quantify this with ANY PROOF.
Unless I am mistaken, this country hasnt been attacked by any terrorists (internally) since 9/11. In fact, we have broken up a number of terrorist plots and arrested people who were planning on doing us harm. I would consider that fairly strong "proof".
said by jc100 :
I got a rock. This rock wards off tigers in the United States. So long as you hold this rock, you'll never be subject to a tiger attack.
There are no wild tigers roaming this country attacking people, so your laughable attempt to justify letting terrorists attack us holds no water. There ARE terrorists roaming this country trying to kill us on the other hand, although they are more like evil toothless roaches than majestic tigers. If the "rock" we need to carry is monitoring the communications of suspected terrorists, then I say we step up the practice 10 fold.
--
"How do you tell a Communist? Well, it’s someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It’s someone who understands Marx and Lenin."
-Ronald Reagan-
»www.theadvocates.org/quizp/index.html
reply
tschmidt @ 29th Sep 11:23AM:
Re: These Senators just trying to reward trial lawyer supporters
said by TKJunkMail :
This isn't about stopping wiretapping in US without warrants by the NSA.
On what do you base that assertion? Campaign contributions are an ugly fact of life since we have chosen private fiance over publicly financing campaigns. Legal issue seems pretty cut and dried to me. If you cooperate with the government doing something illegal you fact the consequences, as should the government officials involved. "Being a good German" defense does not hold up.
I'm fascinated that Conservatives chafe at government intrusion in our lives but do not seem to be fazed if that intrusion is done in the name of national security. Is getting a warrant so difficult? FISA court is mostly a rubber stamp and warrant can even be requested retroactively.
I think checks and balances are all the more important in times of crisis to limit government excess. We have a sad history of going overboard in a crisis and then apologizing later. Fake Gulf of Tonkin incident used to justify Vietnam escalation, internment of US citizens of Japanese ancestry during WWII, WWI Espionage and Sedition Act. How many times will we allow these excesses before we recognize checks-and-balances and a skeptical media are critical to the health of the republic?
/tom
reply
Time @ 29th Sep 11:47AM:
Re: Obama losing control?
I apologize, but if you read the two "rooms" in this website, you'll understand why I jump to conclusions on these forums. One side blindly opposes, the other side blindly supports. It was the same with Bush too.
Your post gives me some hope that there is a shred of critical thinking out there, in some individuals.
reply
ace1974 @ 29th Sep 11:48AM:
Re: Obama losing control?
said by Kilroy :
Obama should have known from the start that he would only have one term in office. Too much damage was done to repair in four short years, it didn't matter who won the election they were only getting four years unless they managed a major miracle. The situation isn't going to improve any time soon.
Back on topic, I don't see how congress approving anything is going to change the situation, unless it doesn't have to go before the president to be signed. Nothing stopping him from vetoing any bill from becoming law and the telcos have the cash to buy the votes they need, as we have seen time and time again. We have the best politicians that money can buy.
This may all be a publicity stunt and they know they have no chance on getting this through, but it makes them look good.
Obama one term? Ha ha you keep on dreaming. Tell me one Republican that can beat Obama in 2012, just one...
reply
ross @ 29th Sep 12:07PM:
Re: Let me fix that for you
said by Neyland :
We really don't know how well it worked because we don't have access to that information either.
However, the courts should review to complete the checks and balances. If changes need to be made to the law, then change the law, but use the system as designed.
You should ask wifi4miles; he seems to have "inside information" unknown to others. As for your second assertion, I don't think that is going to sit well with wifi4miles, so please don't mention it...
BTW, senators proposing and passing modifications to past legislation is using the system as designed, and does nothing to inhibit a federal court's right to review and adjudicate the legality, and/or constitutionality of the FISA Modernization Act in whole, or in part.
reply
NetAdmin @ 29th Sep 12:10PM:
Re: Let me fix that for you
said by wifi4milez :said by jc100 :
So Wiretapping People without Court order and the Patriot Act have made you safer? You wish to quantify this with ANY PROOF.
Unless I am mistaken, this country hasnt been attacked by any terrorists (internally) since 9/11. In fact, we have broken up a number of terrorist plots and arrested people who were planning on doing us harm. I would consider that fairly strong "proof".
Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Especially when one considers that before the passage of the Patriot Act and the use of domestic wire taps, domestic terrorist strikes were just as rare as they are now.
--
Kilroy was here
reply
jjeffeory @ 29th Sep 12:12PM:
Re: Obama losing control?
We desperately need more than a two party system, less gov't, and some divine help....
reply
wifi4milez @ 29th Sep 12:17PM:
Re: Let me fix that for you
said by NetAdmin :
Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Especially when one considers that before the passage of the Patriot Act and the use of domestic wire taps, domestic terrorist strikes were just as rare as they are now.
Ahh yes, the "stick your head in the sand and nothing bad will happen" crowd has come out to join the discussion. There is no debate that on 9/11 a terrible event occurred. There is no debate that in the years follow 9/11 nothing else happened due to increased vigilance and the creation of the Patriot Act.
Unfortunately, what is up for debate is how drastically our safety has been reduced since Dear Leader took office. Sickening things like even allow discussions of prosecuting CIA agents for doing things that were legal is opening the door to another attack. I can assure you that there are filthy people sitting in a cave somewhere, stroking their beards, and gnawing on some spoiled meat with their 3 teeth that are cheering Nobama along........
--
"How do you tell a Communist? Well, it’s someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It’s someone who understands Marx and Lenin."
-Ronald Reagan-
»www.theadvocates.org/quizp/index.html
reply
NetAdmin @ 29th Sep 12:17PM:
Re: These Senators just trying to reward trial lawyer supporters
Well, how else do you expect those senators to act? Remember, their first job is to get re-elected, so they aren't going to commit political suicide by turning their backs on some of their largest contributors.
On the flip side of the coin... Do you honestly believe that granting the telcos immunity was not also motivated by political contributions?
Remember what they say... The best government that money can buy.
--
Kilroy was here
reply
Neyland @ 29th Sep 12:23PM:
Re: Let me fix that for you
Considering the plots recently exposed in the past two weeks, do we know how much information was obtained via these wiretaps?
I don't believe anyone here really has enough information on the capabilities or the what information has been obtained from the taps to really say if they have been effective or not.
However, the use of the taps should be reviewed by the courts and the laws changed if need be instead of granting immunity as a means of bypassing something that may or may not be broken.
I thought this was the era of transparency in gov...
I'm not sure I understand the justice department going after the CIA for interrogation procedures and ignoring the question on wiretaps. If we don't care about the President's opinion on interrogation, why should they care about it on wiretaps? Isn't the justice department supposed to hold the President's use of power to the law of the land too?
reply
NetAdmin @ 29th Sep 12:25PM:
Re: Let me fix that for you
said by wifi4milez :
Ahh yes, the "stick your head in the sand and nothing bad will happen" crowd has come out to join the discussion.
Can you ever have a debate without calling the other side names? Grow up and act like an adult for once.
There is no debate that on 9/11 a terrible event occurred.
You got one right.
There is no debate that in the years follow 9/11 nothing else happened due to increased vigilance and the creation of the Patriot Act.
The lack of a terrorist strike after the passing of the Patriot Act fails to prove its effectiveness on its own. You are drawing a direct causal relationship without having provided proof of that relationship.
Increased diligence, you get that one now that you have added that, but you still have failed to prove that the Patriot ACt has been directly responsible for stopping a terrorist strike.
Once again, before the Patriot Act was passed, terrorist strikes were extremely rare. After the passage of the Patriot Act, terrorist strikes are STILL extremely rare. So, obviously, it wasn't the Patriot Act that is the reason for a lack of terrorist strikes in this nation alone, now is it?
--
Kilroy was here
reply
ross @ 29th Sep 12:26PM:
Re: Let me fix that for you
said by wifi4milez :
"Of course this was never about reason, it was about protecting the
phone companies from billions in penalties and Uncle Sam from any further investigations into the depth of our domestic wiretap practices
Man, you are seriously disturbed if you believe even a minuscule part of your paranoid blubbering and blathering. Going forward from the date of the FISA Modernization Act, with its codified protection for future violations of our former constitutional rights, does not equate to any necessity to protect, ex post facto (read unconstitutional), prior illegal activities engaged in by the executive branch of our government with the full cooperation and enthusiastic participation of the majority of Telcos.
Second, please elaborate how the ACLU and/or ACLU "types" are "now working hand in hand with terrorists to assist them in attacking us again."
reply
jjeffeory @ 29th Sep 12:29PM:
Re: Eh?
Well, we could spend all day correcting people's silly grammar errors. We wouldn't get anything done that way. Wait, we don't get anything done anyway....
Be sure to correct all of the to, too, two & there, their, they're errors. There are many of those errors there, too...
reply
NetAdmin @ 29th Sep 12:33PM:
Re: Let me fix that for you
said by Neyland :
Considering the plots recently exposed in the past two weeks, do we know how much information was obtained via these wiretaps?
You won't know. That is the problem. The government is going to say it needs the wiretapping programs, but the possibility exists that those wiretapping programs aren't anymore effective than the old way of doing things. The government hasn't proved to the people that those programs work or are even necessary.
I don't believe anyone here really has enough information on the capabilities or the what information has been obtained from the taps to really say if they have been effective or not.
Bingo. And that's the issue I have with people coming and saying that the Patriot Act has made us safer. There is no demonstrable proof that the Patriot Act has stopped anything. We simply don't know. The government says we need it, but a logical person won't be convinced until the government provides evidence of its effectiveness.
The fact is that the Patriot Act expanded government power immensely. My position is that the government needs to prove that it really needs those powers or that those expanded powers have actually done something to "make us safer". If they haven't done squat in fighting terrorist organizations, then they need to be scaled back or eliminated. Limiting the power of government to prevent abuses is one of the principles this nation was founded upon.
--
Kilroy was here
reply
wifi4milez @ 29th Sep 12:33PM:
Re: Let me fix that for you
said by Neyland :
Considering the plots recently exposed in the past two weeks, do we know how much information was obtained via these wiretaps?
Actually we do!
The (shudder) New York Times had the following:
said by The New York Times :
On Tuesday, the prosecutor in the case, Jeffrey H. Knox, said evidence obtained under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act would be used against Mr. Zazi. Outside the courthouse, Mr. Dowling said the government would have to produce one of Mr. Zazi’s co-conspirators in order to be able to convict him of that charge. So far, that has not happened, although court papers filed by the government refer to Mr. Zazi as having three confederates.
Furthermore, Fox News had to say this:
said by Fox News :
On Sept. 6, Zazi took some of his products into a Colorado hotel room outfitted with a stove on which he later left acetone residue, authorities said. He repeatedly sought another person's help cooking up the bomb — "each communication more urgent in tone than the last," the papers said.
The FBI was listening to Zazi and becoming increasingly concerned as the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and a New York visit by President Obama approached, officials said. They decided to track Zazi on Sept. 9 when he rented a car and drove to New York.
Almost every news outlet around the world is reporting how months of surveilance were the key to the whole operation. You will notice that the NYtimes even noted the success of FISA in this case, so hopefully the "head in the sand" crowd will start to get it.
--
"How do you tell a Communist? Well, it’s someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It’s someone who understands Marx and Lenin."
-Ronald Reagan-
»www.theadvocates.org/quizp/index.html
reply
jjeffeory @ 29th Sep 12:33PM:
Re: Let me fix that for you
Meh, no attacks afterwards doesn't mean anything for sure. You could also say there were no attacks here from 1900 -1990 WITHOUT wire taps and that was also successful. Silly, silly, silly arguments...
reply
jc100 @ 29th Sep 12:40PM:
Re: Let me fix that for you
Which is what I was going to argue but I'm in the midst of reinstalling my built computer that had a faulty cpu. Gee, Aren't I lucky. It made everything corrupt so now I have to reinstall everything. Lucky I only had stuff going a few days before I noticed.
Anyway, Wifi is giving the straw man argument. Well see we haven't had any now, so these MUST HAVE WORKED.
How many attacks have we had in 20 years?
3
1 = Domestic by a WHITE CHRISTIAN SUPREMACIST named Timothy Mcveigh. Definitely no Allah or Islam involved there.
2 = World Trade center #1
3 = 9/11
How many murders do we have in this country. 16-22,000 a year. Car Accidents? 40,000 a year.
9/11 = 8 years ago
8 x 40,000 = 320,000 Dead in car Wrecks
8 x 16,000 = 128,000 Murdered
Dead due to 9/11 = 3000ish.
So let's outlaw cars and sharp pointy objects and things that go BANG BANG.....The SAVE AMERICANS from THEMSELVES ACT!!!
VOTE VOTE VOTE.
reply
MyDogHsFleas @ 29th Sep 12:43PM:
Easy for them to say
"If the programs were actually legal, then let a court say that," notes Masnick. "If the programs were illegal, then there is no good reason to have made the telcos immune."
That's really easy for someone to say who does not have to actually go to court.
Class action lawsuits are simply a way to inflict pain on the defendant. They have very little to do with "justice". The allegedly harmed parties get little.
It's really important to see "telco immunity", and "network neutrality", for what they really are:
A way to use the government (whether the judicial or executive branches) to disadvantage the telcos and advantage the "dot com"s of the world.
All of the posturing and preaching is just that... a way to spin public opinion.
reply
jjeffeory @ 29th Sep 12:44PM:
Re: Let me fix that for you
LOL.
If one fallacy doesn't work, try another! I see your ad hominem!
Right!
reply
ross @ 29th Sep 12:47PM:
Re: These Senators just trying to reward trial lawyer supporters
said by TKJunkMail :said by jc100 :
Who cares the Monetary Backing behind it so long as those held accountable are punished and the courts have a chance to right a wrong. Sometimes, one must lie in bed with an evil to correct another.
The only ones that will be punished are telephone customers. When will people(and you) understand that penalties against corporations only raise costs and the customers bills. It does nothing to the shareholders. All it does is make the lawyers richer and put more money in the pols election war chests.
I, for one, would be happy to help foot the bill for Telco prosecutions, and even pay a portion of the fines passed along in the form of higher telecom rates. Provided AT&T stock holders forgo equal amounts of dividends, and the Telco administrators responsible do considerable jail time. Impeaching and imprisoning Bush and his band of blackhearted bastards is, apparently, too much to hope for. Alas, that may be one of the benefits of third world political systems that deserves another look... (Tsk, tsk, shame on me for even thinking it.)
reply
moonpuppy @ 29th Sep 12:59PM:
Re: Hey Hey
said by jc100 :
I've always liked Chris Dodd.... Most times, he often works on the RIGHT ISSUES. Feingold does some memorable things too. Good luck climbing this mounting with nothing more than high hopes and not a chance in hell in your favor. Still, it's good to know what people actually think of their constituents once in a while.
Maybe you want to go check on Senator Dodd and how he wrote the AIG bonuses into the law that bailed them out and then cried foul until an aide reminded him he put that provision in.
:uhh:
reply
patcat88 @ 29th Sep 12:59PM:
Re: Obama losing control?
said by footballdude :
The President is having trouble getting his health care bill passed and now senators are openly opposing his position on this. Is he losing control of his party this soon?
He never had any control over his party, time for Obama to have CIA dig up some dirt against the party bosses, then blackmail the legislators with not being on the ballot next election, if they squawk, nobody will believe them, and Obama will anonymously leak that they snort cocaine while ****ing little boys and have the AG go after them, or more simple good old bribe accepting charges. You need to think like Bush.
reply
KrK @ 29th Sep 01:04PM:
Re: Obama losing control?
said by footballdude :
The President is having trouble getting his health care bill passed and now senators are openly opposing his position on this. Is he losing control of his party this soon?
This is a good thing. Obama IMHO is on the wrong side of this issue.
The whole unwarranted wiretapping thing always was illegal and unconstitutional. Then when the EFF tried to find out the scope of the program they were shut down by congress passing immunity laws. If this succeeds it fixes that. I never liked Obama's position on this issue.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
reply
moonpuppy @ 29th Sep 01:07PM:
And no one really here gets it....
This whole thing started in a much different way than many people think.
The CIA was tapping foreign calls like they always do when they found some of these calls were going back to the USA. This is where it got tricky. While they were listening in on overseas phones, some of the calls either went to or originated in the USA. Technically, it is not illegal to listen in as long as the target is OUTSIDE the country.
Now, with the numbers receiving and making calls from the USA to these foreign phones, they obviously want to listen in. Now, it becomes a matter of using evidence from the CIA (who is not allowed any law enforcement powers in this country) to tap into a domestic line (which becomes the jurisdiction of the FBI.)
reply
KrK @ 29th Sep 01:07PM:
Re: Let me fix that for you
What nonsense. It's not even about the money, it was about the information and finding out how deep the rabbit hole really was or is.
To all the people who say "We must give up our Constitutional rights to fight Terrorism, it's a new world order now..." I say don't surrender what makes America America! F the Terrorists! They cannot win unless WE let them win.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
reply
wifi4milez @ 29th Sep 01:09PM:
Re: Let me fix that for you
said by jc100 :
How many attacks have we had in 20 years?
3
1 = Domestic by a WHITE CHRISTIAN SUPREMACIST named Timothy Mcveigh. Definitely no Allah or Islam involved there.
2 = World Trade center #1
3 = 9/11
As usual, you insist on bringing religion into this.
said by jc100 :
How many murders do we have in this country. 16-22,000 a year. Car Accidents? 40,000 a year.
9/11 = 8 years ago
8 x 40,000 = 320,000 Dead in car Wrecks
8 x 16,000 = 128,000 Murdered
Dead due to 9/11 = 3000ish.
So let's outlaw cars and sharp pointy objects and things that go BANG BANG.....The SAVE AMERICANS from THEMSELVES ACT!!!
VOTE VOTE VOTE.
Yawn, here you go again trying to equate car accidents (key word ACCIDENT) to terrorism. As has been pointed out to you over and over, driving cars is something people need to do. They need to drive to get to work, to pick up food, and to pick up their kids. Unfortunately, people will die in car accidents and there is nothing that can be done about it.
Terrorism on the other hand, is something that vile people chose to do. Nobody NEEDS to sit in a cave and plot the death of those that disagree with them. Nobody needs to rent hotel rooms to make homemade bombs. Its a choice, and those who choose that path will meet justice (unless Dear Leader hampers our ability to do so).
--
"How do you tell a Communist? Well, it’s someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It’s someone who understands Marx and Lenin."
-Ronald Reagan-
»www.theadvocates.org/quizp/index.html
reply
KrK @ 29th Sep 01:09PM:
Re: Let me fix that for you
said by wifi4milez :
Unless I am mistaken, this country hasnt been attacked by any terrorists (internally) since 9/11. In fact, we have broken up a number of terrorist plots and arrested people who were planning on doing us harm. I would consider that fairly strong "proof".
We haven't been hit by large Asteroids from space, either, so it's proof our Asteroid defense program works, right?
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
reply
anon @ 29th Sep 01:12PM:
pity the poor, put-upon 'postrophe, please
senators. the word is senators. and telcos, for that matter. or are we also referring to more than one administration and more than one government?
reply
ross @ 29th Sep 01:13PM:
Re: Let me fix that for you
said by jc100 :
Which is what I was going to argue but I'm in the midst of reinstalling my built computer that had a faulty cpu. Gee, Aren't I lucky. It made everything corrupt so now I have to reinstall everything. Lucky I only had stuff going a few days before I noticed.
Anyway, Wifi is giving the straw man argument. Well see we haven't had any now, so these MUST HAVE WORKED.
How many attacks have we had in 20 years?
3
1 = Domestic by a WHITE CHRISTIAN SUPREMACIST named Timothy Mcveigh. Definitely no Allah or Islam involved there.
2 = World Trade center #1
3 = 9/11
How many murders do we have in this country. 16-22,000 a year. Car Accidents? 40,000 a year.
9/11 = 8 years ago
8 x 40,000 = 320,000 Dead in car Wrecks
8 x 16,000 = 128,000 Murdered
Dead due to 9/11 = 3000ish.
So let's outlaw cars and sharp pointy objects and things that go BANG BANG.....The SAVE AMERICANS from THEMSELVES ACT!!!
VOTE VOTE VOTE.
Now, now, you are leaving out the 600,000 to 1,000,000+ Iraqis, the uncounted Afganis, and 4,000+ American soldiers, killed as a result of Bush's ill-fated, opportunistic imperialist war for Middle East oil reserves excused by the 9/11 event.
Source: www.antiwar.com |
Source: www.antiwar.com |
KrK @ 29th Sep 01:13PM:
Re: Let me fix that for you
Nope. Sure, they'll lobby for FISA but the simply truth of the matter is they could of wiretapped him the old fashioned legal way.
IE. Suspicious activity and ties draws their attention. They then get warrants to wiretap him. They watch him for months. Boom they nail him.
No special new powers needed.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
reply
patcat88 @ 29th Sep 01:20PM:
Re: Obama losing control?
said by ace1974 :
Obama one term? Ha ha you keep on dreaming. Tell me one Republican that can beat Obama in 2012, just one...
Any republican will win, even if its a pet, just like any democrat even if it was a dog or horse would win 2008 (Obama). A new politician has no dirty laundry, no history, and can make all the promises and lies he wants, the existing president will be criticized by the mainstream media usually.
The only way Obama will win reelection is to do a false flag attack or make some kind of "Attack" on america, or pick up some kind of sword and graphically slaughter enemies with it (massive communist hearings, 9/11 anti-terrorism swat teams, etc).
reply
anon @ 29th Sep 01:21PM:
msg deleted
deleted by a moderator
reply
patcat88 @ 29th Sep 01:34PM:
Re: Obama losing control?
said by tschmidt :
Obama replaced the general in charge of Afghanistan and called for a new strategy. Afghanistan is going to be a tough problem to solve. Stay and risk further alienation of the population or leave and let the Taliban regain control of the country.
Afghanistan will be a failed state of anarchy for decades like Somalia. Only genocide and "terrorism" by some group will ever create a stable central govt.
reply
patcat88 @ 29th Sep 01:35PM:
Re: Obama losing control?
said by jjeffeory :
We desperately need more than a two party system, less gov't, and some divine help....
Its a republic, not a democracy, your votes mean nothing except in communist states like California with referendums.
reply
Katt @ 29th Sep 01:37PM:
Re: Obama losing control?
said by patcat88 :
The only way Obama will win reelection is to do a false flag attack or make some kind of "Attack" on america, or pick up some kind of sword and graphically slaughter enemies with it (massive communist hearings, 9/11 anti-terrorism swat teams, etc).
And we're not even a year out from the election where people said the Republicans would do any/all of the above to make sure their guy won... :uhh:
reply
ross @ 29th Sep 01:38PM:
Re: Let me fix that for you
said by KrK :said by wifi4milez :
Unless I am mistaken, this country hasnt been attacked by any terrorists (internally) since 9/11. In fact, we have broken up a number of terrorist plots and arrested people who were planning on doing us harm. I would consider that fairly strong "proof".
We haven't been hit by large Asteroids from space, either, so it's proof our Asteroid defense program works, right?
Wellllll, up to now, sure... but whatever dementia wifi4miles and mydoghasfleas have must be contagious... They've got me thinking those Afganis may have better protection in those cave condos than our advanced, new-fangled Asteroid Defense program can ever hope to achieve... Now, how do we trick those danged Afganis into exchanging abodes with us? :D :D
reply
patcat88 @ 29th Sep 01:42PM:
Re: Let me fix that for you
And its just as easy for the pilot to shoot the co-pilot (no more flight engineers), and do another 9/11 in the time it takes you to take a leak. Al qaeda can promise $500K to the pilot's family :-)
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FedEx_Flight_705
»findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m···8273718/
reply
wifi4milez @ 29th Sep 01:42PM:
Re: Let me fix that for you
said by ross :
Second, please elaborate how the ACLU and/or ACLU "types" are "now working hand in hand with terrorists to assist them in attacking us again."
Absolutely, I am glad you asked! The good new is that you arent the only one asking that question. In fact, the Department of Justice has opened a federal probe into the ACLU for showing terrorists pictures of undercover CIA agents.
The Washington Post had the following to say:
said by The Washington Post :
The Justice Department recently questioned military defense attorneys at Guantanamo Bay about whether photographs of CIA personnel, including covert officers, were unlawfully provided to detainees charged with organizing the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, according to sources familiar with the investigation.
»www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co···295.html
Furthermore, Foxnews caught up with one of the ACLU perps and asked about this egregious behavior. That video can be seen here »www.foxnews.com/search-results/m···over.htm
Some additional content can be found at:
»www.examiner.com/x-17412-Macon-C···rrorists
And take your pick here:
»www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&···oq=&aqi=
--
"How do you tell a Communist? Well, it’s someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It’s someone who understands Marx and Lenin."
-Ronald Reagan-
»www.theadvocates.org/quizp/index.html
reply
patcat88 @ 29th Sep 01:45PM:
Re: These Senators just trying to reward trial lawyer supporters
said by jc100 :
Who cares the Monetary Backing behind it so long as those held accountable are punished and the courts have a chance to right a wrong. Sometimes, one must lie in bed with an evil to correct another.
And 10 years later Supreme Court will refuse to hear, and case dropped with no jurisprudence set.
reply
wifi4milez @ 29th Sep 01:48PM:
Re: Let me fix that for you
said by KrK :
We haven't been hit by large Asteroids from space, either, so it's proof our Asteroid defense program works, right?
Ok so you are trying to take this off topic to prove you point. However, I will play along just for fun. This planet has in fact been hit by large asteroids, many times. When was the last time you saw a dinosaur might I ask??? You see, over the past few millions of years there have been a number of catastrophic asteroid impacts that have decimated life on the planet. For that very reason we ARE exploring an Asteroid defense system. Unfortunately its not in place yet so we cant judge its effectiveness, unlike the anti terrorism laws which we can conclusively prove have been effective. Want to try again? ;)
--
"How do you tell a Communist? Well, it’s someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It’s someone who understands Marx and Lenin."
-Ronald Reagan-
»www.theadvocates.org/quizp/index.html
reply
wifi4milez @ 29th Sep 01:52PM:
Re: Obama losing control?
said by ace1974 :
Obama one term? Ha ha you keep on dreaming. Tell me one Republican that can beat Obama in 2012, just one...
1) Mickey Mouse
2) Kermit "D" Frog
3) Superman
4) The dirty sock under my bed
5) That dead roach in the hallway
6) My dog
7) An unborn fetus
Shall I continue?
--
"How do you tell a Communist? Well, it’s someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It’s someone who understands Marx and Lenin."
-Ronald Reagan-
»www.theadvocates.org/quizp/index.html
reply
KrK @ 29th Sep 02:51PM:
Re: Let me fix that for you
LOL. Ok so countering ad hoc fallacy means "You're going offtopic."
... but we haven't been hit since America has been around, so therefore, our Asteroid defense program MUST be working! The Proof is we haven't been hit!
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
reply
amigo_boy @ 29th Sep 03:04PM:
Re: Obama losing control?
said by footballdude :
The President is having trouble getting his health care bill passed and now senators are openly opposing his position on this. Is he losing control of his party this soon?
I'm sure it's a negotiating point. They know they'll never pass this. It will just be something they can give up in return for Rs giving up some ground on another issue (perhaps healthcare).
Mark
reply
El Quintron @ 29th Sep 03:13PM:
Re: Let me fix that for you
said by KrK :
To all the people who say "We must give up our Constitutional rights to fight Terrorism, it's a new world order now..." I say don't surrender what makes America America! F the Terrorists! They cannot win unless WE let them win.
I may not be American, but wasn't it Benjamin Franklin that said:
quote:
Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither.
--
They vilify us, the scoundrels do, when there is only this difference, they rob the poor under the cover of law, forsooth, and we plunder the rich under the protection of our own courage.
reply
amigo_boy @ 29th Sep 03:14PM:
Re: Obama losing control?
said by patcat88 :
Its a republic, not a democracy, your votes mean nothing except in communist states like California with referendums.
Republics are democracies. They just require more democratic effort to change the law than the popular opinion of the moment. (I.e., replacing legislators; recall and impeachment; amendment of constitutions.).
The real diminishing of individual democratic power are corporations (fictional yet legal "persons," created by the stroke of a pen) treated as an "individual," with the same rights to political speech (influence).
The only connection that has to a republic is the 14th amendment to the constitution. But, the amendment process is a democratic act.
Mark
reply
morbo @ 29th Sep 03:20PM:
Re: And no one really here gets it....
it's pretty straight forward: AT&T and Verizon violated the law by allowing all calls/internet through their lines to be "tapped" and logged. illegal is illegal. time to bring these corporate ass holes to justice.
reply
amigo_boy @ 29th Sep 03:29PM:
Re: Makes sense to me
said by morbo :said by expert007 :
Regardless of whether the initial wiretapping was legal, justified or not
it is/was illegal, it is/was not justified. see how easy that is/was?
You're confusing two issues: "legal" and statutory penalties, which is what the telcos faced.
18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(a)(ii)(B) [1] says a telco is immune from statutory damages when the AG certifies a warrant isn't necessary. This law is unrelated to FISA. There is no reference to FISA even though the law references other laws as necessary.
This law was cited in the so-called immunity deal as the basis for receiving immunity from statutory damages.[2]
The question of legality is whether FISA superseded this law. That becomes a constitutional question because the Executive branch has always had a power to conduct surveillance. (I.e. if the Legislative branch can place the Executive's power under control and oversight, is it still an Executive power?).
I agree with opponents of warrantless surveillance that it was bad that legality wasn't argued and decided by the court. However, it wouldn't have been fair to telcos to subject them to statutorily-created damages just to answer the larger constitutional issue. Especially when Congress took steps to amend FISA to better meet the needs which the Executive branch said were necessary. Yet, during that process, Congress didn't investigate the Executive branch for illegal activities.
If it was illegal, it was the President (and his offices, such as AG) who should have been charged. The telcos (statutory damages) shouldn't have been a proxy for that. That would be as much a perversion of the Constitution as opponents of surveillance claim that activity is.
[1] »www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html···00-.html
[2] »www.eff.org/files/filenode/att/F···_xml.pdf
Page 88, SEC. 802 (a)(2) "any assistance by that person was provided pursuant to a certification in writing under section 2511(2)(a)(ii)(B) or 2709(b)"
Mark
reply
ross @ 29th Sep 03:39PM:
Re: Let me fix that for you
said by wifi4milez :said by ross :
Second, please elaborate how the ACLU and/or ACLU "types" are "now working hand in hand with terrorists to assist them in attacking us again."
Absolutely, I am glad you asked! The good new is that you arent the only one asking that question. In fact, the Department of Justice has opened a federal probe into the ACLU for showing terrorists pictures of undercover CIA agents.
The Washington Post had the following to say:
said by The Washington Post :
The Justice Department recently questioned military defense attorneys at Guantanamo Bay about whether photographs of CIA personnel, including covert officers, were unlawfully provided to detainees charged with organizing the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, according to sources familiar with the investigation.
»
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co···295.htmlFurthermore, Foxnews caught up with one of the ACLU perps and asked about this egregious behavior. That video can be seen here »
www.foxnews.com/search-results/m···over.htmSome additional content can be found at:
»
www.examiner.com/x-17412-Macon-C···rroristsAnd take your pick here:
»
www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&···oq=&aqi= You are one twisted monkey! Here is the Washington Post article, which includes a few details you conveniently left out:
BEGIN ------------------------------
Detainees Shown CIA Officers' Photos
Justice Dept. Looking Into Whether Attorneys Broke Law at Guantanamo
By Peter Finn
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, August 21, 2009
The Justice Department recently questioned military defense attorneys at Guantanamo Bay about whether photographs of CIA personnel, including covert officers, were unlawfully provided to detainees charged with organizing the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, according to sources familiar with the investigation.
Investigators are looking into allegations that laws protecting classified information were breached when three lawyers showed their clients the photographs, the sources said. The lawyers were apparently attempting to identify CIA officers and contractors involved in the agency's interrogation of al-Qaeda suspects in facilities outside the United States, where the agency employed harsh techniques.
If detainees at the U.S. military prison in Cuba are tried, either in federal court or by a military commission, defense lawyers are expected to attempt to call CIA personnel to testify.
The photos were taken by researchers hired by the John Adams Project, a joint effort of the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, to support military counsel at Guantanamo Bay, according to the sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the inquiry. It was unclear whether the Justice Department is also examining those organizations.
Both groups have long said that they will zealously investigate the CIA's interrogation program at "black sites" worldwide as part of the defense of their clients. But government investigators are now looking into whether the defense team went too far by allegedly showing the detainees the photos of CIA officers, in some cases surreptitiously taken outside their homes.
If proved, the allegations would highlight how aggressively both military lawyers and their allies in the human rights community are moving to shed light on the CIA's interrogation practices and defend their clients. Defense attorneys, however, described the investigation as an attempt by the government to intimidate them into not exposing what happened to their clients.
When contacted about the investigation, the ACLU declined to discuss specifics.
"We are confident that no laws or regulations have been broken as we investigated the circumstances of the torture of our clients and as we have vigorously defended our clients' interests," said Anthony D. Romero, the group's executive director. "Rather than investigate the CIA officials who undertook the torture, they are now investigating the military lawyers who have courageously stepped up to defend these clients in these sham proceedings."
It is unclear whether the military lawyers under investigation identified the CIA personnel in the photographs to the al-Qaeda suspects or simply asked the detainees whether they had ever seen them. It is also unclear whether the inquiry involves violations of federal statutes prohibiting the identification of covert CIA officers or violations of military commission rules governing the disclosure of classified information, including to the defendants.
The investigation is being overseen by John Dion, head of the Justice Department's counter-espionage section, who has worked on many high-profile national security cases, including the prosecution of Aldrich H. Ames, the CIA mole who spied for the Soviet Union. The CIA reports security breaches to Dion's office. The Justice Department and the CIA declined to comment.
Air Force Col. Peter R. Masciola, chief military defense counsel at Guantanamo Bay, and his deputy, Michael J. Berrigan, also declined to comment.
The Washington Post could not determine how many and which CIA personnel were photographed, which photographs were shown to detainees, or when.
Romero said he does not know what laws the government thinks the military lawyers may have broken.
"That is the most vexing part of it," he said. "Usually when you're read your Miranda rights or visited by the Justice Department or the FBI, you are given some indication as to what laws are at stake."
The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers also declined to address the specifics of the inquiry but questioned its timing.
It is "customary in our experience that any kind of investigation like these are conducted after legal proceedings are finished in the case so as not to interfere with the defense function, not to interfere with the rights of defendants, not to give the appearance that the government is looking to chill the defense function," said Joshua L. Dratel, counsel for the John Adams Project and a former board member of the NACDL, who spoke on behalf of the group.
He added: "The lawyers have a duty to find out what happened to their clients, and to the extent that the government and certain agencies are resistant to that to protect themselves and to insulate themselves from accountability, there is a tension there, and to the extent that this investigation is part of that tension, it's most unfortunate. But the lawyers will not shirk their duty."
A wide variety of groups, including European investigators, human rights groups and news organizations, have compiled lists of people thought to have been involved in the CIA's program, including CIA station chiefs, agency interrogators and medical personnel who accompanied detainees on planes as they were moved from one secret location to another.
"It's a normal part of human rights research projects, and certainly in defense work, to compile lists of individuals who interacted with clients," Romero said.
Tracking international CIA-chartered flights, researchers have identified hotels in Europe where CIA personnel or contractors stayed. In some cases, through hotel phone records, they have been able to identify agency employees who jeopardized their cover by dialing numbers in the United States. Working from these lists, some of which include up to 45 names, researchers photographed agency workers and obtained other photos from public records, the sources said.
The government has largely cut off the airing of details about the CIA's interrogation program during proceedings at Guantanamo Bay, although many have been revealed in government documents.
At the courthouse at the prison, a court security officer, who is thought be in contact with CIA officials, can cut off the audio feed to the public gallery if there is any possibility of lawyers or defendants discussing CIA detention. At a hearing in July, the audio feed was cut when a lawyer for Ramzi Binalshibh, one of the alleged Sept. 11 conspirators, mentioned sleep deprivation, one of the "enhanced interrogation techniques" used at the CIA's black sites.
------------------------------ END
The rest of your supposed facts are a barely coherent FauxNews right-wing rant with NO factual content, a S.F. Examiner reprint of an article in the Macon County, Georgia, Macon County Conservative Examiner by some right-wing berserker, again with NO factual content, and lastly a collection of mostly right-wing propaganda outlets spewing on a matter they should know something about, but don't (although their former illustrious leader, G.W. Bush, certainly does), namely the "outing" of CIA covert agents. At least, the ACLU attorneys have a lawful reason, and are not acting to publicly identify the CIA personnel.
Of course, the ACLU investigators assisting the military lawyers defending selected Gitmo detainees are attempting to identify potential witnesses to, and participants in, the unlawful torture of the detainees amongst the CIA operatives the detainees came in contact with during their respective detentions. The use of public information, including photos, to do so is not unlawful.
The so-called investigation is just another government attempt to divert attention from the fact these detainees were unlawfully arrested, kidnapped and detained without charge, and thereafter subjected to illegal interrogation techniques (read TORTURE), and now face indefinite detention, at the hands of the sham Military Commissions, for the rest of their natural lives...
And, of course, none of your "example" material supports your declaration the "ACLU 'types' are now working hand in hand with terrorists to assist them in attacking us again."
reply
amigo_boy @ 29th Sep 03:40PM:
Re: Let me fix that for you
said by El Quintron :said by KrK :
To all the people who say "We must give up our Constitutional rights to fight Terrorism, it's a new world order now..." I say don't surrender what makes America America! F the Terrorists! They cannot win unless WE let them win.
I may not be American, but wasn't it Benjamin Franklin that said:
quote:
Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither.
That's a misquote. Franklin said "essential liberty" and "essential security." I.e., he qualified the items. That there is a difference between essential security. And, that some liberty is not essential.
This makes sense because the founding generation ditched their relatively libertarian government (the Articles of Confederation) just 12 years after the revolution in favor of the relatively more vastly powerful, effective and remote federal government of 1789.
They conducted the kind of weighing of what's "essential" as Franklin implied. They traded more perfect liberty for a government that made states something less than sovereign. That required loopholes like the 4th amendment's undefined qualification of "reasonable" searches and seizures.
Finally, Franklin's quotes are generally meaningless. He can be quoted for almost any proposition.
Example: just 4 years before the revolution Franklin wrote of King George in glowing terms, admonishing Wilkes's supporters who protested the King for violating the law to suppress Wilkes (who was elected 3 times from prison!). Wilkes was treated by the King much the same as the colonials later were. Wilkes's supporters rebelled much the same as the colonials later did. But, Franklin was a profound loyalist to the Crown at that time (just 4-5 years before the revolution).
Mark
reply
patcat88 @ 29th Sep 03:47PM:
Re: Obama losing control?
So if ballot access in a "republic" requires 51% of the voting district to sign a petition, is that a democracy? (popular president-for-life systems)
reply
morbo @ 29th Sep 03:54PM:
Re: Makes sense to me
Oh god, not your take on this again. It wasn't palatable the first time, and not much has changed.
I'm not confusing any issue. I'm saying that AT&T's action were illegal, whether or not the president and ag were charged. we both know that is difficult to do, even with a good case. AT&T should face statutory damages and legal challenges for their actions.
reply
amigo_boy @ 29th Sep 04:02PM:
Re: Obama losing control?
said by patcat88 :
So if ballot access in a "republic" requires 51% of the voting district to sign a petition, is that a democracy? (popular president-for-life systems)
Democracy is a matter of degrees, right? We could have perfect (raw) democracy where we all assemble at the local football stadium, every day, to vote on whatever anyone feels should be voted on. (Even voting on their losing propositions the day before.). We could spend all day every day doing that. It would be absolute "democracy."
Instead, we have representative democracy. Delegates raising "our" issues (which means not everyone's issues will be raised), and voting "our" interests regarding others' issues (which means not everyone's interests will be voted).
And, we have the ability to vote to replace (and recall, impeach, etc.) representatives who don't represent "us" (the majority). And, the ability to amend state and federal constitutions to increase the number of representatives (congressional districts); subject them to more frequent replacement (term limits); etc.
That's all democratic. It just has more hurdles (requiring more democratic participation) than all of us meeting in the local park every day to vote on anything anyone wants to take a vote on.
Back to your scenario:
Are you saying that if anyone who wants a measure (or candidate) added to the ballot, they should have it just because they want it? Otherwise it's not "democracy?"
If you're not saying that, then what percentage of people should be required to share the sentiment? 33%? How is that "democratic," but 51% isn't?
Mark
reply
amigo_boy @ 29th Sep 04:18PM:
Re: Makes sense to me
said by morbo :
I'm not confusing any issue. I'm saying that AT&T's action were illegal,
The immunity was over telcos being liable to statutory (civil) damages, not criminal (illegal) conduct.
2511 says they weren't liable (if the Executive branch certified no warrant was necessary, and we know the Executive was flagrant about their authority to conduct surveillance without a warrant.). It doesn't predicate that certification on FISA.
This might have been an issue which should have been decided by the court. (The history of 2511; its relationship to FISA; and the limits on Legislative branch's power over the Executive branch's inherent power to conduct surveillance).
But, it wasn't the telcos' fault that that 2511 existed, and the prior Administration argued forcefully that it recognized an inherent power of the Executive branch which the Legislative branch couldn't eliminate.
Neither was it the telcos' fault that Congress amended FISA to better meet (i.e., recognizing) the needs of the Executive branch, which the Executive said were unmet by FISA (causing the Executive to fall back on its own inherent power to conduct surveillance). Nor the telcos' fault that that same Congress chose not to investigate the Executive branch for "criminal conduct" which you say telcos should be held liable for.
I'm not saying the whole thing was good. But, that criminality would have been better determined by Congress (who acted like the President's acts were warranted, and adjusted FISA to accommodate them).
Using statutory damages as a roundabout way to punish telcos for something the Executive branch was rewarded for doing would have been as much a perversion of the law as opponents blame the President of doing.
I think everyone knows I'm not a fan of former President Bush. But, this civil liability issue is just a bunch of pictchforkers wanting telcos to feel things were different than they really were, using civil damages as a proxy to criminal violations.
Mark
reply
roc5955 @ 29th Sep 04:34PM:
Re: Obama losing control?
The following:
1) Rush "Oxy" Limbaugh
2) Sean Hannity, the Manatee
3) Glen Beck (if he still has his mind)
4) Joe "You Lie" Wilson
5) Sarah "Caribou Barbie" Palin
6) "Panama" John McCain, the ancient one
7) Larry "Wide Stance" Craig
8) Jeb "Little Brother" Bush
9) Michelle "Crazy Cat Lady" Bachman
Couldn't beat Obama on a BAD day, and you want these fictitious people to beat him? Get a freakin' grip!
Fortunately, we now have a President who can walk and chew gum at the same time. He can concentrate on more than one issue at a time, like most people who have any manner of mental competence can. Unfortunately, the press, it seems can only report on one thing at a time, and feels that our leaders should only concentrate on one thing at a time.
--
"Understanding is a three-edged sword."
reply
morbo @ 29th Sep 04:38PM:
Re: Makes sense to me
It's really about justice and accountability. Telco has a responsibility to upload the law and look out for their millions of customers. AT&T and Verizon failed to do so (Qwest took the honorable route here and was punished for doing so) and so they should be held accountable.
I believe that both civil and criminal cases should be pursued again AT&T and Verizon. I don't see this as perversion -- rather pursuing all available paths to justice.
reply
El Quintron @ 29th Sep 04:46PM:
Re: Let me fix that for you
said by amigo_boy :
That's a misquote. Franklin said "essential liberty" and "essential security." I.e., he qualified the items. That there is a difference between essential security. And, that some liberty is not essential.
To be clear:
I was mostly spouting polemic in order to simplify the point that if you are willing to support warrantless wiretaps then instead of being only under the threat of terrorism, you now are under the threat of your government, and the corporations collecting the info on said gov't's behalf.
Sounds like a lose-lose proposition to me, seeing as the benefits of said wiretaps or the renewed threat of terrorism are both pratically nil.
said by amigo_boy :
But, Franklin was a profound loyalist to the Crown at that time (just 4-5 years before the revolution).
That however is not really an issue with me, as English Canadians never actually got rid of the crown.
--
They vilify us, the scoundrels do, when there is only this difference, they rob the poor under the cover of law, forsooth, and we plunder the rich under the protection of our own courage.
reply
amigo_boy @ 29th Sep 04:57PM:
Re: Makes sense to me
said by morbo :
It's really about justice and accountability.
If that's what was really important to pitchforkers, they could have started decades ago by repealing the relevant clause of 2511 which says telcos are immune from statutory/civil damages if the Executive branch certifies no warrant is necessary.
That didn't (and won't) happen because the Legislative branch knows they would create a Constitutional crisis. Congressional debates surrounding prior surveillance laws indicate legislators were concerned about treading too far into the Executive branch's inherent power to conduct surveillance.
That probably explains why Congress adjusted FISA to better accommodate the President's claimed needs, and didn't take steps to eliminate recognitions of a power extending beyond FISA. And, why they didn't initiate investigations regarding the Executive "breaking the law." And, affirmed 2511 by crafting so-called immunity around that law.
Instead of the noble-sounding "justice and accountability," this sounds more like people who are unhappy with our balance of powers, existing laws, and how legislators operated within the existing system. That's great. Change the law. Amend the constitution. But, it's not the telcos' fault.
The problem now is that Congress added to the "congressional intent" behind 2511. There's no mistake that 2511 accommodates an Executive power to surveil (beyond what is accommodated by FISA). I.e., so-called immunity only applied to the period of time between 9/11 and FISA's amendment. The law remains on the books for similar, unforeseen circumstances when the Executive may need to exercise its inherent power instead of waiting for Congress to adapt the law to meet new circumstances.
Mark
reply
amigo_boy @ 29th Sep 05:04PM:
Re: Let me fix that for you
said by El Quintron :
I was mostly spouting polemic in order to simplify the point ...
That's fine. It just wasn't Franklin's polemic. Your polemic eliminated Franklin's important qualifications that it could be wise to trade liberty for safety depending on the circumstances.
And, taken in context, that's exactly what the founding generation did when they ditched their relatively libertarian government of 1776 (Articles of Confederation) for a relatively massive federal government after just 12 years (1789).
And, considering Franklin's own mixed messages (supporting the Crown's oppression of populist/rebellious movements in England), it's hard to know which Franklin we should quote.
But, your right. It really did simplify a point. ;)
Mark
reply
wifi4milez @ 29th Sep 05:22PM:
Re: Let me fix that for you
said by ross
And, of course, none of your "example" material supports your declaration the "ACLU 'types' are now working hand in hand with terrorists to assist them in attacking us again."
Thank you for posting the rest of the news item, so everyone else can see how the ACLU is attempting to put the lives of those who serve this country in danger. As for the other article, I posted that so people could see the flip side (if there even was one!) to the Washington Post piece. Even the Post couldnt cover up what happened, and thats why I posted a VIDEO of the ACLU being confronted.
--
"How do you tell a Communist? Well, it’s someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It’s someone who understands Marx and Lenin."
-Ronald Reagan-
»www.theadvocates.org/quizp/index.html
reply
morbo @ 29th Sep 05:35PM:
Re: Makes sense to me
said by amigo_boy :
Instead of the noble-sounding "justice and accountability," this sounds more like people who are unhappy with our balance of powers, existing laws, and how legislators operated within the existing system. That's great. Change the law. Amend the constitution. But, it's not the telcos' fault.
actually, it really is that simple: it is AT&T's fault. otherwise, there would have been no need to grant them retroactive immunity. telco apologists love to try and shift the blame to congress, the president or the ag, but ultimately, AT&T and their in house counsel made the call to proceed with the illegal wiretaps, and so, like any one of us that breaks the law, they must be held accountable.
reply
ross @ 29th Sep 06:05PM:
Re: Let me fix that for you
said by wifi4milez :
Thank you for posting the rest of the news item, so everyone else can see how the ACLU is attempting to put the lives of those who serve this country in danger. As for the other article, I posted that so people could see the flip side (if there even was one!) to the Washington Post piece. Even the Post couldnt cover up what happened, and thats why I posted a VIDEO of the ACLU being confronted.
*sigh*It is pointless to argue with an unadulterated idiot...*sigh* You posted the Washington Post article, despite the fact it contradicted your argument, because you didn't understand the article undermined your premise, totally. The VIDEO *cough-cough* you posted was complete bullshit. It is also easy to see why Wayne Simmons is an EX-CIA employee. Since he is completely clueless as to the legality of the military legal defense team's intent and methodology, and admits he knows nothing about why the defendant's lawyers are conducting their investigation, and doesn't care (beyond his gut feeling that it is somehow "wrong"), perhaps you should steer him to the relatively unbiased Washington Post article.
The very idea that you would post anything you thought spoke against your case is antithetical to your very being, and is patently absurd on its face! Own the stupidity. Embrace it, for it is yours.
reply
Sammer @ 29th Sep 06:20PM:
Re: And no one really here gets it....
Since when have Senators and Congress had prosecutorial powers. The phone companies have already been granted immunity and the Justice Department declines to prosecute. Case closed.
reply
amigo_boy @ 29th Sep 06:27PM:
Re: Makes sense to me
said by morbo :
it is AT&T's fault. otherwise, there would have been no need to grant them retroactive immunity.
The primary thing so-called immunity did was shift the determination of whether 2511 applied away from the trial court and to a specially-created judicial function. It essentially fast-tracked the determination so that the constitutional question wouldn't be forced by an increasing politicization of the civil trial.
It took the politicization (opponents of surveillance, and primarily President Bush) off the telcos' backs. That was the right thing to do because the telcos had no control over the Executive branch's inherent power to surveil (recognized by 2511), nor Congress's expanding FISA to bring the Executive's power to surveil under better oversight, nor Congress not amending 2511 (and even going so far as to expand 18 U.S.C. 2702(a)(3) & (c) to reduce telco liability). Nor, Congress not investigating and indicting the Executive branch.
Telcos were the wrong focus. A stalking horse for those who couldn't achieve their political goals through the legislative process. And, the result is that we have even more congressional intent for which to interpret 2511, the Executive branch's inherent power to surveil, and the relationship of FISA to that power (playing catchup with the Executive branch's needs).
Mark
reply
amigo_boy @ 29th Sep 06:38PM:
Re: And no one really here gets it....
said by Sammer :
Since when have Senators and Congress had prosecutorial powers.
Congress could have held hearings (ala Iran/Contra), referred individuals for prosecution, and impeached the President for complicity (non-prosecution), etc.
They didn't because (as the congressional history of surveillance laws indicates), they know the Executive Branch has an inherent power to surveil. The Legislative branch merely errects a framework for known surveillance requirements to operate in an orderly fashion. But, that framework doesn't limit the Executive's power (when new, unforeseen requirements arise).
That's why Congress amended FISA (expanding it, and loosing language regarding telcos in 18 U.S.C. 2702(a)(3) & (c)) as a response to the Executive's exigent operations. They did that instead of Iran/Contra-style hearings because they knew the Executive had acted according to its powers.
People who say telcos broke the law otherwise they wouldn't need so-called immunity remind me of the people who say you shouldn't have any trouble with any level of surveillance "unless you have something to hide." Both are faulty reasoning.
Immunity simply utilized the existing law (2511) but fasttracked the judicial determination of whether the Executive certified the surveillance. We know the Executive did because they were almost antagonistic about how they didn't need to use FISA.
The problem was that the civil trial became political theater for every anti-Bush activist who couldn't get Congressional hearings and proper prosecution. That wasn't fair to telcos.
I was far from a Bush surpporter. I have no feelings about telcos. It's just a matter of justice versus perversion (for political purposes).
Mark
reply
wifi4milez @ 29th Sep 06:44PM:
Re: Let me fix that for you
said by ross :
*sigh*It is pointless to argue with an unadulterated idiot...*sigh*
I posted the Washington Post article so people could see that one of the most liberal publications in the country is even admitting the issue. I then posted two more conservative pieces so people could come to their own conclusions. However, as for the Washington Post article "undermining my premise" I guess you must have missed the following:
said by Washington Post :
government investigators are now looking into whether the defense team went too far by allegedly showing the detainees the photos of CIA officers, in some cases surreptitiously taken outside their homes.
My "premise" is that the ACLU is aiding and abetting terrorist, and is actively seeking to do harm to CIA officers. This is undeniable, and was confirmed by the Washington Post article (as well as the video and the other article).
Sticking your head in the sand and saying my argument is "bullshit" wont make what the ACLU did any less heinous or possibly illegal. Calling me an idiot, or throwing a temper tantrum like a 3 year old wont make what the situation go away. After seeing the video of the ACLU rep being confronted, then admitting what they did, all but solidifies my point. Its hard to argue with video evidence my friend, but go ahead and try!
--
"How do you tell a Communist? Well, it’s someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It’s someone who understands Marx and Lenin."
-Ronald Reagan-
»www.theadvocates.org/quizp/index.html
reply
Murdoc @ 29th Sep 07:06PM:
Sounds good to me
Time to get the tables turned on these corporate scum.
reply
morbo @ 29th Sep 07:40PM:
Re: Makes sense to me
It's a mistake to attribute the desire for justice against telco as political. While there is some overlap, this really isn't about President Bush or any political complaining. It's about accountability for companies that spat on every citizen of this country and their right to privacy. I won't soon forget
reply
amigo_boy @ 29th Sep 08:04PM:
Re: Makes sense to me
said by morbo :
While there is some overlap, this really isn't about President Bush or any political complaining.
I consider myself liberal and even I recognize how the lawsuits brought out all the usual liberal groups. Their goal wasn't to punish the telcos, but force the government to disclose publicly who certified the surveillance (as defined by 2511), and quibble about whether the Executive himself could do it, or if it must be one of his appointees (i.e., what happened during the year after Ashcroft refused, and the White House told telcos it was still certified, and Gonzales hadn't ascended to the AG position? I.e., Comey's testimony.).
They wanted all this stuff out in the open, not to punish the telcos. Even forum posters at DSLR admitted that's all they wanted.
And today, we hear almost nothing from those same muckrakers about President Obama's continuation of the program. In other words, it was a great way to distract the Bush Presidency and slow down Bush's pursuit of issues liberals opposed. But, if it might distract Obama and slow down issues liberals agree with, we don't hear much about this topic.
Mark
reply
ross @ 29th Sep 08:51PM:
Re: Let me fix that for you
said by wifi4milez :said by ross :
*sigh*It is pointless to argue with an unadulterated idiot...*sigh*
I posted the Washington Post article so people could see that one of the most liberal publications in the country is even admitting the issue. I then posted two more conservative pieces so people could come to their own conclusions. However, as for the Washington Post article "undermining my premise" I guess you must have missed the following:
said by Washington Post :
government investigators are now looking into whether the defense team went too far by allegedly showing the detainees the photos of CIA officers, in some cases surreptitiously taken outside their homes.
My "premise" is that the ACLU is aiding and abetting terrorist, and is actively seeking to do harm to CIA officers. This is undeniable, and was confirmed by the Washington Post article (as well as the video and the other article).
Sticking your head in the sand and saying my argument is "bullshit" wont make what the ACLU did any less heinous or possibly illegal. Calling me an idiot, or throwing a temper tantrum like a 3 year old wont make what the situation go away. After seeing the video of the ACLU rep being confronted, then admitting what they did, all but solidifies my point. Its hard to argue with video evidence my friend, but go ahead and try!
You have a reading comprehension problem. Pathetic, really. You can claim you didn't do what you did in posting the Washington Post article after the fact, but you had no such magnanimous intent to begin with when you posted it in support of your premise the "ACLU 'types' are now working hand in hand with terrorists to assist them in attacking us again." That assertion, besides being an outright lie, is an inexcusable statement; unfounded in reality, and indefensible.
While I hate to have to dredge up the recent past, again and again, there is no more defining example of what constitutes a treasonous act of "outing" a covert agent than that of the Bush administration's venal and damnable exposure of Valerie Plame as a covert CIA field operative. Hardly on the same plane as the attempt by defense attorneys to ascertain the identity of possible witnesses and participants in the illegal torture of Guantanamo detainees as part of their case against the government. Furthermore, as made plain, for all but you and other right-wing fanatics, by the Washington Post article, no one knows whether the names of any of the suspect operatives were divulged, but it is unlikely the detainees were privy to that information as the investigators probably didn't even have their identities. The defense can use eyewitness photo-ID to petition to obtain more detailed information from the government in order to call the CIA operatives to the stand for testimony in the case. That the agent's testimony would be detrimental to the government's case seems to be not only a foregone conclusion, but the primary impetus for the outrage surrounding the defense team's discovery process.
As to the veracity of the FauxNews video, produced by Bill O'Reilly's over-eager beavers, I urge all reading this thread to view it and judge for themselves whether your statements re the video hold any water whatsoever.
reply
jc100 @ 29th Sep 09:23PM:
Re: Obama losing control?
Woops you failed civics.
A) We do NOT directly elect our "Commander and Chief". That is done by the OUTMODED Electoral college. Et. Al 2000 Election where the people voted for Gore but Bush got the Electoral vote. Popular vote and the will of the people IS NOT always followed.
B) Good luck impeaching and forcing a president to resign in this day and age. Bush made it his whole 8 years. Nixon was an anomaly and resigned before impeached. There has only been ONE president to ever have been fully impeached during his term in office. Andrew Johnson
C) We have elected officials we put in office. However, so long as we allow Legal Bribing, Et. Al Lobbyists to dictate the agenda, they are hardly representing the people who voted them in.
D) The will of the people is not always adhered to. Remember no taxation without representation? Well federal taxes were NEVER ratified by 3/4ths of the states. Good luck NOT paying your taxes and see what the IRS has to say about that one =). Many have tried it, and a long prison sentence is in their futures.
So long story short. We might be a representational republic / democracy in name, but the core beliefs that our founding fathers wrote down are so long gone, it isn't funn.y
reply
jc100 @ 29th Sep 09:24PM:
Re: Obama losing control?
P.S. I'm sure Give me Liberty or Give me death didn't mean Spy on Me, Take away my Constitutional Rights, and let the government have immunity for wrong doing. Another constitutional amendment which says
A) Due Process
B) Right to Redresss
So on and so forth.
reply
jc100 @ 29th Sep 09:26PM:
Re: These Senators just trying to reward trial lawyer supporters
Depends the makeup of the Supreme Court. If a Right / Republican one than without a doubt. If a left leaning one, it might stand a chance.
reply
amigo_boy @ 30th Sep 02:15AM:
Re: Obama losing control?
said by jc100 :
A) We do NOT directly elect our "Commander and Chief". That is done by the OUTMODED Electoral college. Et. Al 2000 Election where the people voted for Gore but Bush got the Electoral vote. Popular vote and the will of the people IS NOT always followed.
For 220 years we've had the democratic option to amend the constitution to alter (or eliminate) the Electoral College. That is democracy.
I'm undecided about the value of the EC. It's nice that more populated states can't overrule the will of people living in less populated states (facing different challenges). In the same way the Senate (two senators per state) gives greater representation (per capita) to less-populated states.
There have only been three elections when the EC count was different than the popular vote. That means it's not as much of a problem. (And, likewise, not as much of a benefit either.).
I think the "winner take all" of most states is more concerning. I don't have a big problem with delegating votes and giving states (as an entity) some weight (like we do in the Senate). But, I think the delegation should approximate the popular vote within the state.
said by jc100 :
B) Good luck impeaching and forcing a president to resign in this day and age. Bush made it his whole 8 years.
To "Truthers" (conspiracy theorists) that's proof of how the system is rigged. To everyone else it just proves how the problem wasn't so bad as to warrant populist reaction (impeachment).
said by jc100 :
C) We have elected officials we put in office. However, so long as we allow Legal Bribing, Et. Al Lobbyists to dictate the agenda, they are hardly representing the people who voted them in.
I agree. Corporations shouldn't be treated as "persons" courtesy the 14th Amendment. I don't even think we should make "corporate persons" available so easily. There should be greater requirements by society in return for this social creation. (Ex., implementation of workplace democracy.).
said by jc100 :
federal taxes were NEVER ratified by 3/4ths of the states.
"Truther" nonsense. Any states incorrectly attributed to ratification could have filed suit to reverse it. That didn't happen. Not even any state legislators spoke up complaining that they'd been duped.
All we have are claims decades later that Ohio wasn't properly admitted as a state. Or, that the 16th Amendment was misrepresented to Kentucky, et. al.
said by jc100 :
the core beliefs that our founding fathers wrote down are so long gone, it isn't funny.
Yeah. Women having the vote. African Americans considered people (not property). African Americans with the vote. Or, Senators elected by popular vote instead of appointed by state legislators (thanks to the 17th amendment).
That's anti democratic!
Mark
reply
amigo_boy @ 30th Sep 02:23AM:
Re: Obama losing control?
said by jc100 :
P.S. I'm sure Give me Liberty or Give me death didn't mean Spy on Me, Take away my Constitutional Rights, ...
Just to clarify, Patrick Henry's "Give me liberty or Give me death" speech was in 1775. There was no constitution until 14 years later.
In the meantime, the founding generation decided "liberty" (in the form of the relatively libertarian Articles of Confederation of 1781, and the earlier Articles of Association of 1774) wasn't so hot. They ditched it in favor of the vastly more powerful federal/constitutional government of 1789. The government which required a Bill of Rights (with undefined terms like "reasonable" search and seizure.).
So, the binary choice wasn't quite as binary as it appeared to be in 1775.
Mark
reply
jc100 @ 30th Sep 10:27AM:
Re: Obama losing control?
quote:
For 220 years we've had the democratic option to amend the constitution to alter (or eliminate) the Electoral College. That is democracy.
Please show me WHERE in the Constitution we have a right to AMEND the Electoral College by Popular vote?... I'd REALLY like to know where that clause exists. I won't hold my breath here while you find me that passage where the PEOPLE, NOT POLITICIANS, can directly remove it. =).
quote:
I'm undecided about the value of the EC. It's nice that more populated states can't overrule the will of people living in less populated states (facing different challenges). In the same way the Senate (two senators per state) gives greater representation (per capita) to less-populated states.
I'm not too undecided. In a TRUE DEMOCRACY, people should be able to directly elect their leaders. We don't need middle men. The point of the Electoral College was to aid people in a day and age where education and other shortcomings were overwhelming. ThSuch is not the case as much anymore. We have a thing called schools and education. We need to be given the capacity to DIRECTLY elect our own leaders. Plain and simple. As for the equal representation argument, States have Senators and Representatives for a reason. They have their voice heard the same as anyone else. At the end of the day, Everyone's vote still counts, big or small.
quote:
There have only been three elections when the EC count was different than the popular vote. That means it's not as much of a problem. (And, likewise, not as much of a benefit either.).
3 times out of 44. Thats almost a 7 percent "FAIL RATIO". Of which, there have been TWO TIMES in history where it has CHANGED the outcome of the elections. That's FAR TOO MANY.
quote:
I think the "winner take all" of most states is more concerning. I don't have a big problem with delegating votes and giving states (as an entity) some weight (like we do in the Senate). But, I think the delegation should approximate the popular vote within the state.
What's more concerning is the 7 percent failure ratio, the two CHANGED elections, and the fact this is even a debated issue. See above.
quote:
B) To "Truthers" (conspiracy theorists) that's proof of how the system is rigged. To everyone else it just proves how the problem wasn't so bad as to warrant populist reaction (impeachment).
No that just proves when your ENTIRE PARTY RUNS things for 6 years, there's not a chance in hell you have much to worry about. As for the "TRUTHERS", let's face it, the Right is just as bad as the left. As much as the two sides "Fight" they both ultimately are useless. The only reason I even bother with Democrats as I don't think the whole Abortion / Church issues should even be an ARGUMENT in today's society. Keep your religion to your DAMN self and stop telling people what they can do with their bodies. Other than that, both parties are a crock of crap. It's hard to tell one from the other seeing how:
Republicans want: Small Government yet:
Voted for the BIG BROTHER PACT of the century known as the Patriot Act. Allowed Wiretapping. Allowed the NSA spying, etc. That definitely is NOT small government. How come "SMALL GOVERMENT" Republicans arent acting to reverse this atrocity? Ay?
Borrow Borrow Borrow, National Deficit Increases
Democrats - Tax Spend, Tax Spend, Tax Spend. If your idea sucks, go with the Republicans and make a few small changes and call it your own.
So yes... Why didn't Bush get impeached? Politicians today have so many outside influences (Lobbyists, Corporations, Special Interests), that unless someone is directly telling them what to do, they are TOO STUPID to think outside the box. It's neither proof or accurate to say that means our system works. No, it just proves the contrary. BAD ACTIONS continue to be overlooked because some people can't think for themselves.
quote:
C) I agree. Corporations shouldn't be treated as "persons" courtesy the 14th Amendment. I don't even think we should make "corporate persons" available so easily. There should be greater requirements by society in return for this social creation. (Ex., implementation of workplace democracy.).
Agree 100 percent.
quote:
"Truther" nonsense. Any states incorrectly attributed to ratification could have filed suit to reverse it. That didn't happen. Not even any state legislators spoke up complaining that they'd been duped.
All we have are claims decades later that Ohio wasn't properly admitted as a state. Or, that the 16th Amendment was misrepresented to Kentucky, et. al.
True. But let me correct that, DO YOU THINK federal taxes should be collected? Wasn't the whole argument of the Constitution STATE rights with the only purpose of the Federal Government to Defend and Print Money. The Federal Government is not suppose to be a "FOR PROFIT" Entity.
quote:
Yeah. Women having the vote. African Americans considered people (not property). African Americans with the vote. Or, Senators elected by popular vote instead of appointed by state legislators (thanks to the 17th amendment).
That's anti democratic!
»www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0749825.html
Please show me which Article in the Constitution SPECIFICALLY states WOMEN cannot vote. Better yet, please POINT OUT which article says BLACKS CANNOT vote. I really would like to know where the founding fathers instill racism into the constitution =). Once again, I wont hold my breath.
reply
wifi4milez @ 30th Sep 11:09AM:
Re: Let me fix that for you
said by ross :
You have a reading comprehension problem.
There is a federal probe (conducted by the DOJ) into the ACLU for potentially sharing illegal (and personal) information about CIA operatives with terrorists. This was confirmed in the first paragraph of The Washington Post, and in ALL the other materials I presented you with. Perhaps you sir, are the one with the reading comprehension problem!
said by ross :
As to the veracity of the FauxNews video, produced by Bill O'Reilly's over-eager beavers, I urge all reading this thread to view it and judge for themselves whether your statements re the video hold any water whatsoever.
Absolutely, lets let everyone decide on their own. The video clearly shows the ACLU being caught in the act of assisting terrorists, and empowering them to harm US citizens. Hopefully there will be as much of an uproar over this as their was with ACORN. This country will be a MUCH better place once both the ACLU and ACORN are no more.
--
"How do you tell a Communist? Well, it’s someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It’s someone who understands Marx and Lenin."
-Ronald Reagan-
»www.theadvocates.org/quizp/index.html
reply
Kilroy @ 30th Sep 01:17PM:
Re: Obama losing control?
said by jc100 :
Please show me which Article in the Constitution SPECIFICALLY states WOMEN cannot vote. Better yet, please POINT OUT which article says BLACKS CANNOT vote. I really would like to know where the founding fathers instill racism into the constitution =).
15th Ammendment
2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
A little bit of both for you.
The purpose was to change Article 1, Section 2
(Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.)
--
When will the people realize that with DRM they aren't purchasing anything?
reply
ross @ 30th Sep 02:12PM:
Re: Let me fix that for you
said by wifi4milez :said by ross :
You have a reading comprehension problem.
There is a federal probe (conducted by the DOJ) into the ACLU for potentially sharing illegal (and personal) information about CIA operatives with terrorists. This was confirmed in the first paragraph of The Washington Post, and in ALL the other materials I presented you with. Perhaps you sir, are the one with the reading comprehension problem!
said by ross :
As to the veracity of the FauxNews video, produced by Bill O'Reilly's over-eager beavers, I urge all reading this thread to view it and judge for themselves whether your statements re the video hold any water whatsoever.
Absolutely, lets let everyone decide on their own. The video clearly shows the ACLU being caught in the act of assisting terrorists, and empowering them to harm US citizens. Hopefully there will be as much of an uproar over this as their was with ACORN. This country will be a MUCH better place once both the ACLU and ACORN are no more.
You are delusional! Better off without the ACLU and ACORN? Only if you like de facto slavery, false imprisonment, no protection for workers rights, no freedom of speech or thought, no reproductive rights/privacy rights; and in the case of ACORN, no assistance in obtaining access to your own government.
The video contains nothing factual. Instead, we are treated to the hysterical ranting of Wayne Simmons, ex-CIA employee, the incredulous/over-hyped FauxNews commentators (one can't call them journalists, for Christ's sake), and the inept foundering of Bill O'Reilly's incompetent confrontational "investigator" interviewing who? What did she say in response to his question?
As to the DOJ investigation, once again, from the Washington Post article:
Romero said he does not know what laws the government thinks the military lawyers may have broken.
"That is the most vexing part of it," he said. "Usually when you're read your Miranda rights or visited by the Justice Department or the FBI, you are given some indication as to what laws are at stake."
The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers also declined to address the specifics of the inquiry but questioned its timing.
It is "customary in our experience that any kind of investigation like these are conducted after legal proceedings are finished in the case so as not to interfere with the defense function, not to interfere with the rights of defendants, not to give the appearance that the government is looking to chill the defense function," said Joshua L. Dratel, counsel for the John Adams Project and a former board member of the NACDL, who spoke on behalf of the group.
He added: "The lawyers have a duty to find out what happened to their clients, and to the extent that the government and certain agencies are resistant to that to protect themselves and to insulate themselves from accountability, there is a tension there, and to the extent that this investigation is part of that tension, it's most unfortunate. But the lawyers will not shirk their duty."
A wide variety of groups, including European investigators, human rights groups and news organizations, have compiled lists of people thought to have been involved in the CIA's program, including CIA station chiefs, agency interrogators and medical personnel who accompanied detainees on planes as they were moved from one secret location to another.
"It's a normal part of human rights research projects, and certainly in defense work, to compile lists of individuals who interacted with clients," Romero said.
Tracking international CIA-chartered flights, researchers have identified hotels in Europe where CIA personnel or contractors stayed. In some cases, through hotel phone records, they have been able to identify agency employees who jeopardized their cover by dialing numbers in the United States. Working from these lists, some of which include up to 45 names, researchers photographed agency workers and obtained other photos from public records, the sources said.
reply
lesopp @ 30th Sep 02:52PM:
Re: Obama losing control?
Are you saying the democrats in control of the House and Senate for the last two years of Bush rubber stamped everything he wanted?
Obama lied and granny died
reply
wifi4milez @ 30th Sep 03:46PM:
Re: Let me fix that for you
said by ross :
Better off without the ACLU and ACORN?
Absolutely, they are two of the most devious organizations in the US. Thankfully, the government has come to its senses (imagine that!) and has begun the process of purging Acorn from its programs. We can only pray that the feds step in and start prosecuting their senior members for tax fraud and other crimes. Within the next 12 months ACORN will be nothing more than a bad memory.
As for the ACLU, they are another story. Instead of just breaking federal laws (which they are now being investigated for doing), they also put the lives of US citizens at risk. Unfortunately we cant seek the death penalty for this act of treason, however the current situation will likely result in civil penalties for a number of ACLU cronies.
--
"How do you tell a Communist? Well, it’s someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It’s someone who understands Marx and Lenin."
-Ronald Reagan-
»www.theadvocates.org/quizp/index.html
reply
jc100 @ 30th Sep 06:46PM:
Re: Obama losing control?
The FIRST 10 amendments of the Constitution were written by the founding fathers and are known as the BILL OF RIGHTS. =). The founding fathers DID NOT write racism into the constitution. Matter of fact, the 15th amendment is an ADDENDUM to DISALLOW STATES from making their own rules.
So I hate to sound arrogant, but I must say you stand corrected.
reply
tschmidt @ 1st Oct 01:05AM:
Re: Obama losing control?
said by jc100 :
So I hate to sound arrogant, but I must say you stand corrected.
The how do you explain the infamous 3/5 rule and why did we fight a bloody Civil War.
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-fift···mpromise
Article 1 Section2
quote:
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
Article 4 Section 2
quote:
(No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.) (This clause in parentheses is superseded by the 13th Amendment.)
Founding fathers did not allows slaves and Women to vote, both have since gained that right.
/tom
reply
jc100 @ 1st Oct 01:40PM:
Re: Obama losing control?
Actually,
You are wrong. Free persons DID NOT only mean slaves. It also MEANT indentured servants who were NOT FREE and bound by labor agreements. Look that one up. No where in the constitution DOES IT SAY "BLACKS". It says free. Free once again was dependent upon your status.
Indentured Servants who borrowed money and bound to monetary obligations were NOT free man.
Not all Blacks were Slaves. There were FREE BLCKS.
So your ambiguous misinterpretation should not be used to misconstrue the truth.
Second THE FOUNDING FATHERS only made the Bill of rights. The first TEN AMENDMENT. I stated that OVER AND OVER. The 13th Amendment is NOT THE BILL OF RIGHTS!!!!!! What people added Later is done on their own merit. The founding fathers DID NOT EXCLUSIVELY include racism into the constitution!!
Last, SHOW ME where it says WOMEN CANNOT VOTE =).
reply
ross @ 1st Oct 08:21PM:
Re: Let me fix that for you
said by wifi4milez :
Absolutely, they are two of the most devious organizations in the US. Thankfully, the government has come to its senses (imagine that!) and has begun the process of purging Acorn from its programs. We can only pray that the feds step in and start prosecuting their senior members for tax fraud and other crimes. Within the next 12 months ACORN will be nothing more than a bad memory.
As for the ACLU, they are another story. Instead of just breaking federal laws (which they are now being investigated for doing), they also put the lives of US citizens at risk. Unfortunately we cant seek the death penalty for this act of treason, however the current situation will likely result in civil penalties for a number of ACLU cronies.
Sorry, but the post that was here was rendered unnecessary by the stunning ignorance and sheer stupidity of the above quoted post. Enough said.
reply
wifi4milez @ 1st Oct 08:27PM:
Re: Let me fix that for you
said by ross :said by wifi4milez :
Absolutely, they are two of the most devious organizations in the US. Thankfully, the government has come to its senses (imagine that!) and has begun the process of purging Acorn from its programs. We can only pray that the feds step in and start prosecuting their senior members for tax fraud and other crimes. Within the next 12 months ACORN will be nothing more than a bad memory.
As for the ACLU, they are another story. Instead of just breaking federal laws (which they are now being investigated for doing), they also put the lives of US citizens at risk. Unfortunately we cant seek the death penalty for this act of treason, however the current situation will likely result in civil penalties for a number of ACLU cronies.
Sorry, but the post that was here was rendered unnecessary by the stunning ignorance and sheer stupidity of the above quoted post. Enough said.
Truth hurts that much, eh?
--
"How do you tell a Communist? Well, it’s someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It’s someone who understands Marx and Lenin."
-Ronald Reagan-
»www.theadvocates.org/quizp/index.html
reply
Nick_L @ 4th Oct 08:48AM:
Re: Let me fix that for you
said by Neyland :
However, the use of the taps should be reviewed by the courts and the laws changed if need be instead of granting immunity as a means of bypassing something that may or may not be broken.
I thought this was the era of transparency in gov...
THANK YOU! This is really the relevant point in this situation. None of us knows if the "intelligence" obtained from these wiretaps was in any way effective (a subject that should be thoroughly investigated, imo), but we do know that the legal method of obtaining the intel was trampled upon.
There is already a process that would have allowed the the legal gathering of this information and it was ignored, willfully and deliberately. The argument of urgency does not work either. The approval process has a judge available 24 hours a day to approve a wiretap. Hell, they even had an option of doing the tap and then getting judicial approval up to a day AFTER the tap.
Nick
reply
Nick_L @ 4th Oct 08:57AM:
Re: These Senators just trying to reward trial lawyer supporters
said by tschmidt :
I think checks and balances are all the more important in times of crisis to limit government excess. We have a sad history of going overboard in a crisis and then apologizing later. Fake Gulf of Tonkin incident used to justify Vietnam escalation, internment of US citizens of Japanese ancestry during WWII, WWI Espionage and Sedition Act. How many times will we allow these excesses before we recognize checks-and-balances and a skeptical media are critical to the health of the republic?
/tom
Absolutely the most important thing said in this whole thread.
Nick
reply
jc100 @ 5th Oct 08:39PM:
Re: Let me fix that for you
What a crock of crap.
On your basis, the government should do anything to keep us safe, since we are incapable of keeping ourselves out of harms way.
Hence guns should be outlawed. 16-22,000 less deaths. of which a majority are done by guns.
We shouldn't be allowed to drive 40,000 less deaths
So on and so forth. Preventable. So if they are preventable then the government should make sure they don't happen. That's your craptastic logic. After all, terrorism happens EVERY DAY in this country. I mean look at the 3 terrorist attacks on American soil in 20 years. Less than 4000 people have died from them. Yet wait, here's a shocker. DOMESTIC terrorism from WHITE FANATICAL AMERICANS has happened FAR MORE TIMES than from foreigners. Just on smaller scales.
Eco Terrorism
Anthrax Letters
Unibomber
Timothy Mcveigh and Oklahoma City.
So on and so forth. So if you really want to argue, racial profile, then hell, we're all suspects. Why not just send a flier to the government detailing your daily life. Save it the leg work of snooping on your phone calls and spying on you. It'll cost tax payers far less.
You'll have plenty of time since you won't be able to drive. O and owning a gun, no need. They kill far too many.
reply
wifi4milez @ 5th Oct 08:50PM:
Re: Let me fix that for you
said by jc100 :
Blah blah blah
Brilliant points sir! Equating automobile accidents to terrorism (which you always do when you have lost your argument and feel cornered) is laughable.
reply
jc100 @ 8th Oct 07:44AM:
Re: Let me fix that for you
Um..Lost the argument?
No.. Im equating your scare tactics to pie in the sky events that are EQUALLY "PREVENTABLE" should you want Big Brother to run into your life and solve everything.
Simple as that. You say that the end justifies the means. If you think giving up your every right to the government to stay safe is THAT CRITICAL, than big brother should do EVERYTHING in it's power to make sure you are safe.
Seeing how "COMMON" Terrorist attacks really are, why not transpose that same we need to be safe motto onto every day life. More people die from other things than terrorism every day. Since you want to be safe,:
Taking away your car, guns, and locking you inside will gurantee nothing happens to you. I promise. The worlds a dangerous place...
DON'T step outside!!!
reply
amigo_boy @ 8th Oct 02:38PM:
Re: Let me fix that for you
said by jc100 :
No.. Im equating your scare tactics to pie in the sky events that are EQUALLY "PREVENTABLE" should you want Big Brother to run into your life and solve everything.
I think most rational people see a difference between accidents and deliberate acts of violence. Accidents that occur as individuals pursue life (work, recreation, etc.) and an act of violence from a group of people who oppose our way of life, (and would cane-whip women for being in the company of a male who isn't her family member).
You're right that we become desensitized to things like car accidents. But, that doesn't mean we should become desensitized to things like Muslims flying jets into skyscrappers.
There's a pretty simple way to prove that you agree with that. We could create Islamic Airways. No TSA security checkpoints. Get on board carrying anything you like. I've got a feeling you wouldn't be booking any travel with that libertarian airline just because "terrorism occurs less often than car accidents."
Mark
reply
amigo_boy @ 8th Oct 03:42PM:
Re: Let me fix that for you
said by Nick_L :
There is already a process that would have allowed the the legal gathering of this information and it was ignored, willfully and deliberately.
Obviously that's not true. If it were, Congress wouldn't have amended FISA to better accommodate the President's claim that FISA didn't provide for the kind of surveillance necessary after 9/11.
The point missed by opponents of post-9/11 surveillance is that the Executive branch possesses inherent powers of surveillance. The Legislative branch can't use their power to legislate away the Executive's power. The Legislative can create a framework for the Executive branch to operate within for anticipated needs. But, that framework doesn't become the only avenue available to the Executive branch, particularly when an unanticipated need arises.
It's a difficult concept for some, who see the world through black/white lenses -- no shades of gray. They object to the above because it's imperfect and doesn't absolutely contain the Executive branch. They're right. But, that's the nature of balances of power. It works because the office holders respect the system and try to avoid a Constitutional crisis (leading to the third balance of power getting involved, the Judiciary branch. And then, maybe the military.).
You may say the system didn't work because Bush lied that he needed to operate outside the legislated framework. Or, that Congress expanded FISA when there was no need to. But, that doesn't change the fact that this is the way our system works.
The President can conduct surveillance outside the legislatively-provided framework, for example as part of his powers of conducting war or diplomacy. And, Congress can expand their framework to accommodate unforeseen needs.
That's essentially what happened. The President didn't believe the kind of mass point-to-point reconciliation of data connections was available through FISA. Congress later expanded FISA. And, so-called immunity only applied to telco participation between 9/11 and that reform of FISA. Furthermore, so-called immunity cited existing law[1] as the requirement which telcos had to meet (i.e., that the Executive branch has the power to certify that no warrant is necessary.).
[1] 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(a)(ii)(B)
Mark
reply
jc100 @ 8th Oct 03:43PM:
Re: Let me fix that for you
Hmmm....
Murder is NOT an accident in the FAR and OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of cases.
So outlaw guns... Big brother can save a significant portion of 16-22,000 Lives a year since the MAJORITY of homicides involve guns.
Car accidents are NOT ACCIDENTS. They are USUALLY THE RESULT BAD DECISION MAKING....That is not woops I am sorry. It is I was speeding, I wasn't obeying the law, etc. So these are just as preventable.
Yes.. Most rational People CAN SEPARATE the difference but no separation is needed here.
As for Muslims flying Jets into Sky Scrapers.
What about Mcveigh and his Uhaul full of explosives?
Unibomber and his mail box bombs?
Anthrax Mailer
So on and so forth..... Seems Muslims are the only wackjobs but those events are a DROP IN THE BUCKET compared to what BIG BROTHER COULD SOLVE....
P.S.... Murder is an act of violence from people who oppose things to =).
As for Muslim Airline? How about one for Catholics and Christians alike. Those Bastards have MURDERED MORE PEOPLE in the last century than Muslims in the ENTIRE REALM OF HISTORY... Damn Christians....
Go ask the Church why it just Apologized for aiding Hitler and Utilizing the labor of the Nazis.. Woops our bad... =).
reply
amigo_boy @ 8th Oct 03:47PM:
Re: Let me fix that for you
(delete duplicate)
reply
amigo_boy @ 8th Oct 03:48PM:
Re: Let me fix that for you
said by jc100 :
Seems Muslims are the only wackjobs but those events are a DROP IN THE BUCKET compared to what BIG BROTHER COULD SOLVE....
Maybe it's a drop in the bucket because of post 9/11 government activities (surveillance, TSA, no-fly lists, etc.)? Maybe you have the advantage of fewer Muslim terrorist events precisely because of "Big Brother?"
BTW: I missed your response whether you would choose to fly an airline without any TSA security, etc., just because terror is "a drop in the bucket."
Mark
reply
jc100 @ 8th Oct 06:48PM:
Re: Let me fix that for you
Yep I'd happily fly. Your chances of a terrorist attack on a plane are insignificantly lower than a car crash, etc. Then again, who is to say that a Muslim would be the hijacker, plenty of other idiots have done it too. You know you're quite racist amigo boy.
As for fewer Muslim Terrorists, that's an assumption. HOW OFTEN did terrorism occur? If those post 9/11 activities really make us safer, how come that baseball player was able to accidentally crash his plane into a building. Gee, had that had explosives in it, big brother wouldn't have done squat. I have a bridge to see you man if you believe TRADING YOUR FREEDOMS have kept you safe.
You also seem to miss my point. If you want to be safe.. GIVE UP DRIVING... GIVE UP GUNS.... Give up living your life.. The world's not safe so crawl into a ball, rock back and forth, and hope nothing enters your space =).
reply
wifi4milez @ 8th Oct 07:08PM:
Re: Let me fix that for you
said by jc100 :
If those post 9/11 activities really make us safer, how come that baseball player was able to accidentally crash his plane into a building.
Hey genius, I think you answered your own question. He accidentally crashed because it was (wait for it) an accident. Accidents by nature cant be prevented. Terrorism on the other hand, CAN be prevented. Thats the whole point and you just refuse to see it due to your bias on the issue.
said by jc100 :
Gee, had that had explosives in it, big brother wouldn't have done squat.
Says who, you?? The recent news has shown that to be incorrect. Just a few weeks ago a 19 year old Jordanian was arrested in Dallas when he tried to blow up a truck. Problem was, that truck was given to him by FBI informants and when he called a cell phone that was to 'set off the explosive' he was taken into custody. Even more recently, what about Najibullah Zazi who was taken into custody prior to a huge attack he and his cretin friends had planned for the anniversary of 9/11?? You see, the post 9/11 security changes are precisely what has kept us safe. Sorry you dont see that, good luck ridding on that airline you mentioned.......
--
"How do you tell a Communist? Well, it’s someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It’s someone who understands Marx and Lenin."
-Ronald Reagan-
»www.theadvocates.org/quizp/index.html
reply
amigo_boy @ 8th Oct 07:12PM:
Re: Let me fix that for you
said by jc100 :
Yep I'd happily fly. Your chances of a terrorist attack on a plane are insignificantly lower than a car crash, etc.
Interesting. That will help readers understand how to classify your worldview. I.e., the irrelevant fringe. Among the 1% of the population who would prefer to fly on an airline without TSA security, no-fly lists, etc.
As an aside, I wish we had such a choice. You and the other 1% of the population would make it safer for everyone else. We know where the terrorists would be flying. (wink).
But, of course, if the option really existed, I suspect the macho 1% would dwindle to the macho 0.01%. Which again, goes to your credibility.
said by jc100 :
You also seem to miss my point. If you want to be safe.. GIVE UP DRIVING... GIVE UP GUNS.... Give up living your life..
I think the point is pretty clear. Like I said earlier, rational people don't frame these choices as an either/or. (I doubt you do either. But, to make your argument work, you must.).
Rational people can distinguish between accidents and acts of aggression. Just because we become desensitized to car accidents in the pursuit of our livelihood doesn't mean anyone would (or should) become desensitized to being mugged, burglarized or rapped. Or, having planes flown into skyscrappers as an act of war against our way of life (by those who cane women for being in the presence of a man who isn't a family member.).
According to your logic (willing to fly airlines without TSA security), you wouldn't wash your hands frequently during flu season, lock the doors against burglary, or step inside during a lightening storm because your chances of dying in an auto accident is greater.
So, you're just being disingenuous, promulgating an either/or proposition without acknowledging that we do what we can where we can, pragmatically.
Mark
reply
jc100 @ 8th Oct 08:59PM:
Re: Let me fix that for you
Where do you quantify the view that 1% would fly without TSA. Please provide me hard numbers? Next, you try to secure me intro a trap. Would I prefer to fly with TSA yes. Would I fly without it, Yes. I'm not some PARANOID NUTJOB who thinks everyone is out to get me. While I would prefer they check luggage (as they have done WAY BEFORE 9/11), I wouldn't go as far as to cancel my plans if they were absent a day.
That's not a "FRINGE" argument. It's called your chances of something happening are about as likely as ORDINARY LIFE. SLIM TO NONE. You could walk outside today and get struck by a car, mugged, or murdered. So you not willing to walk outside because that potential risk exists?
See once again, you use HYSTERIA AND FAILED LOGIC to try to quantify a result =).
I think the point is pretty clear. Like I said earlier, rational people don't frame these choices as an either/or. (I doubt you do either. But, to make your argument work, you must.).
See you fail again. Rational PEOPLE understand that life is full of inherent risk and you can't go living in a bubble trying to hide from it. So what's your argument, because we're desensitized to car crashes, it's ok to drive? The 40,000 lives lost a year are insignificant because you aren't one of them? THEY ARE PREVENTABLE once again. Based on your logic, if the government should have our best interest at heart, then THEY SHOULD ALSO ENSURE our safety by all effective means. "ACCIDENT" or "NO ACCIDENT".
Let's take this one step further. Since murders are an act of progression which utilize guns, guns should be outlawed. Once again, we can't become desensitized to the crime, so we must allow the government to do ANYTHING TO PREVENT IT... RIGHT?
No Guns and No cares would certainly prevent the acts BETTER than RACIAL PROFILING of Muslims =).
Let's do a historical walk since your rant is filled with racism.
Acts of ATROCITIES Committed by Christians in the past Century:
Holocaust - Church (Baptist and Catholic) aided hitler and exploited the labor in WW2.. Assisted in Exterminating 6 million People.
Bosnia - Christian Serbs Actively targeted and exterminated 1-200,000 Muslims
Rwanda - While ethnically motivated, a small sect of clergy was involved in the aiding of killing 800,000.
1995 - Oklahoma City - Radical Right Wing Known as Timothy Mcveigh Blew up Oklahoma City
Circa 2001 - A Christian nutjob named Bush who says God talks to him invades a Country known as Iraq and destabilizes the region leading to 200,000 or so deaths.
Ya.. I'll take my bedside by those Muslims any day.
P.S. If you want to talk about the bible, let's bring up the OLD TESTAMENT of the Christian Faith which says I can KILL YOU AND STONE YOU FOR:
Adultery, Using God's Name in Vain, etc etc =). Christianity is just as much of a FRINGE RELIGION. It is SO FRINGE, they ENTIRE BIBLE "GOD'S" word had to be RECONJURED by man to tone it down.
So ya... =) FAILLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL on your part.
reply
amigo_boy @ 8th Oct 09:05PM:
Re: Let me fix that for you
said by jc100 :
Next, you try to secure me intro a trap. Would I prefer to fly with TSA yes.
You're backpeddling. The original question was:
There's a pretty simple way to prove that you agree with that [not let perfection be the enemy of good]. We could create Islamic Airways. No TSA security checkpoints. Get on board carrying anything you like. I've got a feeling you wouldn't be booking any travel with that libertarian airline just because "terrorism occurs less often than car accidents."
»
Re: Let me fix that for you
Why do you expect to be taken seriously?
Mark
reply
wifi4milez @ 8th Oct 09:30PM:
Re: Let me fix that for you
said by jc100 :
That's not a "FRINGE" argument.
Yes, that actually exactly what it is. Normal (ie non fringe) people dont try to compare car crashes to terrorism. Normal people realize terrorism is preventable. Normal people dont think ignoring terrorism will help just because there is a chance they might "get mugged" on the street. Normal people would never, ever fly on an airline that specifically stated they dont check bags and allow travelers to bring suspicious packages on board.
People who pretend to argue (key word is pretend) the above points are blathering fools. They would be considered the bleeding edge of the fringe, if of course they actually believed what they were saying. Since any intelligent person reading this knows you dont actually believe the nonsense you are saying, its evident you are attempting (and failing) to make some beleaguered point based on your skewed view of the world.
Good luck with that! ;)
--
"How do you tell a Communist? Well, it’s someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It’s someone who understands Marx and Lenin."
-Ronald Reagan-
»www.theadvocates.org/quizp/index.html
reply
amigo_boy @ 8th Oct 09:41PM:
Re: Let me fix that for you
said by wifi4milez :
Normal people realize terrorism is preventable.
I think that plays into JC's sophomoric argument.
He would say that accidents are preventable too. The real issue is that we tend to take a dimmer view of intentional rather than accidental violence. The two aren't comparable, as JC wishes them to be.
And, we take an even dimmer view of violence perpetrated by people who oppose everything we stand for (who would "cane-whip" women for being in the presence of a man who isn't a family member). I.e., the majority of countries where Islam predominates and criminalizes "freedom" that opposes Islam.
JC seems to equate all violence as equal (accidents and intentional damage). And, justify Islamic violence on the fact that other groups/religions have been violent in the past.
That's a fringe position.
Mark
reply
jc100 @ 8th Oct 10:30PM:
Re: Let me fix that for you
No,
What I stated was I WOULD FLY A NON TSA AIRLINE. =). My exact words are as follows: Yep I'd happily fly
That doesn't mean I DON'T prefer a level of security at the airline. However, I am not so irrational to think that if I were to pick one that HAD NO TSA, Harm would come by way.
0 back peddling. None at all =). Given the option, I prefer security but I WOULD NOT exclusively DENY MYSELF ENTRY to one without. That's my statement.
reply
amigo_boy @ 8th Oct 10:32PM:
Re: Let me fix that for you
said by jc100 :
That doesn't mean I DON'T prefer a level of security at the airline.
Welcome back to the mainstream.
Now it's just a matter of reasonable discussion concerning how much security you prefer, and how some may prefer more than others.
Mark
reply
jc100 @ 8th Oct 10:36PM:
Re: Let me fix that for you
Do you have ONE IOTA of a clue that you make NO SENSE... Any at all?
I am equating Terrorism WHICH IS NEITHER PREVENTABLE BY IRRATIONAL TAKING AWAY OF RIGHTS, TO THE IRRATIONAL fear that Big Brother in our lives will somehow solve everything. You simply are incapable of putting two and two together.
My point here is EXTREMELY SIMPLE. If you want big brother in your life, THEN ENJOY IT FOR ALL FACETS. Big brother should NOT BE SOLELY LIMITED to preventing PSEUDO INSTANCES of Security from occurring. It should transcend to EVERYTHING EVERYDAY.
Absolute security ON YOUR ARGUMENT CAN ONLY be achieved through ELIMINATION OF RIGHTS. Therefore, if you are willing to ELIMINATE RIGHTS, BIG BROTHER MUST do all possible to ensure you are safe =).
I believe what I'm saying because I'm Not a Crackpot who THINKS that trading my liberties WILL SOMEHOW guarantee me security.
HOW OFTEN DOES TERRORISM HAPPEN. Everyday in the U.S.? Even before 9/11 and the Patriot Act. Two MAJOR EVENTS. 1 BY a Muslim (First World Trade Center) and ONE by a Radical Christian. Timothy Mcveigh. While I do not argue that REASONABLE POLICE WORK that utilizes the courts, follows the law, and goes about normal practice is useful. I DO ARGUE that STRIPPING LIBERTIES, CLAIMING EVERYONE COULD BE A SUSPECT, and Basically handing over your LIFE to the government is downright wrong.
The only one who needs convincing seems to be you. You thoroughly believe that by giving up your rights you are safer.
Well please tell me then how that ball player was able to crash his plane into a building. Had that contained explosives we'd had 9/11 #2.. Seems those rules / Big Brother haven't done a damn thing to change anything, now have they =).
reply
amigo_boy @ 8th Oct 10:39PM:
Re: Let me fix that for you
said by jc100 :
I am equating Terrorism WHICH IS NEITHER PREVENTABLE BY IRRATIONAL TAKING AWAY OF RIGHTS, TO THE IRRATIONAL fear that Big Brother in our lives will somehow solve everything.
Whoops. You're back to the sophomoric and irrelevant either/or position.
Mark
reply
jc100 @ 8th Oct 10:39PM:
Re: Let me fix that for you
Mainstream? See what you don't get is something called reality. I stated again, I don't mind BASIC SECURITY.
Searching bags for weapons has happened LONG BEFORE 9/11. This is something of reason. I do not deny weapons on board is a potential hazard. This has nothing to do with 9/11 but COMMON SENSE.
Going through a Metal Detector. Also PRE 9/11. See above. Within reason.
Liquids on board.. Post 9/11.. Well one can argue that someone could carry explosives. So this does have logic in reason.
Irrational:
Going through Xray Scanners that STRIP YOU NAKED and show your body. Hello, privacy invasion.
No Fly List - Contains MILLIONS of BAD NAMES. Even a member of Clintons Staff was on it. Forgot who it was. Ya, someone directly working for the president is a terrorist... SURE.... One has NO WAY to remove themselves and then they have the LIFELONG SUSPICION behind themselves.
So yes.. REASONABLE AND RATIONAL Security in place is good. Would I fly without it. Sure. Once again, I'm not paranoid =).
reply
amigo_boy @ 8th Oct 10:43PM:
Re: Let me fix that for you
said by jc100 :
I don't mind BASIC SECURITY.
Right. Now we're just debating what's "basic."
said by jc100 :
Searching bags for weapons has happened LONG BEFORE 9/11. This is something of reason.
...
Going through a Metal Detector.
Liquids on board.. Post 9/11.. Well one can argue that someone could carry explosives. So this does have logic in reason.
(Chuckle.). In an immediately prior post you complained about surveillance which treats everyone as a suspect. Don't the above do that?
Mark
reply
jc100 @ 8th Oct 10:46PM:
Re: Let me fix that for you
Sure the two are comparable in your real of "DISILLUSION".
By Definition Terrorism is an Act meant to cause Terror. It is preventable as much as a Car Crash or Murder. If you want to remove EVERY RIGHT FROM EVERY PERSON, you might damn well succeed in reducing the few instances in which it occurs.
It boils down to the COST OF LIVING LIFE. Do you want to live life without a car? 40,000 People saved. Do you want to live life without guns (Honestly guns are an issue). 16-22,000 People would be alive with X instances occurring directly from gun related instances.
So Now terrorism. Seeing how terrorism IS NOT LIMITED to ONLY MUSLIMS.. Who should fly? White people.. Well you had McVeigh Blow up a Building. No Muslims? Well then NO CHRISTIANS.. I don't want a RADICAL CHRISTIAN next to me on the same argument. One who will go and KILL SOMEONE over Beliefs such as Abortion. What's to say one day he doesn't take down a plane =). So where do you draw the line of IRRATIONAL AND STUPID ARGUMENT such as yours and WIFIS?
You can
A) Live Life and expect things will happen and NOT everything can be prevented. You can try to MINIMIZE events by taking REASONABLE PRECAUTIONS that DO NOT REMOVE liberties.
B) You can go Big Brother. Pretend that stripping everyone of their rights will make things safer and REALIZE it's a sham.
Once again... Had that ball players plane had explosives =)... You would have 9/11 #2... Big brother didn't stop his Cesna from crashing into a building and nor did the Patriot Act =). Someone who is motivated on an INDIVIDUAL LEVEL CAN STILL CARRY OUT TERRORISM.... REGARDLESS of AFFILIATION.
School Shootings are a classic Act. One person gets a gun and KILLS MANY over an ideology =). Terrorism at its most basic concept and 9/11 protections have DONE NOTHING to stop them.... Yet SEVERAL HAVE OCCURRED. So what's your argument there?
P.S. No school shooters have been Muslims Mr. Racist.
reply
amigo_boy @ 8th Oct 10:52PM:
Re: Let me fix that for you
said by jc100 :
By Definition Terrorism is an Act meant to cause Terror. It is preventable as much as a Car Crash
Ooops. You're back to the irrelevant fringe again.
Very few people would say that because we tolerate a lot of car accidents, drownings and lightening strikes that we should just accept rape, murder, burglaries.
You don't really believe that either since you prefer flying on TSA surveilled airlines. Where "everyone is treated as a suspect." Not just Muslims.
That's the flaw in your argument. You ignore the response people have to different types of violence (drunk driving versus an accidental cruise through a red light.). To make your sophomoric argument work you have to pretend it's all the same.
Mark
reply
jc100 @ 8th Oct 11:03PM:
Re: Let me fix that for you
See now you are back to the Irrational fear of everyone is out to get me.
Lightning Strikes are NOT preventable. That is an act of Nature.
Drownings are preventable. Proper safety measures can be put into place. Otherwise, once can live their life in a Bubble which you are proposing with "Trading Liberties for Security" and never go swimming or take a shower (or be around water). Pee-yew!!
Car Accidents are AGAIN preventable - Take away one's ability to drive. No more car accidents and no more pedestrians hit by them.
Murders are Preventable. - Take away things that go bang and you've cut them in half by WELL OVER 50-60 percent if not more. Go one step further and outlaw anything pointy and hey, you have achieved a low murder rate.
See you're simply missing the the overall point in your ROUND ROBIN TO RACISM and IRRATIONAL thinking. To equate the ENDS JUSTIFIES the MEANS then presumes you are WILLING TO TRADE EVERY RIGHT to get there.
If you want to be safe from Crime... Then take away the tool that is used in most of them.
If you want to be safe from Car Crashes... Remove the element that causes them.
If believe that terrorism is preventable by removing liberties.. then remove ALL and only give back the few needed =) to exist.
IE live in a bubble or live life.
As far as TSA Security... you are failing miserably. I ARGUED AGAIN.. BASIC SECURITY PRE 9/11 was FINE.. I have no problems with RATIONAL AMOUNTS.
Just because everyone is profiled doesn't make it right. Yet there are some levels that are tolerable (checking for weapons) and some levels that go above reason. Patriot Act and No Fly list that are riddled with LIBERTY STRIPPING CLAUSES and presume you are guilty without due process in defending yourself.
I do have problems with the:
Patriot Act
No Fly Lists
etc.
reply
amigo_boy @ 8th Oct 11:08PM:
Re: Let me fix that for you
said by jc100 :
Lightning Strikes are NOT preventable. That is an act of Nature.
Sure they are. Using your logic, since auto accidents outnumber lightening strikes, we might as well not seek cover during thunder storm.
said by jc100 :
Proper safety measures can be put into place.
Now you're mixing your argument. Like preferring TSA-surveilled flights (where "everyone is treated as a suspect.").
You're just selectively switching between either/or arguments and "look, I'm pragmatic!"
The real issue is that everyone is pragmatic to differing degrees. Your only way to deal with that is to press everyone into an either/or position while justifying a pragmatic approach uniquely to yourself.
Mark
reply
jc100 @ 9th Oct 02:17AM:
Re: Let me fix that for you
Sure they are. Using your logic, since auto accidents outnumber lightening strikes, we might as well not seek cover during thunder storm.
Well one can seek shelter in a storm, however if one ventures outside, there is LITTLE TO NONE one can do to prevent being the victim of lightning. This assuming you aren't being a moron carrying around a large metal pole or climbing a Cell Tower. So my argument stands. Otherwise, we can resort back to what I said before. You can live your life as a shut in. When danger might be present, never leave home =).
Now you're mixing your argument. Like preferring TSA-surveilled flights (where "everyone is treated as a suspect.").
You're just selectively switching between either/or arguments and "look, I'm pragmatic!"
The real issue is that everyone is pragmatic to differing degrees. Your only way to deal with that is to press everyone into an either/or position while justifying a pragmatic approach uniquely to yourself.
No... I am NOT selecting my arguments. I stated over and over... someone fails to listen. I DO NOT MIND BASIC SAFETY MEASURES THAT WERE IN PLACE prior to 9/11. Those were fine. You fail to realize in your Infinite Wisdom that EVEN WITHOUT WEAPONS, if a group of men board a plane and overpower the crew, THEY CAN STILL HIJACK IT. Very few flights have Air Marshalls onboard =). However, I do agree the SMART update to security is that the Pilot / Co-Pilot LOCK their cabin door upon takeoff. Common sense =).
As for safety post 9/11.. Nothing changes. About the ONLY REASONABLE update is the liquids. No mixing and Mashing. I am saying I DON'T MIND BASIC SECURITY.
FOR the 100th time, I WOULD STILL FLY EVEN IF THERE WAS NONE. I AM NOT PARANOID. Do I prefer "BASIC" security. YES. Would that Deter me from catching my flight. NOPE. Odds something happen are about the same as regular ordinary life. You have a better chance of your flight PLUNGING into the ocean than a terrorist attack.
P.S. I don't press anyone into my opinion. I just don't accept conjured crap you and wifi (TJ JUNK MAIL?) love to so conveniently point out.
On a side note.. YOU ARE FAILING TO ADDRESS my other examples:
Baseball Player Crashes Plane into Building - 9/11 and Patriot Act didn't prevent. What happens if it would have had explosives and NOTHING in the 9/11 clauses CAN STOP individuals from taking up their own planes =).... NOT ANY SAFER =).
School Shootings are an ACT OF TERRORISM. 9/11 sure hasn't prevented those. Please remind me of the ONE MUSLIM involved in any school shooting... =). None.
So on and so forth. Conveniently FORGETTING to take mention while busy being racist?
reply
amigo_boy @ 9th Oct 02:46AM:
Re: Let me fix that for you
said by jc100 :
Well one can seek shelter in a storm, however if one ventures outside, there is LITTLE TO NONE one can do to prevent being the victim of lightning. This assuming you aren't being a moron carrying around a large metal pole or climbing a Cell Tower. So my argument stands.
That's an example of proactively guarding against lightening strikes (take shelter, don't climb towers, nor walk around holding a copper pole, etc.). You would do those things despite the fact you that won't give up driving (even though far more people are killed by auto accidents).
However, when someone suggests we can take proactive steps against terrorism, you're suddenly an either/or guy. They can't hold that position without giving up firearm ownership, driving, swimming, etc.
You're not holding yourself to the same standard because your sophomoric argument won't allow it.
said by jc100 :
YOU ARE FAILING TO ADDRESS my other examples: ...
Because your examples are based on flawed logic (described in this post and the previous few).
I've also failed to address the numerous red herrings you've tossed.
BTW: If you expect anyone to give your argument as much importance as you do, you should work on your quoting. Your post was incomprehensible. If you're not going to put much time into your posts, don't expect anyone to put much time into reading them.
Mark
reply
jc100 @ 9th Oct 07:14AM:
Re: Let me fix that for you
Dude give me a break.
Your arguments are pie in the sky. You don't see here I am basically Laughing Hysterically at how RIDICULOUSLY MORONIC, OUTLANDISH, and PARANOID you are.
Let's simplify this one man.
- Never leave your house.
- Wear a tin Foil Hat
- Don't ever get into a car (Scary roads and others)
- Don't fly. Risk involved
- Don't step outdoors - Someone might murder or mug you.
You know what man, forget even that. You could be in your house and someone could break in and kill you. I guess your only solution is to build a FORTRESS and HIRE GUARDS 24/7. This way, no one in and no one out of your world cause PARANOID DELUSIONAL.
The whole purpose of my post is to say you HAVE TO LIVE LIFE. DANGER IS ALL AROUND. Part of life INVOLVES RISK. Walking outside is risk. Driving is a Risk. Flying is a RISK. There are RISKS IN LIFE you have to take.
HOLY FUCKING CRAP......
So either LET BIG BROTHER PROMISE you safety which it CAN NEVER DO..... Or go HOLD UP IN A GOD DAMN BUBBLE or your fortress.
P.S. My examples are PLENTY FINE.
The patriot act DIDNT stop a PLANE from hitting a building. I guess we're lucky he didnt pack it full of explosives and that it was a BLOODY ACCIDENT and NOT INTENTIONAL, AY?
Yes. my examples are valid. Everyone else EXCEPT for WIFI and you have agreed with me.
Try reading the post. Nothing more can be said. I'll sum it up really quickly.
NEVER LEAVE HOME.. THE WORLD IS A DANGEROUS SCARY PLACE AND EVERYONE "IS" OUT TO GET YOU!!!
reply
amigo_boy @ 9th Oct 02:41PM:
Re: Let me fix that for you
said by jc100 :
how RIDICULOUSLY MORONIC, OUTLANDISH, and PARANOID you are.
But, you've admitted you're "paranoid" too. That you would choose to fly a TSA airline if given the choice between that and an unsurveilled/secured airline. The fact that you have more chance of harm from a car accident wouldn't persuade you to forego the potential to mitigate terror.
You've also indicated that it would be smart to seek shelter during a thunder storm, even though the chance of being struck by lightening is so low compared to car accidents.
Your either/or argument isn't working. When it becomes evident that you're identifying yourself as part of an irrelevant fringe (who would never take any proactive steps to protect yourself, because nothing will ever be perfect, and there will always be a greater risk you could devote your effort to if you were "consistent"), you begin proving how pragmatic you are. But, you hold everyone else to the higher (irrational) standard you don't hold yourself to.
In other words, you don't want to be irrational. When your own sophomoric argument is turned against you, you change it to accommodate pragmatism and reasonableness. And then immediately return to holding others to either/or irrationality.
I can understand if you believe increased govt. surveillance isn't "worth it." But, that's a different argument than the nearly childish: "If you'd protect yourself from lightening, you should stop driving!"
Mark
reply
Thank you for using lo-fi dslreports.com - report bugs
© 99-2009 silver matrix LLC