General discussion

  • Creator
    Topic
  • #2193700

    What do you think of all the big brother stuff?

    Locked

    by zlitocook ·

    The US Justice Department confirmed yesterday that Microsoft, Yahoo! and AOL have already complied with its request to hand over the details of queries submitted to the search engine – a fact that was disclosed in court documents this week. The DoJ wants the information, not for a criminal prosecution, but as background material to bolster its attempt to revive a Clinton-era anti-pornography law.
    This is from http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/01/21/gonzales_vs_google/
    It looks like the government is looking at what ever they want and using what ever they can to do it. I hate child porn and anyone who looks at it and they should be put behind bars! But refering to this now is lame and just another way to see what we are doing.
    What do you think?

All Comments

  • Author
    Replies
    • #3258648

      I don’t like it one bit

      by av . ·

      In reply to What do you think of all the big brother stuff?

      Most definitely, Google, AOL, Yahoo and Microsoft have a treasure trove of information about all of us. I don’t think the government should be allowed to data mine this information to bolster a porn law. No one likes child porn, but I don’t like my right to privacy being violated either.

      It certainly makes me think twice about what I might search on on the internet. Maybe I could be the next “person of interest” if I search on the wrong words.

      The truth is, you don’t know what the government will really do with the information. I don’t trust the government’s intentions and I don’t like losing the right to be free to search on what I want without them looking over my shoulder.

      I also don’t agree with Bush’s wiretaps without warrants either. He says its necessary to fight the war on terror, I say if he really wanted to fight the war on terror he would do something about our open borders and our illegal immigrant population, aside from offering them temporary worker permits.

      Hats off to Google. Finally, a company thats willing to defend the right to privacy for its customers. I’m truly surprised that the others were so willing to comply. Maybe they forgot what country they’re in.

      • #3257855

        it’s not just the US thats affected

        by mjwx ·

        In reply to I don’t like it one bit

        First of all Kudos to AmericanVoter more people need to take a stand against this kind of invasion of privacy.

        Second of all, the information the US gov has requested contains a great deal of data on people outside the US. This is something the US gov defiantly has no right to do (it can even go so far as to be considered espionage).

        To keep it in perspective this isn?t like placing CCTV cameras in public places (these have actual helped solve crimes) or confiscating computers that contain kiddie porn. The US will have access to all searches not just the ones related to this law (which again only exists in the US). How can we be sure that the US gov is not also looking for ?Subversive Content? (I am also attacking china for doing this but at least they admit doing it).

        Can a society maintain its freedom when a government is permitted to conduct searches without reasonable proof of any wrong doings?

        ?The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing? – Edmund Burke

        • #3107442

          Data on people outside of US

          by m_a_r_k ·

          In reply to it’s not just the US thats affected

          [i]”the information the US gov has requested contains a great deal of data on people outside the US. This is something the US gov defiantly [sic] has no right to do.”[/i]

          I disagree. I’m not saying the govt does or does not have the right to any search engine information. But suppose they DO have this right. Then, with Google being an American company traded on an American stock exchange and operating within the US, the govt certainly would have every right to access data regardless if that data was generated by a US citizen or not and generated from inside the US borders or not. Since when does being a foreign citizen give you higher standing than American citizens when American laws and regulations are concerned?

        • #3107386

          I disagree

          by stargazerr ·

          In reply to Data on people outside of US

          The Goverment will have every right to monitor a non US citizen if he/she is generating data inside US borders but they do not have the right to monitor data generated outside the US borders.

          Any data generated outside US borders will come under the jurisdiction of the courts of the country the person belongs to. American Laws are only applicable within american borders, not outside.

          ]:)

          P.S I just think monitoring a search engine is wrong. Full Stop.

        • #3107292

          We do agree on one thing

          by m_a_r_k ·

          In reply to I disagree

          …monitoring a search engine is wrong. I’m not sure how useful it would be for any government to be able to obtain records of searches made on a search engine. They can’t trace any search to any single individual. They could only trace it to an IP address. If I have 9 criminals living in my house and we each have 9 criminal friends that visit on a regular basis and all 100 of us use the Internet from my house, how can it be proven which of the 99 criminals used the Internet at any point in time to commit a crime (that rhymes!)? Notice I didn’t say 100 criminals. The one person of the lot that’s not a criminal is me.

          I only used an American company and American laws in my post because the subject is about Google, an American company. You could substitute Ericsson and Sweden or Sony and Japan and the point would have been the same. I have a lot of college degrees 😉 but a law degree isn’t one of them. When you said “Any data generated outside US borders will come under the jurisdiction of the courts of the country the person belongs to”, were you saying that based on knowledge or opinion? If the US govt can’t force Google to turn over search records, then a foreign country has no chance at all of doing so. I suppose all this e-commerce stuff is new territory even for legal experts. Transactions over the internet have to be viewed and regulated differently than transactions made in person. The main question appears to be this: if you commit an illegal act over the Internet, who has jurisdiction? The location from which the person made the transaction or the location which electronically processed the transaction? The point I was making was that, if it were up to me, I would say the country with jurisdiction over the electronic records should be the country in which the transaction was electronically processed. In reality, if such laws exist, it may depend on agreements between the two countries. The data is still held in one location. Who has jurisdiction over that data?

          This may all turn out to be a good thing for an enterprising criminal. Which I am not, by the way. I already told you that I am not a criminal. I may be enterprising but I’m no criminal. President Richard Nixon said he wasn’t a criminal but look where that got him. He resigned in disgrace. But I digress… Let’s use you as an example. You’re a gangster, aren’t you? 😉 If you were a citizen of, say Tahiti (I’d love to go to scuba diving in Tahiti some day, but I’m digressing again…), and you used Google to commit a crime in the US, you would get away with it scot-free. Tahiti cannot force Google to provide information from its database because Tahiti laws do not have jurisdiction over an American company. And the US cannot get information about the crime from Google because it was made from a foreign country by a foreign citizen. Hmm… I think we’re on to something here… 😀

          I think I just wrote a chapter of that book… :^O

        • #3107238

          Me ?? Gangster??

          by stargazerr ·

          In reply to We do agree on one thing

          Sure … I’ll play along 😀

          If I am a citizen of Tahiti and use google to commit a crime in the US, I will not get away scot free. The crime has been committed in US … The US courts have the right to trial a non US citizen, if the crime is commited inside the US borders … But, only because Google is a US company, the government of USA has no jurisdiction over non US citizens,if the crime has not been commited in the US ….

          Knowledge or Opinion?? Lets say ….. A bit of both 😡

          ]:)

        • #3109891

          You’re making me dizzy

          by m_a_r_k ·

          In reply to Me ?? Gangster??

          Ok then. If not Tahiti, how about Fiji? 😀

        • #3109788

          Holiday??

          by stargazerr ·

          In reply to Me ?? Gangster??

          Or laws to go to Jail?? 😀

          Hmmm … Holiday in Fiji … Sounds Good …. I am in … Who’s gonna book the tickets?? You will pay of course .. but i can book … 😉

          ]:)

        • #3109747

          Holiday of course

          by m_a_r_k ·

          In reply to Me ?? Gangster??

          You’re getting good at booking things. You can book the trip. Of course I’ll pay. I was planning on paying for the trip through my criminal activities once we got to Fiji. Or Tahiti. But alas! Fortunately I have a Plan B which has been created due to unfortunate circumstances. I haven’t had done any vacation travelling in four years. So my vacation fund is brimming with extra cash. I’ll use that. Hell, I even have a Plan C. I’m co-authoring a book, you know, and I’m expecting a windfall of profits from that best-seller.

        • #3258400

          How ?? how?? how?? how how how??

          by stargazerr ·

          In reply to Me ?? Gangster??

          do we manage to ram headalong into a topic alltogether different every single time ?? 😀

          WARNING !!! This comment has nothing to do with what I am about to say ….. HOLIDAY?? YOU’RE ON … 😀

          ]:)

        • #3258242

          I don’t know!

          by m_a_r_k ·

          In reply to Me ?? Gangster??

          Brilliant minds think alike and all that. We should write a screenplay. It would be like a schizophrenic drug trip with all the jumping through a series of seemingly disconnected and unrelated scenes. It would be hilarious as hell. Can I write your acceptance speech for the Academy Award? I promise to stay on topic.

          Tahiti or Fiji? 😀

        • #3258235

          Hmmm … Let me consider that …

          by stargazerr ·

          In reply to Me ?? Gangster??

          TAHITI 😀

          ]:)

        • #3258232

          By the way,

          by stargazerr ·

          In reply to Me ?? Gangster??

          The screenplay is also a great idea …

          Lets start with pushing Bill Gates off a cliff …….He falls down down down …. screaming …..and we switch to a scene of Road Runner going …….. Beep Beep !!! 😀

          Hands over paper and pen to Mark and pushes him into comfy chair and orders him to complete speech …

          ]:)

        • #3258132

          Very decisive

          by m_a_r_k ·

          In reply to Me ?? Gangster??

          That was a quick decision that you made. I flipped a coin. Wouldn’t you know it? The damn thing landed on its side. OK…Tahiti it is! 😀

          As for the screenplay, if there’s going to be scene with Wild Bill Gates morphing into Road Runner, then the Road Runner has to have a goofy-looking haircut and has to wear glasses. Oh…and we have to have an antagonist for Road Runner. I’m thinking that we need something to substitute for Wile E. Coyote, though. It has to be something really outlandish. Something that nobody in their right mind would think of. Umm…an iguana maybe?

          By the way, which one of gets to push ol’ Billy boy off the cliff? Somewhere in the recent past I remember a bit of a discussion about ME getting pushed off a cliff. ?:|

        • #3258128

          So Thats decided then …

          by stargazerr ·

          In reply to Me ?? Gangster??

          You cannot do the actual pushing … since you might fall off and hurt yourself .. I dont have the money to buy any titanium parts … 😉 … If you like, I can buy you Alimunium ones though … 😀

          An Iguana will be great for the part of the coyote … What do you know, we might even find the one that has my torpedoes strapped on its back … !!

          ]:)

        • #3258100

          I don’t know about the aluminum

          by m_a_r_k ·

          In reply to Me ?? Gangster??

          I already have titanium. I don’t know if putting aluminum next to titanium will cause an adverse chemical reaction. I’d go up in smoke like a suicide bomber. Maybe we could try a controlled experiment to see what happens. If it does cause an explostion, that can be one of the iguana’s props to try to kill Road Runner. In the next scene the iguana can fire one of the torpedoes at Road Runner.

          I could still do the pushing. We could tie a rope around my waist and fasten the other end to an apple tree. Can I trust you not to cut the rope just for the thrill of watching me tumble over the cliff and seeing if I survive the fall? I will survive. I already survived a fall from an airplane when my parachute didn’t open.

        • #3109166

          Umm…

          by one_of_bunch ·

          In reply to We do agree on one thing

          That would only be 91 people, but I get what you’re saying. I agree that this data should not be monitored mainly because it really isn’t useful data to begin with.

        • #3108872

          Actually it would be 90 people

          by m_a_r_k ·

          In reply to Umm…

          [i]”If I have 9 criminals living in my house and we each have 9 criminal friends that visit on a regular basis and all 100 of us use the Internet from my house, how can it be proven which of the 99 criminals used the Internet at any point in time to commit a crime (that rhymes!)?”[/i]

          I live in a house with 9 criminals. We have a big house. So there are 10 people living in my house including me but excluding the servants. It’s a 5-bedroom house. Thank God there 5 males and 5 females.

          We each have 9 different friends. Only some of them have criminal records but that is irrelevant for the purposes of this discussion. I just said that they are all criminals to make the things more interesting.

          10 house people * 9 friends of the house people = 90 total people. Have you ever been in a house with 89 other people? It gets a bit crowded at times.

        • #3088458

          euhm a 100 people?

          by denandere ·

          In reply to Umm…

          I don’t wanna be an a**hole or anything, but I thought IT people knew how to count 😛

          Him + 9 criminal friends = 10

          They all have 9 criminal friends = 10*9 = 90
          (he said “we”, so that includes him)

          10 + 90 = 100 (last time I checked…)

          cheers

        • #3088436

          Have you ever noticed…?

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Umm…

          Have you ever noticed that when somebody opens a statement with “I have the greatest respect for you” what follows is [i]always[/i] disrespectful? And that the half-assed apology “no offense” always immediately follows, or immediately precedes, something truly offensive?

          “I don’t wanna be an a**hole or anything, but I thought IT people knew how to count”

          If you really didn’t wanna, you wouldn’t have posted that.

          Now, “what do you think of all the big brother stuff?”

        • #3108967

          That’s not entirely accurate

          by bbaltas ·

          In reply to We do agree on one thing

          A criminal in another country can be prosecuted in the United States, if the appropriate treaty is in place.

          Using your example, if the gangster in Tahiti uses the Internet to recruit and hire a hit-man to assisinate someone like Kenneth Lay, for example (I’m not saying this should happen). If a United States procecuter had evidence that our gangster was the employer of said hit-man, the gangster could be extradited from Tahiti to the US to stand trial.

          There are some assumptions here, first, a treaty between the US and Tahiti must be in place. Second, the act of hiring a hit-man must be illegal in Tahiti, and third, the procecuting attorney must have enough evidence to convince a Tahiti judge (or some other official) that the person to be extradided is the employer of the aforementioned hit-man.

          If you spend some time looking for child porn legal cases on the net, you will find that some of the bigger cases have involved multiple countries.

        • #3134839

          I think you are missing the point

          by billinge ·

          In reply to We do agree on one thing

          The government has not requested information relating to foreign communication. The government has requested ALL communication searches. What would be the difference in requesting such data from the Search Engines as compared to requesting all communication data from the telephone company without the benefit of a search warrant?

        • #3253882

          Data Mining

          by clockmendergb9 ·

          In reply to We do agree on one thing

          I see what the American government is doing as nothing more than Data mining.
          They want to get information on everybody in the world.
          they listen to all Radio emissions around the world using vast arrays of special equiptment .
          They refused to hand over the control of the internet to a multinational organisation because it is easier to keep tabs on it or tap into it as required.
          Yes I realise that it was an American inovation but it is now truly International.
          I see the way that touists from other countries are not asked, but forced to have their fingerprints taken before they can enter the States.
          Yes they do have a choice of staying away and of course that would help in the paronoid need to wall everybody out that seems to be “the thing”at the moment.
          My Family have had a Holiday house in Florida for 20 years and we have enjoyed our time there greatly.
          But, Now we are not allowed to renew our US driving Licences and need to now use International Licences.
          Not a Problem you say.
          Our insurance for the 3 cars we have bought and use in Florida will more than triple because the insurance companies will “not be able to track our driving record”, even though we are all on an American data base (American Drivers licence )and have been for the last 10 years..
          Buying a car will be harder because we do not have
          a US licence and so it goes on
          We will be selling our property in the next year or so as it has become a real chore just to get in.
          I realise that Americans want to be protected but what is happening reminds me of the great plague where the rich were so scared to come out of the castle that they starved to death while life went on as normal outside the walls.
          I wish things were differant but sadly I do not see it at the moment
          Tell me I amm wrong as I will miss the many months a year I spend there.

        • #3109160

          Umm.. no.

          by one_of_bunch ·

          In reply to I disagree

          I agree to the Full Stop on monitoring, but your error is in your logic. The data generated on the Google server. That is where the transaction takes place. Since Google is a company in the U.S. and Google’s server resides in the U.S., then the transaction occured in the U.S., regardless of where you personally are.

          This fact is what enables the “off-shore” gambling sites to remain open. They are in countries where the U.S. has no jurisdiction, even though the majority of users are from the U.S.

        • #3108869

          Exactly what I said, son_of_a

          by m_a_r_k ·

          In reply to Umm.. no.

          [i]”The data generated on the Google server. That is where the transaction takes place. Since Google is a company in the U.S. and Google’s server resides in the U.S., then the transaction occured in the U.S., regardless of where you personally are.”[/i]

          The data is owned by an American-owned and operated company. It is subject to U.S. laws and regulations. The U.S. govt can subpoena to get that data, no matter who generated it or where it was generated from.

        • #3107838

          you changed your name from son_of_a_bunch

          by m_a_r_k ·

          In reply to Exactly what I said, son_of_a

          I’m sure his name was something like son_of_a_bunch. Hence, the title of my previous reply where I referred to him as “son_of_a”. This name-changing thing seems to be a trend. It can really foul up name references in follow-up responses. 😐

        • #3097031

          Thats why

          by stargazerr ·

          In reply to Exactly what I said, son_of_a

          Intelligent people go about using formerly after their new handle 😉 …..

          ]:)

        • #3109005

          Read the user agreements

          by itchem ·

          In reply to I disagree

          Remember that each of these search engines has a user agreement which specifies your level of expected privacy and what State or country has legal jurisdiction. For example MSN is governed by the State of Washington and Google is governed by the State of California.

          When you use these sites you are agreeing to the terms specified by the user agreement. This often includes a provision such as the following from MSN “We may access and/or disclose your personal information if we believe such action is necessary to: (a) comply with the law or legal process served on Microsoft; (b) protect and defend the rights or property of Microsoft (including the enforcement of our agreements); or (c) act in urgent circumstances to protect the personal safety of users of Microsoft services or members of the public.”

          Therefore there is no absolute expectation of privacy. If one is not comfortable with a provision like this then one needs to find a search engine with better protections.

        • #3134545

          Gee, you mean I am actually responsible

          by wojnar ·

          In reply to Read the user agreements

          for reading the agreements ?

          No, no, no – it HAS to be somebody else’s fault. Those terrible republicans must be behind it !

          Personal accountability ?????????

          Nope, sorry none for me thanks. (Some would even rather stoop to being a democrat than to be accountable for their actions.)

        • #3091680

          accountable for their actions

          by krazykyngekorny ·

          In reply to Gee, you mean I am actually responsible

          >Some would even rather stoop to being a democrat
          >than to be accountable for their actions.

          You mean, like Teddy Kennedy? Did he committ
          murder? We will never know. He concealed the
          evidence. We do know he committed vehicular
          manslaughter. He admitted to driving the car
          and causing the death of his passenger. But
          the elitist cops in Mass. concealed the evidence.

        • #3091681

          Freedom! protect it or use it!

          by krazykyngekorny ·

          In reply to Read the user agreements

          The big complaint against personal information being available is being made by such people as the ACLU, a socialist oriented organization whose aim is to destroy government. They want to be able to hide whatever they desire in luggage, email messages, or in any other way to use in their quest to destroy government. They don’t want to play by any rules.

          One example is the big stink about informing people if a child molester is living near molestable children.

          If they have their own way, they will eventually make a whole new set of rules, like, “all for me, nothing for you.” They will gain the right to carry bombs to blow up common citizens.

          If you think it can’t happen, look to USSR, Nazzi Germany, Hussein in Iraq and Mousalini in Italy. It can happen, and all these objections to governmental control is empowering such groups.

        • #3253243

          They are the reason to deny the Government

          by rickandboo ·

          In reply to Freedom! protect it or use it!

          access to any private info not approved by a court for a specific reason that has to have at least a shread of evidence that was received legally. When you let the government start spying on american citezens or those protected within our borders then we are aloowing our govermnent to become just like the ones you mentioned. Our constitution is there for a reason, not to give more power to the government or to take away rights from its citizens and those that wish to become citizens. Its there for the people. When the government does or allows itself or industry to commit crimes against it’s people then it is no better than the USSR, Nazi’s or any other controlling corrupt government. Those that have ordered and carried out those orders should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. You can’t say I was following orders like nazi’s. When I was in the Military I was told I only had to obey legal orders. A general could not order me to shoot someone unless they were a criminal or someone in the act of a crime and that crime had to be something along the lines of deadly assault or rape. Our government is only interested in what it can do for itself or industry which inturn helps it because their stocks in the so called blind trust goes up. How many house reps or presidents within say the last 50 years actually lost money by being ellected, including the time after they left office. What has your pay been doing can you arbitrarily raise your pay because the price of gas has gone up or you cant feed your childeren because credit companies can pretty much do what they want with interest rates. Has a fine that a large corporation had to pay been actually paid at the full dollar amount and at a rate that would actually cause it to stop doing what ever it was they did wrong. Then why do they still dump waste, how do they get away with not paying on a writen or verbal contract with it’s workkers, why do us taxpayers have to carry them out of the whole. If they can’t do what they are in business to do legally and with out harm to the country as a whole, as damaging as it may be in the short term, we and the world will be better off with out them. if our elected officials don’t end up regretting havin been in office because of personal loss or sacrifice then they don’t belong there. If they come out and become better off financialy than when they were elected then they did not do what they were elected to do. Its the people first second and last. All others are here for us, the People. The military is to protect us from harm, industry is to make us comfortable, government is to keep industry and the military here for the majority not the lucky few. Maybe we should have a……………………………

          I am a proud US citizen with ancestry to the revolutionary war and before. I have served my country as a US Marine. If I had to do it now I would definately think twice before making that decision.

        • #3133622

          We don’t ask for permission

          by richard ·

          In reply to I disagree

          WE impose our right in the interest of our security.
          we will do much more then monitor, and I support it.
          I don’t support it for other than national security and yes I require more of my government to spy on me.

        • #3108453

          M_a_r_k’s reply

          by simplyshaman ·

          In reply to Data on people outside of US

          mark i can’t say i actually agree with anything you just said.. let me clarify, in order for the statement you said to be true… if you’re gonna give your information to the government.. why not just post a sign that says hack me… and invite every hacker in the US to come tear your server apart…

          yes, the internet is about free information… however.. it’s moreso about free information limited to what people choose to share.. not every aspect of every search made for personal use

          i personally can’t stand kiddie porn and do agree that it needs to be put to a halt.. but this sort of method is going entirely too far..
          this country was founded on freedom for all.. not those that the government sees fit…

          just my two cents,

          Shaman

        • #3108880

          you miss the big picture here

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to M_a_r_k’s reply

          just WHAT information is Google KEEPING on us that the government would be able to use to track down crimes?

        • #3108863

          simplyshaman

          by m_a_r_k ·

          In reply to M_a_r_k’s reply

          Read my post about the 90 people living in my house. It is impossible to tell which of us used the internet at any point in time. Any evidence implicating a particular one of the 90 people would not hold up in court. And the govt only wanted statistics to see what was being searched for. They were not asking for any kind of personally identifiable information.

          I am not in favor of the govt doing something likie this. But we all better get used to this kind of thing. Electronic records of our activities are created each and every day. Mobile phone companies track your location and who you call from where. Credit card companies can track your purchasing habits. Security cameras record who enters and leaves buildings. Highway toll tags track your movement on toll roads. Cable and satellite TV companies can record your viewing habits (Tivo even goes so far as to suggest programs you may be interested in.) Your ISP can track every web site you visit. It’s a data warehouse-driven world and data on each and every one of us is in that warehouse.

        • #3108694

          That is how you can tell if someone is having an affair

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to simplyshaman

          That is how you can tell if someone is having an affair. They are the ones that are using the pay phones. :O

          Unless they are stupid like my ex-wife and think they can just hide the bills with the call details. Silly beotch. Nothing you do on MY computer is a secret to ME! ]:) It is good to be geek! B-)

        • #3253226

          Get used to a rabid pit bull is better

          by rickandboo ·

          In reply to simplyshaman

          No we should not get used to it we should do something, like back the people that want to stop this sort of thing, no compromise. Kick the corrupt officials out and imprison them. Take our country back and make it respected worldwide not feared. Do you respect a bully or do you fear them. Do you dream about revenge.. that is what we are creating in the world a bunch of people who dream about revenge and count the days till they can carry out that revenge. This government did that. I remember our government and media blast away at some ex communist government that had cameras all over the place to watch it’s citizens and how appaling it was. Well guess what.

        • #3254554

          And we should also

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Get used to a rabid pit bull is better

          be taking people that are knowingly associating with KNOWN terrorists, and deport them.

          We should NOT be harboring terrorists in the US. We should NOT be condoning or allowing ANYONE to support or conspire with known terrorists without charging them as accessories.

          Note, the US Constitution protects US citizens ONLY. Everyone else is just subject to law and all imigration policies.

          Not a benifit to the well-being of the US? do not admit them into the US.

        • #3109003

          I agree with you

          by saintgeorge ·

          In reply to Data on people outside of US

          I agree with you completely. Even to the point to suggest that Americans who break the laws of other countries while sitting in their sofas should be extradited to the offended countries.
          Be serious. You are the world police because you have the gun, not because you have the right.

        • #3092999

          No RIGHT at all

          by hampshirehog ·

          In reply to Data on people outside of US

          A “right” is something earned or freely given. A Government, being representatives of the people charged with administering the country in the best interests of those people At least in the Western democratic world), does not have that RIGHT. In particular, no appointed public servant can ever have such a right delegated to them.

        • #3133833

          in my country

          by alinvic ·

          In reply to Data on people outside of US

          The americans shouldn’t be able to enforce their laws in other countries. Who the hell do they think they are?

        • #3091687

          Since when?

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Data on people outside of US

          “Since when does being a foreign citizen give you higher standing than American citizens when American laws and regulations are concerned?”

          Since when did American laws and regulations have ANY standing at all with foreign citizens?

          In case you are wondering, American laws should not and do not have any impact outside of your country. If someone from Brazil defiles a search on Google, then the US can look at it, realize it wasn’t from INSIDE the US and that’s that, nothing more can be done by the USA. So in essence, foreign citizens in foreign countries have ALWAYS had “higher standing” than American citizens when American laws and regulations are concerned.

          If you don’t like your government syping on you, YOU deal with it. If they spy on me, it’s against my constitutional right to privacy, you deal with your laws we deal with ours.

        • #3107344

          Good point

          by av . ·

          In reply to it’s not just the US thats affected

          To be honest with you, I never really thought about how people outside the US would be affected by this, but you’re absolutely right. We’re a global society now, especially when it comes to the internet. Governments work together, so this affects all of us.

          Like you say, the whole problem is how the US government will use the information. Personally, I don’t trust them to use the data the right way. All I see is my rights as an American slipping away.

          What really gets me is that there isn’t a revolt in this country. There should be absolute outrage that we are losing our right to privacy. Instead, most people aren’t even aware of what they’re losing. Apathy. Disinterest. Loss of rights is always because of the war on terror. I just don’t buy it.

          This is such an important issue. Americans will lose basic rights if they don’t stand up to the challenge. Otherwise, welcome to the United States of China.

        • #3109662

          Don’t Worry, We’ll Take Care Of You….

          by techytype ·

          In reply to Good point

          People, both in the United States, and around the world have always been willing to let “them” (be it government, dictators, business, etc.) take care of things. Until it becomes obvious there is a problem and often when it is too late to do anything.

          Yes, people should be paying more attention and ensuring that their opinions are heard. This is not as simple as it appears though. Remember one of the first steps to silencing unpopular (with authorities) messages is to belittle and make offending person appear to be a member of a lunatic fringe. Failing that they work to destroy you financially. If that doesn’t work and you don’t have the ability to protect yourself you may find yourself experiencing unfortunate accidents. Of course in countries where human rights don’t count for much you just disappear.

          Now this would never happen in the United States right? Minor details like wiretaps without warrants, holding people for years without charge, or sending people to other countries for torture are not related and you can feel safe knowing your government is working to protect you. The same way there was such an efficient and immediate response following the hurricane Katrina.

          Now stop thinking, forget everything you have seen and read today. It hurts your little brain all these complicated topics. Go back to sleep and let your government do what you elected them to do. You did elect them right?

        • #3094269

          and remember, Big Brother Is Watching

          by too old for it ·

          In reply to Don’t Worry, We’ll Take Care Of You….

        • #3093990

          They were elected, but not by me

          by av . ·

          In reply to Don’t Worry, We’ll Take Care Of You….

          I’m part of the people that didn’t vote for Bush in the last election; the other almost 50% of the country.

          When you say the people are willing to let “them” handle things, you’re right. They are. Thats what they are supposed to be elected to do. The problem is that the system itself is corrupt and the people that run for office are part of the system.

          The Bush Administration likes to paint a rosy picture of any situation, but the facts speak for themselves. Its response to Hurricane Katrina was horrendous, an embarassment for our nation. The Iraq war. Scandals. Deficits. I could go on, but suffice to say that our government does not have the people’s best interests in mind.

          I never thought I would see the day that I would have to fight for freedom of speech or privacy in America. But now is the time to fight for the right to continue to have those same freedoms online.

          Its a very interesting fight to watch between Google and the US. Google supplied the censored search engine to China and has no regrets, yet it won’t give the US government (at least right now) what it wants. I think if Google turns that information over, we will begin to see the beginning of the United States of China.

        • #3093983

          live in a blue state?

          by mjwx ·

          In reply to They were elected, but not by me

          or in a red state?

        • #3093978

          I’m a blue state

          by av . ·

          In reply to live in a blue state?

          But I’d like to think there are Red Staters out there like me.

        • #3258102

          Red State Blue State …

          by too old for it ·

          In reply to live in a blue state?

          Who came up with the idea of giving the socialists the color blue?

        • #3108916

          Am I blue?

          by av . ·

          In reply to live in a blue state?

          Yes, I am, because it has come down to whether you live in a blue or red state. Actually, I’m purple.

          I couldn’t respond directly, Too Old for IT, to your socialist comment, but I think you’ve just labeled me because I live in a blue state.

        • #3107614

          Blue for Socialists?

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to live in a blue state?

          The original thought when they made up the first board was probably something along the lines of “Let’s assign red to the Republicans because they both start with ‘R’ and people will remember that” and it was not until later that the delicious irony of red identifying the anti-communist Republican party was realized.

        • #3134250

          The only state around here is

          by azson ·

          In reply to live in a blue state?

          I think the only stating going on around here is what the Repulicans are in…..denial

        • #3107919

          AZson

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to live in a blue state?

        • #3134139

          Max, you must believe in recycling.

          by mjwx ·

          In reply to live in a blue state?

          because that URL’s been used a heap of times before.

        • #3134951

          Thank you Max,

          by azson ·

          In reply to live in a blue state?

          I’m glad I hit a nerve. At least I got ya to think

        • #3108434

          bush administration

          by simplyshaman ·

          In reply to They were elected, but not by me

          but it’s not just the bush administration… the government’s been throwing us treats like dogs for centuries… but the fact is.. we blame entirely too much of our country’s problems on the presidency…

          why not look towards the larger problem… the president is 1 voice.. 1 vote… and that vote can be overridden by a 3/4 vote of congress…

          congress who gets to vote for it’s own pay raises… congress who got to vote in it’s own retirement fund… how many of you realize that most of the federal government does not pay into social security at all.. in fact they have their own retirement program… and the lowest paid congressperson makes over 150k per year whether they’re in office or not for the rest of their lives.. is that fair…

          but yet somehow we find the need to gripe over a $2000 haircut… or that hurricanes choose to make landfall while the federal govt is on vacation… or that some states have governors and mayors who actually do thier jobs vs states that “needed a few days to figure out the outline” and cry “why has the federal government abandoned us”

          it’s all a crock of BS that we’ve been forcefed for way too long.. once upon a time the idea was to maintain a balanced ticket… now it’s just republican vs democrat.. once upon a time we actually did have freedoms… but face it.. welcome to the socialist states of america….

          shaman

        • #3108392

          You should be ashamed…

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to bush administration

          You have the right idea, but for the wrong reasons. As an IT geek, you should know better than to accept anything that you receive via email as gospel, yet you spout emailed inaccuracies like a fountain.

          All of the claims you make about Congress, pensions, & Social Security are false; that entire diatribe is debunked in many locations, the most prominent of which is here: http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/pensions.asp

          Additionally, I don’t doubt for a minute that you take advantage of many of the “socialist” amenities made available in our society: public roads, police protection, fire protection, public hospitals, unemployment insurance, etc.

          Don’t be a hypocrite. Learn to think for yourself and don’t “ditto” like a Rushie.

        • #3108384

          Income Tax

          by fore_thought ·

          In reply to bush administration

          Why havent they repealed Income Tax?

          It was created to wage war…and it’s still in effect today…

          Your money goes to KILL PEOPLE!

          And your money goes to pay those who VOTE to kill people…

          It’s my fault…and it’s your fault.

          We are to blame for all those people who are dying right now because we didn’t stand up and say no and our parents didn’t stand up and say no.
          Unpatriotic?
          If keeping the money I earn in my own pocket than in the pockets of power hungry madmen with no intelligence is unpatriotic…then so be it.
          Let’s repeal income tax.
          Then see what happens.
          Its ours anyway…they shouldnt be able to take it.

        • #3134552

          I Agree

          by wojnar ·

          In reply to bush administration

          So why do we allow activist judges to determine what is right for us ? When every poll EVER taken shows certain issues are not being handled as the people of our democracy are demanding, why do we continue to shrink back and fear ‘offending’ somebody ? Lets get back to our constitution and take back our country – proud to say we will not tollerate what is wrong.

          Too many democrats want to tell us what is best for us while they find ways around their own laws. Bush my not be a rocket scientist but at least he believes what he says and stands up for what he believes. It is called integrity and it was feared killed by the lawlessness of the Clintons.

        • #3133477

          “socialist states”

          by mjwx ·

          In reply to bush administration

          i beleive the level of regulation that the US gov impliments makes it the “facist states of america” or the “united states of national socialism”

          but thats my opinion looking at it from the outside.

        • #3108330

          search engine info

          by chernick.ron9 ·

          In reply to They were elected, but not by me

          You know that in some countries like france and germany its illegal to buy Hitler stuff, so if you started your search for historical medals and your search engine switched you to google France and it show some medal from Hitler’s army and offered it for sale, you might be trialed and in France then extradited to be jailed in FRance, just because you commited the crime on France’s Google search engine. Oh and by the way the supeona was for Google’s search engine so the Goverment could see what children found on the internet when seaching for porn, not child porn. And Google would have to turn over the search engine which is thier only business and hope no one leaked the program out after signing documents saying they wouldn’t, like someone is going to turn down $10,000 or more on the side just because they signed the non-disclosure document.

        • #3093985

          remrmber back to the 20’s

          by mjwx ·

          In reply to Don’t Worry, We’ll Take Care Of You….

          hitler was voted into power. voted head of the nazi party but then forced/usurped/subverted his way into the top job. but his was a time when it was 5 marks for a loaf of bread.

          My point is if people get desperate enough (or scared enough) they will readily accept a tyrant.

        • #3108149

          EXACTAMUNDO!!!!………

          by btljooz ·

          In reply to remrmber back to the 20’s

          We are in such a state of chaos now that people are FINALLY STARTING to see that the barn is on fire that we REALLY NEED to be EXTREMELY careful about how and whom we allow to take over the reins from Bush & Co.

          THIS is exactly what the ‘powers that be’ want so they can swipe their final blow to the shreds of what was once a great Country.

          We must NOT let that happen.

          I say keep electronic voting OUT of our elections. Allow more than only ONE (say three) committee made up of citizens to count all the MANUAL votes. (These committees may possibly be made up of people selected in the same manner as Jury Duty.)

          DISBAND the G-D Electoral College!!!!!!!!!!

          THEN and only then will have a modicum of a chance of regaining our own Country back from the Fascist regime that has been slowly picking it’s way to a complete coup of OUR Government.

        • #3108433

          Evil Wins, as long as it looks good on the news

          by robocso ·

          In reply to Don’t Worry, We’ll Take Care Of You….

          You are right.

          Evil triumphs when good people do nothing

        • #3093987

          Dont trust the govenment

          by mjwx ·

          In reply to Good point

          it’s the only way we can keep them honest 🙂

        • #3134713

          Agree wholeheartedly

          by return of django ·

          In reply to it’s not just the US thats affected

          Like mjwx, I believe that paedophiles, terrorists, drug cartels and the purveyors of so many of society’s evils should be prevented from spreading their pernicious creed.

          However, the US government has no right to impose its own restrictions on countries not bound by its own laws. (I’m sure some up and coming US Attorney can make a fortune out of representing non-US interests here)

          After all, by what authority do they claim moral rectitude? (As if they were squeaky clean eh?)

          They were not elected by the people of any other country than the USA itself and we, the people outside of the continental US are not yet under the total domination of their self opinionated claims to the moral high ground.

          I acknowledge that much of the rest of the world is at the mercy of American corporate interests, but there are many freedoms that we hold dear and the US Govenment ignores that at their (and its citizens’) reputational peril.

          Many Americans are puzzled as to why some nations, states, creeds, cultures and beliefs are so sceptical about, even hostile towards, the motives, aims and desires of the US administration, well for many, this latest attempt to impose their will says it all.

          Land of the free? Take a look!!
          Home of the brave? Well, we’ll see.

          “Can a society maintain its freedom when a government is permitted to conduct searches without reasonable proof of any wrong doings?”

          Emphatically – NO

          Can the world ever hope to attain even the most basic semblance of freedom when a government, not of their chosing, conducts searches without reasonable proof of any wrong doings and without their consent?

          Emphatically – NO

        • #3134217

          You guys have forgotten

          by dhaff ·

          In reply to it’s not just the US thats affected

          Sometime last year the UN gave the US authority to govern the internet on an international level for two reasons:

          1) We are the only country on the planet with the resources to do so,

          2) The Internet is our invention.

          So the DOJ has the International clout to make the rules stick! Therefor they have the right to protect the innocent by researching into a problem that most parents have been complaining about. It is not illegal for adults to go to adult sites. I don’t want my children to be enticed into this crap of Kiddie Porn!!!

          As for all of you George Orwell followers pay attention! Nixon got caught with his fingers in the cookie jar. All Billy did was lie about a blow job! I am a Democrat and applaud Pres. Bush for trying to keep more of you idiots from being blown to Kingdom Come!! twice they attacked the trade towers, Italion Rail Roads, Subway in London and still everyone is nervous about letting the gov. ridd us of these maggots! Some of those idiots on 9/11 got their pilot training right here in the USA. Doesn’t scare the scare you worse than than the DOJ finding out you went to whitehouse.com? People are dying at the hands of these fanatics! Do you not care?

        • #3108029

          Spanish railway, by the way

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to You guys have forgotten

          Never mind. Right continent, at least…

          As a resident of London, by the way, I don’t think that Bush is making me the slightest bit safer by anything that he’s doing. Quite the reverse, in fact.

          The UN wants to take control of the Internet [b]away[/b] from the US, by the way. I think that it’s on the basis that most spam and porn seems to originate in the US.

          Basically, your whole post is a load of bollocks.

        • #3134980

          Hmmm

          by dhaff ·

          In reply to Spanish railway, by the way

          Have you looked to see how many of those idiots are camped in your back yard? Those guys want to change you religion by force! But all you want to do is sit on your ass and do nothing! Leave them alone and we’ll all live together in harmony. WHAT A LOAD OF UNADULERATED SHIT!!

        • #3097016

          Another rubbish post from you, dhaff

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Hmmm

          We’re knee-deep in rubbish posts lately.

          Camped in my back yard? Well, if you mean militant Islamics who want to do me harm. Well, quite a lot more of them than before that silly pair of idiots Bush and Blair invaded the one Middle East state that wasn’t radically Islamic! I mean. How f*cking stupid can you be and still be the leader of a country? Well, we still don’t know but – tell you – it’s pretty stupid, looking at those two!

          I don’t have a religion so they’ll have a job changing it by force. Persuasion might work but I doubt it. In my country, 72 percent defined themselves as Christian, 2.7 percent defined themselves as Muslim and 16 percent specifically stated that they had no religion. That’s six times more atheists than Muslims! Well, the Muslims have a way to go, yet. They’d better get converting or get shagging…

          As for “living in harmony” – it’s people like you who prevent it with your racist crap. If you knew twice as much as you appear to, you’d be an idiot.

          Go away.

        • #3096991

          I don’t think so

          by dhaff ·

          In reply to Another rubbish post from you, dhaff

          Trust me. a gun to your stupid head could give you a whole brand new outlook on that. where born stupid or have you been working on it?

        • #3096979

          What gun?

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Another rubbish post from you, dhaff

          Look, sonny. I live in London. We’ve had the IRA bombing us and threatening to bomb us for most of the last thirty years. Most of that paid for by your countrymen. Now we’ve got mad Islamics. even more pissed off by our stupid invasion of Iraq.

          Don’t try and tell me how to deal with it. Sitting in your little town, you have no idea. Seen it on the TV have you? The place where I bought my morning paper has been bombed and the guy I bought it from was killed. The Islamic terrorists bombed a bus route and tube routes that I’ve travelled and will still use every day. I [b]heard[/b] the 7/7 bombs, [b]and [/b] I knew what it was.

          Waht do you want me to do. Go and kill someone with a turban? He’s probably a Sikh, by the way. Kill someone brown? He’s probably a Hindu? Kill the guy who runs my corner shop?

          I’ll try and find out who they are and stop them. I will also try and find out why they want to do it so, if I can change something, maybe meet them half-way, they might not find it easy to get new recruits.

          [b]You[/b] can take [b]your[/b] gun and shove it up your arse. Whether you load it is entirely up to you.

        • #3096967

          Is this fellow annoying you, Neil?

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Another rubbish post from you, dhaff

          If so, GWB has just given us all the opportunity to prosecute “annoyance” as a crime:

          http://news.com.com/Create%20an%20e-annoyance,%20go%20to%20jail/2010-1028_3-6022491.html

          I’d apologize for my country man, but as long as he has lived in the United States he has been free to not be a moron. The fact that he is a moron is a result of his own choices, and he can apologize for himself, if he ever “smartens up”.

        • #3096966

          Absolutely: No annoyance at all

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Another rubbish post from you, dhaff

          We are engaged in spirited dialogue. I’m taking the opportunity to lay out a few ideas and he is responding in kind. What kind? Well, that’s the question.

          As he’s from small-town Alabama and I’m not even close, we do have a bit of a cultural difference but that makes it all the more fun.

          Thanks for stopping by. 😀

        • #3107964

          I agree with neil

          by mjwx ·

          In reply to You guys have forgotten

          As a resident of Perth (Australia) GWB has not made my life any safer. fortunatly fear mongering doesn’t go down easily with Aussies (yeah im alert not alarmed little johnie).

          Presently the entire internet has a single point of failure. the centralised root DNS servers. this also gives the DOJ or DOD or any other american department the ability to exersice their own agenda over the internet. Maintaing the fredom of the internet, IMO is (or at least should be) the key point of the UN’s actions.

        • #3134182

          Britain disagrees, Australia disagrees, and more than 50% of USA disagrees

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to You guys have forgotten

          Iraq is the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time. And I do support the troops.

          “People are dying at the hands of these fanatics! Do you not care?”

          I care very much that people are dying at the hands of these (neo-conservative) fanatics. Al Qaeda has intelligent enough leaders to strike the World Trade Center, and the Pentagon, and the White House (edit: removed useless, inflammatory gibberish) in order to instill maximum terror, which is their dishonorable goal. The “most powerful man in the world” is the idiot: he invadedd the one Middle East country outside of Israel that isn’t rabid with Islamo-Fascism, and didn’t even check the date of the “intelligence” reports that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Iraq was by far not the friendliest government toward Al Qaeda.

          “I don’t want my children to be enticed into this crap of Kiddie Porn!!!”

          It isn’t the government’s (ie, the community’s, ie my) responsibilty to teach you how to use a firewall (such as the one included in Windows XP Service Pack 2) to allow only sites you have investigated & approved. You are on TechRepublic for crying out loud, don’t you know how to configure a firewall to reject by default, and permit only what you specify? If you can’t figure out how to do that, you shouldn’t reproduce, IT professional or not.

          “So the DOJ has the International clout to make the rules stick! Therefor they have the right to protect the innocent by researching into a problem that most parents have been complaining about.”

          Protect the innocent? Porn, kiddie or adult, does not crawl into your home through the Internet. It pops up repeatedly [b]if you first visit a porn site[/b]. If your kids are trying to get porn, you’re better off with a pile of pop-ups alerting you to your kids behavior than with another pile of meaningless, unenforceable laws giving you a false sense of security about one more aspect of your life that is your responsibility, not ours. Hillary was wrong about the village.

          Not only were the rail roads in Spain, but if they had been in Italy, they would have been “Italian” not “Italion”.

        • #3134163

          Edited because. . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Britain disagrees, Australia disagrees, and more than 50% of USA disagrees

          …..I can and I wanted to.

        • #3134137

          Witch, Wiiiiitch, burn her (or him)

          by mjwx ·

          In reply to Edited because. . . . .

          I hear a lot of name-calling from you max but few coherent arguments. After all I heard about the US I thought it was his constitutional right to say what ever he thought without having put up with any BS (isn’t it the same right you’ve been exercising) or at least being accused of treason just because they disagree with you.

          As US political history is not my forte so i cant quote your constitution, but hey it’s just a “piece of paper” according to GWB.

          Max, good luck in your witch hunt (hence the title) for commies, terroists, traitors, subversives, enemies of the state, so on and so forth.

        • #3133956

          You don’t understand the right of expression

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Witch, Wiiiiitch, burn her (or him)

          you DO have the right to express your opinions, but then everyone else has the same right to chastise you for your opinions.

          That is what you do with people that say stupid things like wishing some one would be killed. (in this particualar case)

          It is also the same way that people (sane people anyways) do not put up with hate speach from groups like the KKK. Mind you, I am utterly confused about how the naacp can get away with calling rice and powell “house slaves” and “tokens”. If that was a white person making statements about minorities that have achieved the highest postition in the entire history of our government, they would be labeled racists.

          So yes, you are free to say what you wish, but you are NOT free from other people saying what they wish about stupid things you have said.

          Freedom is a double edged sword and people forget that everyone else has the same right. You have NO right to “not have to put up with BS” because other people have rights to THEIR free speech.

          Max, I also wish you luck as hunting commies, terrorists, traitors, subversives, and enemies of the state is a noble undertaking.

        • #3092802

          I was referring specifically

          by mjwx ·

          In reply to Witch, Wiiiiitch, burn her (or him)

          To his right not to be accused of treason because he disagrees with the current administration.

        • #3092795

          mjwx@… I accused Absolutely of treason because. . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Witch, Wiiiiitch, burn her (or him)

          .
          ….he wanted the terrorists, declared enemies of the United States, the ones who attacked our country on 9-11, to succeed in killing the President of the United States, not because he simply disagrees with his policies. If you can’t see the distinction, you’re a moron. If you agree with him, your a traitor as well.

          I have ZERO tolerance for such people.

          I don’t care who’s sitting in the White House. I will NEVER condone anyone attempting to kill the President of the United States, and/or wish they would have succeeded. And for an American to wish such a thing is, in my book, both unconscionable and treasonous.

          And you go ahead and spout off about “free speech” as much as you want. I’ll spout right back.

        • #3092789

          Re: Accusations of treason

          by mjwx ·

          In reply to Witch, Wiiiiitch, burn her (or him)

          Max, first of all an accusation of treason is not to be taken lightly. If you want to charge a man with treason you will need more evidence than idle conversation to convince me (please see the definition of treason below).

          Secondly I AM AN AUSTRALIAN and damn proud of it. As an Australian I cannot be accused of treason 1. Against my state by a foreigner or 2. Against a foreign state as I am a foreigner (to that state).

          Treason is by definition, an internal crime.
          http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=treason

          I good sir, have not violated my allegiance to the Australian government or to the crown and I have little patience for slander of that kind.

        • #3092783

          mjwx@… – Australian? Fine, I stand corrected

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Witch, Wiiiiitch, burn her (or him)

          But the rest of my comments, are stated exactly as I see this to be. I don’t really care if you agree, disagree, mince-words, define differently, or whatever.

        • #3107180

          mjwx: Accusation of treason

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Witch, Wiiiiitch, burn her (or him)

          Max has been known to make coherent arguments about his right to do what he likes with his money. But when he talks about any other subject, he’s a font of pure rubbish. I hope that helps you waste less of your time reading nonsense from Maxwell, mjwx.

        • #3093452

          Once and for all

          by mjwx ·

          In reply to Witch, Wiiiiitch, burn her (or him)

          This discussion is not doing my blood pressure any good (I don?t think it?s doing anyone?s blood pressure any good) so I think I will bow out of this discussion. Regardless of my opinion of GWB, he is an American and therefore I should leave it to the US to sort him out.

          I will leave with the point I came with which is other countries (like Australia) are going to be affected if the US DOJ starts to look through internet search records. I?d like to think that sovereignty was my primary concern.

          Just to avoid confusion, I used the word sovereignty to mean “government free from external control” (which is one of its dictionary definitions).

        • #3135037

          You have the right to your opinion, Max.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Edited because. . . . .

          Threats are not protected by the First Amendment, however. One day, long after you’ve completed kindergarten, you’ll learn that adults don’t talk like this: “I’d kick your ass if you were in front of me right now.”

          I would rather have the World Trade Center standing and 3000 more civilians alive than the traitor Bush’s right-hand man & partner in crime Cheney. I think that makes me a better patriot than you.

        • #3135023

          Absolutely – Spare me. . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to You have the right to your opinion, Max.

          …the silly kindergarten crap. I’m sure I’m not the only one you just absolutely disgusted by suggesting what you did. And in my opinion, a wish such a that is tantamount to being a traitor. And spare me the right to speech crap as well. Spout all you want, you friggin’ jerk, and I’ll spout back to you as much as I want.

          You wish that the enemies of our country had succeeded in killing our president, which would have killed untold number of others, destroying or damaging one of our national institutions. You should be ashamed of yourself.

          Any respect I may have had for you is gone. You’re a scum-bag. You’re disgusting. You’re even worse than Osama bin Laden, in my book. You’re about the lowest form of life I’ve ever known.

          Stay away from me. Of course, I can’t stop you from posting what and when you want, but let it be known you are not welcome in my discussions. You are not welcome to even read my messages, much less post a reply. You are so unpalatable to me, there are no words to describe it. You’re that bad. Now stay away from me you friggin’ traitor.

        • #3133978

          Liberal thinking , a mental disorder

          by wknaack9 ·

          In reply to Britain disagrees, Australia disagrees, and more than 50% of USA disagrees

          Im sorry for your imbedded liberal thinking. aren’t you glad you live in a country where you can say anything you want with out being put in jail or worse? The freedom we enjoy in America was fought for by real men, not by whiners like you! I was in the military.We now have an all volunteer military.You should ” volunteer with Cindy Sheehan” liberalism is a mental disorder!SemperFi……………………………….

        • #3133916

          Let them rant

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Liberal thinking , a mental disorder

          the more they rant, the more the middle of the road people see just how friggen nuts they are and will want nothing to do with them.

          Thanks to people like Dean, Gore and Kerry, I see the Dems falling even further from grace than they are now and they will not obtain the political POWER that they lust for.

          And I personally DO apreciate the people that have served and ARE serving in the militart. I do not say I support the troops and what a shame their are terrorising women and children and abusing their religious beliefs. Some support….

          So yes, let them rant and rave from the tallest mountain. Won’t be long before they slip and fall all the way down.

        • #3135036

          Don’t stand in line behind idiots JD.

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Let them rant

          Your country has become what it is based on the ability for each person to vote as THEY deem suitable. Each individual can pick and choose who he/she feels will work in their best interests.

          This is also the entire reason (at least as touted by Republicans) that your country is at war. You are spreading the ability for the people of a given country to choose who they as individuals feel should be running their country.

          Now if you TRULY beliee that’s why you aer at war, which I am sure even the staunchest republican doesnt really believe deep down inside, then why would you slander and defame someone for exercising that democracy that your nation has so proudly boasted for the last several hundred years. If someone doesn’t vote for YOUR choice of president, that is entirely up to them and YOU as a happy Yankee, should quickly recognize and accept that proudly, but you don’t.

          So the whole basis of America and democracy is really just hypocrisy. And yet you feel it is your duty to impose that hypocrisy on all other nations, or else they are considered the enemy.

          Now as for distatste for those who elected and support Bush, Bush has lashed out and defamed your country’s good name worldwide. There isn’t a country on the planet that thinks very highly of America anymore. Therefore those who supported and elected Bush and the Republican party should be held accountable for thier actions. Their choices have had a negative effect on millions of lives all over the globe, and yet for some reason you are all so pig headedly proud of it. THAT’S sad, pathetic and inexcusable.

          Liberals and Dems are not in power, how can you possibly discount someone who has not had an oportunity to show their ability in such a role? It’s just pure speculation and disrepsect, hatred toward your fellowman, for no logical reason whatsoever.

        • #3135001

          yes yes yes

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Let them rant

          the same “allies” that are getting comfortably in bed with Iran right now because they are most concerned with their financial dealings than of if Iran should be ALLOWED to make nukes.

          The US has been attacked repeatedly long before Bush got in office, which is exactly why your “the world hates America all because of the cowboy” rant always ring hollow. It undermines YOUR credibility when you start talking about things that otherwise would make sence.

          Both times the attacks against the trade center happened, one was Clinton in office (who you claim the world loved) and the second time Bush hadn’t been in office LONG enough to have pissed off the people that had already been in America for a year planning this attact.

          Does it suck being in Iraq? Of course it does, but only a complete idiot would say we should/could just pull out and go home now.

          The left has gone completely insane, but because you don’t LIKE the right, you refuse to admit it.

          If I don’t want to be in line behind an idiot, I guess no shopping at Walmart for me! (which I don’t anyways).

        • #3096980

          How did you reach such a conclusion from my post?

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Let them rant

          I have NEVER said that America was not facing terrorism before Bush, that is just pure BS.

          I have never said “the world hates America all because of the cowboy” The world DOES hate America more since Bush has stayed in office and started a war without justification.

          There are many reasons most peopl ehave always disliked America, but “the cowboy” has just made that impression worse by bringing out the worst of the American people that echo such ignorant comments as kill the towelheads.

          More of your lies:”one was Clinton in office (who you claim the world loved)”
          I ave never claimed that the world loved Clinton. I have said he was far more charismatic than Bush, I have said that I personally thought he was more sincere than Bush, but I have never EVER said that the world loved Clinton, nor have I said that I would have even voted for him if I was American.

          More BBS: “but only a complete idiot would say we should/could just pull out and go home now.”

          Please, and I challenge you here, find a SINGLE post where I have even HINTED at such a resolution. I have said on many occasions, it’s too late for you to pull out now, my complaint about this entire war is not objective of the war itselft, it’s the justification to go at it alone based on false information that should have been questioned, that other nations said should be interrogated further before launching an invasion but your president thought he knew better and ordered the invasion. He was wrong, he was wrong then, he was wrong yesterday and he is STILL wrong today. Meanwhile Americans die every single day in this unjustified and globally questioned attack.

          And finallly, “The left has gone completely insane, but because you don’t LIKE the right, you refuse to admit it.”

          Absolute complete BS. I have said more than once, I think in this thread alone, that the left is no more screwed up and off base as the right. The right is completely insane, as is the left. If you would spend more time looking for middle ground, instead of constantly distancing yourselves from each other, you would actually be a far stronger nation as a whole.

        • #3096913

          I didn’t say

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Let them rant

          that YOU were the idiot wanting us to pull out now, but many on the wacked out left DO want us out NOW and the hell with anything else.

          Ok, the entire world hated the US less before Bush attacked Iraq.

          As for many of the UN and the Allies, it didn’t matter what the inspectors found. France, Germany and Russia had so many financial ties that they weren’t going to do anything ever. The same is now happening in Iran, or aren’t you following that?

          as for the clinton love being a lie, think of that as “satire” of things you have said. 😀 love was not the words you used.

        • #3135043

          LOL

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Liberal thinking , a mental disorder

          “America was fought for by real men, not by whiners like you!”

          So where does that leave all the right wing preachers complaining that Kerry was a backstabbing whiner? Didn’t he actually fight for America, unlike your current furor. Or was Kerry a Republican that was banished for not standing up as a republican and he then became a two-faced backstabber?

          According to your comments, Kerry is a democratic MAN that fought for America.

          So I guess when you say ‘Liberals’, you really mean JUST Liberals, as if you can possibly pigeonhole an entire portion of your democracy based on their decisions to vote in a democracy.

          How does that work? The US is a free democracy, as long as you vote for who we think you should vote for?

          Give your head a good shake, you narrow minded, sorry, ‘closed’ minded fool.

          Just the entire basis of your argument is a complete contradiction for what your country was founded on.

        • #3135011

          Help, help, he called me a “whiner”! :(

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Liberal thinking , a mental disorder

          “The freedom we enjoy in America was fought for by real men, not by whiners like you!”

          And it’s defended by intellectuals who are able to see through the slogan “national defense” and identify the liars who want to watch and steal from their personal enemies using public resources. That’s what wiretapping without a warrant permits, and that’s why the Fourth Amendment was written. Without a warrant, search & seizure is illegal. That is the freedom we used to enjoy.

          Who is Cindy Sheehan?

        • #3134982

          Cindy Sheehan?

          by dhaff ·

          In reply to Help, help, he called me a “whiner”! :(

          Her son gave his life in Iraq and now she is protesting like a some of San Fanciso peace at any cost Jerks.

        • #3134981

          Cindy Sheehan?

          by dhaff ·

          In reply to Help, help, he called me a “whiner”! :(

          Her son gave his life in Iraq and now she is protesting like a some of San Fanciso peace at any cost Jerks. She is not a jerk though just a saddened mother.

        • #3134971

          Saddened mother?

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Help, help, he called me a “whiner”! :(

          no, she passed that a long time ago.

          I am going to venture that AB was more asking who she is because she is insignificant, not that he didn’t know WHO she is.

          She has repeatedly embarrassed herself and was used and thrown aside by the Dem powers that be after they got in the limelight and then saw her for the nutjob she is.

          That is why she had her meeting with President Bush, said she believed him and then turned around and called him a lier and demanded ANOTHER meeting so she could press a point of DEMANDING we bring all troops home right now. An idea only the dumbest or most insane of people would advocate. She is somewhere in between.

        • #3134904

          Intellectual

          by wknaack9 ·

          In reply to Help, help, he called me a “whiner”! :(

          We all have our own view of what freedom means. I stand for the Constitution. But we are living in dire times. These mouslem terrorests are out to cut all our “infidel” thoats while some of you think its going to go away. Well, it wont ! so, get with the program!We are headed for a “One World Government,” Look at England and all the cameras, pointing every where.We as a nation must stand firm.

        • #3097001

          Actually, JD, both.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Help, help, he called me a “whiner”! :(

          I really didn’t know who she is, or why she has been in the news. I took a guess that since I didn’t know her name, but that it was used in a political conversation, that she was an example of the type of “news” I always ignore: some unlucky, otherwise unremarkable person picked by one party or the other as an example of the anonymous constituents, and the party’s “commitment” to help us. The fact is, neither party has “our” best interests in mind. Each person on Earth has their own best interests in mind, and nothing else. Some incorporate popularity into their plans for their own success, but that is the closest thing in the world to the myth called altruism. News stories about people who weren’t elected, appointed by those who were elected, or personally responsible for significant innovations in industry, are a waste of my time.

          Now that I know a little bit more about Cindy Sheehan, and am not a bit better for that knowledge, I consider my point made. I don’t care about [b]her[/b], and whichever party is or was trying to use her at some time ought to be able to make their point rationally, without playing on our emotions. That kind of thing is a waste of everybody’s time, including Cindy Sheehan’s

        • #3134979

          Whew

          by dhaff ·

          In reply to Britain disagrees, Australia disagrees, and more than 50% of USA disagrees

          Evidently you live in a small house with only one computer. What if you are not home? Your into networking, so how many viruses and scripts are letting in thru those pop ups? Hey they are spying on you!! a guy like you should hate that!!!

        • #3089624

          Apology to Maxwell Edison

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Britain disagrees, Australia disagrees, and more than 50% of USA disagrees

          I still don’t like GWB, at all, and I think we’d be better led by the greenest intern in the White House, but it was in embarrassingly bad taste to wish anybody dead. Furthermore, international rule of law depends crucially on diplomatic immunity, and a legal treatment of the job of Head of State as sacred. Without special protection for the individuals who are the legal, political leaders of their nations to the world, nobody will be willing to take those jobs, and chaos could easily reign. It seemed “clever” when I typed it, but it was irresponsible, and I wouldn’t like to stand trial for treason on the literal meaning of those words. If the NSA is paying attention, I truly hope they read this apology before they track down the alias “Absolutely”.

          I don’t hope for anybody’s death, I just dislike George Walker Bush’s policies. Nevertheless, long live the President (and everybody else).

        • #3135045

          The internet was WHO’s invention?

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to You guys have forgotten

          TECHNICALLY, the Internet was invented by the USA in 1957 and expanded on in 1969 as a way to retain communications if Russia attacked the USA.

          BUT, the World Wide Web, the internet as we all know and use it today, was NOT invented in the USA it was invented by Tim Berners-Lee, an Englishman living in Switzerland.

          Now between the OLD DOJ internet and the WWW, there have been dozens of people all over the world who invented separate technologies that today are all used to make the internet the surf friendly place we know today; packet switching, TCPIP, ARPANET etc. So really the world wide web was invented world wide and nOT by the USA as you sdeem to have been duped into believing. Friggin’ US propaganda as always.

        • #3135018

          Oz, where’d you get your info?

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to The internet was WHO’s invention?

          .
          http://www.walthowe.com/navnet/history.html

          http://www.davesite.com/webstation/net-history.shtml

          Sorry, dude, like it or not, this one IS an instance of the USA leading the way, with the rest of the world either following or simply enhancing after the fact. You just can’t bring yourself to admit it, can you?

        • #3134970

          Unless

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Oz, where’d you get your info?

          adding features later on includes you in the invention stage somehow?

          So everytime someone develops a new routing protocol, they are inventing the internet! Cool, Cisco invented the internet!

          Even though Gates original stance was that the internet was just a fad, they came out with IE much later on but are still inventers of the internet!

          wait a minute. that is just stupid. oh, we already knew that? oh yeah. Just OZ hating the world owing anything to the US. Next he will be telling us we have no right to retain the root servers WE put in place…… :p

        • #3096994

          update your info!!

          by dhaff ·

          In reply to Unless

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cisco_Systems,_Inc.#Corporate_history

          they did not even make the first router!! They took an idea and made it workable. Also, Stanford is in Palo Alto CA. that’s Califonia US for our Canadian friends. Now where would they have come up with such technol ideas?

          The Internet as we know it today is a consortium of technologies invented by different companies. For your closed minded info, Bill Gates invisioned all computers being wierd together in the 70′.

        • #3096992

          Root servers

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Unless

          If you retained full control of the Root servers, I wonder if you would have had plans to filter out any root server DNS access from beyond your borders. No, Of course you wouldn’t. Luckily, quite a few of the Root servers are outside the US, now, and I just want them all to be distributed and out of any one – or even ten – country’s control and I’ll be happy. I say this because I’m [b]not[/b] an American citizen and I don’t want you – or anybody – to control something so internationally important.

          I probably trust you to run the Internet according to American principles of – well, whatever. Money? Self-interest? I trust you to be responsible sole guardians of a resource that is rapidly becoming vital to the world economy. Of course I do…

          Unless it suited your purpose.

          Actually, what I really want is the Root DNS servers taken away from those sh:ts at Verisign. After their Sitefinder episode when they hijacked every unowned name for their own advertising I think they lost any credibility. I’d rather your goverment still own it than them!

        • #3096988

          Gates: Update *your* info

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Unless

          Gates spent the 1970s at school, at college and, finally, in ripping off software and – at the same time – whingeing to computer hobbyists about people ripping off his software.

          Check him out. Though he might have been commercially successful, he’s a bit of a hypocritical sh:t and his company has continued in the footsteps of the founder. And he did miss out on the Internet though, typically, he’s making up for lost time. He will eventually try and claim it for his own as Micro$oft’s proprietary standards become de facto standards.

        • #3096987

          You’re right it is just stupid.

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Unless

          ” the World Wide Web was invented by Tim Berners-Lee in 1989, with the first working system deployed in 1990, while he was working at CERN (the European Organization for Nuclear Research). He went on to found the World Wide Web Consortium, which seeks to standardize and improve World Wide Web-related things such as the HTML markup language in which web pages are written.

          Tim Berners-Lee wrote the first web browser and the first web server. Tim Berners-Lee invented both the HTML markup language and the HTTP protocol used to request and transmit web pages between web servers and web browsers, in addition to coining the phrase “World Wide Web.”

          http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/Overview.html

          As I said before, BUT, the World Wide Web, the internet [b]AS WE ALL KNOW AND USE IT TODAY[/b](as the World Wide Web, was NOT invented in the USA it was invented by Tim Berners-Lee, an Englishman living in Switzerland.

          Internet Protocol (IP) was ‘defined’ by Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn, but the World Wide Web, the common ‘Internet’ we know and use was created by Tim Berners Lee.

          So once again, if you paid attention and had some form of comprehension when reading;
          “TECHNICALLY, the Internet was invented by the USA in 1957”

          “BUT, the World Wide Web, the internet as we all know and use it today, was NOT invented in the USA it was invented by Tim Berners-Lee, an Englishman living in Switzerland.”

          Now I am sure that working in your field, no matter where you were educated, you will agree that the W3C has brought the internet to us in the surf friendly way we know it today. The W3C was developed and founded by an Englishman not an American.

          As far as Max’s pathetic little comments like, “You just can’t bring yourself to admit it, can you?” This is just stupidity in words, I couldn’t care less if it was invented by Saddam Hussein or George Bush while in grade school, it makes no difference.

          To think of it as an issue of personal pride is ridiculous, it makes no difference whatsoever to anyone in the world, who’s country invented the internet…unless you find some sort of pathetic pride in claiming it was your country’s invention, which is just weak and sad.

        • #3096977

          dhaff , are you daft?

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Unless

          I never said Cisco was the first router, just that they have introduced new routing protocols.

          This was to point at the flaws of Oz’s claim that people that came along later on and added to the work in progress are also to be considered to be “creators” if the internet.

          Read what people type, not what you want to see.

          As for Neil, “you poor old sod, you see, it’s only, me” 😀

          Root servers should be independant of all governments (like it is now) and keep the bastards from the UN away from it as well as all the individual members of said corrupt UN.

        • #3096971

          Again JD, that was NOT said

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Unless

          You keep creating things I say when in relity I was VERY clear as ot what I was referring to.

          “This was to point at the flaws of Oz’s claim that people that came along later on and added to the work in progress are also to be considered to be “creators” if the internet.”

          I claimed no such thing. I claimed the INTERNET AS WE KNOW IT TODAY (which would be the WORLD WIDE WEB, W3C)was not an American invention….I said the technologies used for developing the internet into todays user friendly internet were developed by many people, which you have misconstrued, as always, to mean that anyone adding technology to the internet is now a creator of the internet (which actually is not that far off at all).

          I EVEN said that TECHNICALLY, ths US invented the internet, or did you decide to not read that as it didn’t support your conclusion?

          Instead of concluding based on how your feelings and automatic defense mechanisms lead you, try actually reading and trying to understand what people are saying for once.

        • #3096910

          “as we know it”

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Unless

          If your going to go that route, the internet “as we know it today” isn’t the same as it was in 89 either.

          Adding to something, including making it better does not make you a creator.

          You may wish to give “Tim Berners-Lee” his due credit for adding functionality, which is entirely valid, but it does NOT make them a “creator” of the internet. Try “creator of html” if it gets your rocks off.

          [i]”To think of it as an issue of personal pride is ridiculous, it makes no difference whatsoever to anyone in the world, who’s country invented the internet…unless you find some sort of pathetic pride in claiming it was your country’s invention, which is just weak and sad.”[/i]
          For something that makes no difference, your spending a lot of time talking about it?

        • #2575368

          a_forums….

          by boxfiddler ·

          In reply to Unless

          it is only a matter of time…

      • #3258362

        Your not quite right

        by xgi ·

        In reply to I don’t like it one bit

        I was with you until the last paragraph. The “Hats off to Google” remark makes my blood curl. As an elder in the IT community and an ex Marine, I am tired of hearing people automatically assume our government is up to no good whenever they do something we don?t understand.

        Here is what I understand: the basic function of government is to protect its people. There are a tremendous number of people in this world that would rather see us gone. I also understand that recently Google launched a search engine in China. The Google.cn version of their product is helping to enforce the Chinese governments? censorship of ?material about human rights?, as reported in our local newspaper. The ?cn? suffix is reserved for official Chinese government sites. Any search pertaining to ?democracy?, ?human rights?, or anything else the Chinese government deems subversive to its cause are redirected to official government sites.

        I must assume Google entered into this business arrangement to increase its profit margin. So perhaps they would not comply with our governments requests because there wasn?t any profit in it.

        I also know that if there was one US citizen that has been damaged by our governments anti terrorist activities, we would see that person in every news medium available, every day. I haven’t seen that.

        • #3258356

          how do you know that?

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Your not quite right

          “I also know that if there was one US citizen that has been damaged by our governments anti terrorist activities, we would see that person in every news medium available, every day.”

          How do you know that? Wiretaps do not make the phone click, or the Internet “hiccup” or leave any other observables to the parties being tapped. THAT’S WHY THEY WORK! So how would somebody know that any damage they suffered was caused by an illegal wiretap?

          The only way to learn about abuses of government power is via a whistle-blower who still understands that laws exist for a reason, and that the reason for the Constitution is to keep individuals from becoming too powerful even when they are employed by the government.

          Finally, why should I care that you’re an ex Marine? As a citizen of the United States, I am tired of former soldiers who treat their military experience as a trump card in every discussion. In this discussion, past employment by the government only calls your objectivity and credibility into question.

        • #3110245

          I know that because…

          by xgi ·

          In reply to how do you know that?

          There is an entire political party and a couple of million Bush haters out there spending 24 hours a day trying to find some proof that our government is harming our citizens. It they found just one thread of evidence we would all know about it.

          I replied to a post from “American Voter? that label was already taken. The fact that I am an exMarine is only to empathize that I am just as committed to my country as any ?American Voter?. Why should you care? If not for the military and their commitment to our country people like you would be stuck in the ?free? world that everyone else on this planet enjoys. Perhaps you should get treatment for your paranoia instead of looking for conspiracies behind everything the government does.

          Like most government haters you seem to have ignored the fact that Google has no problem in assisting the Chinese government in suppressing the freedom of its people. Why does my military service bother you and Googles two-faced attitude doesn?t? If you are so jealous of the ex-military guys perhaps you should join up and get an understanding of the experience.

        • #3110170

          Bad premises, jarhead.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to I know that because…

          “Perhaps you should get treatment for your paranoia instead of looking for conspiracies behind everything the government does.

          Like most government haters you seem to have ignored the fact that Google has no problem in assisting the Chinese government in suppressing the freedom of its people. Why does my military service bother you and Googles two-faced attitude doesn?t?”

          You assume that I think the neo-cons’ conspiracy is shared by all bureaucrats at all levels of government. I do not. You assume that I hate the government. I do not. You assume that I approve of putting the most efficient search engine on the planet at the service of the most powerful communist power on Earth. I do not. You assume that your military service bothers me. I do not. I meant [b]exactly[/b] what I said, no more and no less. You, as a former Marine, have every right to be proud of your effort and the ideals that motivated you to join the military. You do not, as a former Marine have any right to expect others to withhold their opinion in deference to your status. [b]The[/b] great thing about my country is that everybody’s opinion is considered on the merit of the opinion, not based on their profession or any other aspect of their social status.

          edited to add: That’s how the best ideas win.

        • #3110086

          Why not stick to the issue?

          by xgi ·

          In reply to Bad premises, jarhead.

          First: I never said at anytime that I expect anyone to withhold their opinion because of anything I think or have to say. I will say that there is no reason to turn a discussion into a personal attack. Your statement,? Finally, why should I care that you’re an ex Marine? As a citizen of the United States, I am tired of former soldiers who treat their military experience as a trump card in every discussion. In this discussion, past employment by the government only calls your objectivity and credibility into question.? is something less than a discussion of the facts. In my original post I said that I agreed with everything the gentleman had to say, but he left out an important part of Google?s story.

          I have read most of your posts and you sing the song of a rabid anti-government hater in every one. You have not given attention in any response to the real story. The government is attempting to revive the Child Pornography Online law. It was struck down by the liberal Supreme Court as unconstitutional. Frankly, I can not understand what part of our constitution protects child pornography. In Google?s response they stated that they would not comply because ?it would violate the privacy rights of its users and reveal company trade secrets? As a programmer I can tell you their fear is revealing the fact that they collect far more information about us than our government ever did. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with cookies and temp pages with no expiration date, IP address tracking and many other of the techniques employed by Web pages to track our activities. I don?t know about anyone else but I have never input any personal information when doing a search on Google, so what part of my privacy are they protecting? In theory they don?t know I exist, what habits of mine are they trying to hide? I despise people who deal in child porn and really don?t give a damn if my government decides to shoot them on site. American Voter said his hat is off to Google. My hat is off to Microsoft, AOL, and anyone else that assists in squashing these scum.

        • #3110012

          .

          by noyoki ·

          In reply to Why not stick to the issue?

          .

        • #3110010

          Read this one! I couldn’t edit the other till later!…

          by noyoki ·

          In reply to Why not stick to the issue?

          Excuse the double post. I couldn’t get to the other one to edit it.

          > “I despise people who deal in child porn and really don?t give a damn if my government decides to shoot them on site.”

          The my issue with that statement, comes with ‘grabbing the wrong guy’. You can’t bring an innocent back to life once you’ve shot him/her. You can bring them out of jail, but it’s never the same. (Once branded a child-molester/child-porn-maker/etc, the inmates don’t make your life “easy”, and the guards turn their backs on you while they do it.)

          Google collects your IP address and places a cookie on your computer. put simply (it’s alot more complex than this), your IP can lead anyone straight to your house, and the cookie tells you which computer AND the cookie is stored under your personal login (“c:\documents and settings\tears\cookies” for Windows 2k/XP (NT as well I believe)).

          If 4 people use 1 computer with the same login, that’s a bit different and harder to trace, but most people either have their own computers or at least their own logins.

          And what happens if my brother was using my login when he was doing his thing? (I don’t have a brother, this is hypothetical. Insert roommate, friend, sister, cousin, whomever you like.) Then *I* look like the culprit for all intents & purposes. All the downloaded pics are somewhere under my account, the cookies are all on my account, and there’s not a thing I can do or say if the brother doesn’t turn around and say, “It wasn’t her, it was me.” (Which, if he was using my account instead of his in the first place (trying to hide), I doubt he would do.)

          Makes me glad I’m the only one that uses this computer and I have a lock on my door. (At least I don’t THINK my flatmate has a key…)

          Paranoid much? Not really IRL. But would you trust just anyone (cousin comes over, wants to check his e-mail) with unsupervised usage of your computer with this law? I wouldn’t.

        • #3109607

          Oh, you want to get back on topic, now?

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Why not stick to the issue?

          You have the right to stop responding any time, xgi.

          For the record, here is where you said you expect people to defer to your status as a former Marine:

          “The “Hats off to Google” remark makes my blood curl. As an elder in the IT community and an ex Marine, I am tired of hearing people automatically assume our government is up to no good whenever they do something we don?t understand.”

          Government of the people, by the people, and for the people means that if the government is doing something without telling us all, they are up to no good.

          Anti-government: not me. Government is better than anarchy, unless it’s tyranny. If you were an honest individual, you would see that when I rail against any government policy, it is on the grounds that the policy is tyrannical. If you were intelligent and observant, you would see that I have never once called for abolition of government. I am not anti-government. I am pro-liberty.

        • #3109164

          Semper Fi

          by networthy ·

          In reply to I know that because…

          I’m with YOU xgi! Thanks for your brave service to our country!

        • #3108994

          How Times Have Changed

          by vicdelta ·

          In reply to Semper Fi

          (Hmmmm. Nobody cared about GI’s when we returned from Asia in the 1970’s. Now everyone is a GI lover. My guess is that most of the ‘lovers’ were never in a uniform. I have found that the closer one was to war, the less likely he or she wanted to talk about it.)

          A while back we guarded our freedom and believed in democracy. We wanted to show the world what democracy was like. It’s pretty hard to show what democracy is like when you are spying on your own citizens. It’s pretty hard to say to China, don’t censor the internet and then do the same through duplicity by making your own citizens uneasy about what they do in private.

          Every time I read articles and discussions about these topics, Ben Franklin’s quote on liberty and security come to mind. Lately I have been thinking about Ben a lot.

        • #3108962

          Ben is good, BUT…

          by networthy ·

          In reply to How Times Have Changed

          I take it you fought in nam? If so, thank you for your service to our country.

          Knowing what the enemy is up to whether they are “citizens” or NOT is a very complicated, yet necesary matter. I am a Network manager for a division of DHS and hold a security clearence that makes me privy to classified information. Believe me when I say that what Bush is doing is right on when it comes to the inside/outside threat. We are at war with an enemy hell bent on either killing us, or converting us. I can’t explain it any clearer than that. It’s not something that the average uniformed citizen can grasp without seeing the threats that are truly out there. Think of it as “bad poker”. Showing your cards before playing your hand is a pretty silly thing to do. A hate-filled left-wing media with an agenda for “getting Bush” has really done an injustice to the American people. It really undermines the serious work ahead of us in the Government. Xgi knows this all to well.

        • #3108700

          networthy makes a good point, but…

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to How Times Have Changed

          he also asks us to take on faith:

          (1) that he actually has access to information we do not

          (2) that his analysis of that information is honest & intelligent.

          Government of the people, by the people, for the people means that we do not take the government on faith, but that the government is accountable to us in all things.

        • #3108671

          Way off base

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to How Times Have Changed

          You are way out of touch with reality if you can compare spying on people conversing with known terrorists with the complete censorship of all desenting ideas in China.

          No one is stopping the sharing of information, and no one is stopping you from living your life.

          As long as your not talking over-seas to a known terrorist, you have nothing to fear of them listening in.

          The government is NOT listening to the general in state conversations.

          Please tell me just WHAT freedom have YOU lost, and explain exactly how you lost it.

          If your talking to known terrorists, then I DO hope that your conversations are being taped.

          What is it YOU have to be uneasy about? Guilt complex? Sounds like you have something to hide.

        • #3107692

          Freedom from Intimidation

          by vicdelta ·

          In reply to How Times Have Changed

          The present Executive and Legislative Branches of the Federal government are hell bent on getting involved in my private life. If they have their way that will soon include the Judicial Branch. I hate that. Asking for internet usage data is intimidation pure and simple. It?s got nothing to do with terrorists or anyone else trying to do harm. It?s being able to say, We can check you out any time so be careful what you do, because we will be watching. You all live under a government like that. I?ll be trying to change it come this Fall.

          Now let me ask you something–how many of you would write a sentence like the last one and not get a twinge of worry because someone would misinterpret it and come knocking on your door?

        • #3134751

          Semper Fi

          by too old for it ·

          In reply to I know that because…

          (1974 – 1978)

          I wonder at what point openness and freedom in the USA are no longer convenient to Google’s business plan, and they start to suppress them here?

          I also notice that Google doesn’t seriously hire lots of former military personnel …

        • #3134746

          Google?

          by jamesg ·

          In reply to Semper Fi

          What do their hiring practices have to do with anything? Being ex-military gives you soe “right” to any job you want? Perhaps the inteligence quota doesn’t match their requirements? Another right wing Ollie North cry baby.

        • #3134738

          It is you military haters …

          by too old for it ·

          In reply to Google?

          Not a right, an opportunity.

          It used to be that having spent some time in the military protecting the American way of life would get you at least an interview when you applied for a job.

          No longer. Now your resume gets shitcanned because if you went to the military, you obviously aren’t the right fit, you are too old, you are not a team player …

          Or are you adding to the list that being in the military makes one too stupid for a job at your firm?

          Personally, I have a preference for hiring vets. When you ask them to do something, they get it done. Period.

        • #3134693

          USAF ’75-’99

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to Google?

          Actually, the attitude I get the biggest kick out of is the automatic assumption that if you are/were military you WANT to go out and get shot at!

          The rank and file in the military are anything but warmongers. Most of us simply feel a need to give something back to the country that made it possible for us to speak the words we speak without fear of the midnight knock on the door.

        • #3133517

          Too Old For IT: unqualified applicants will not be interviewed

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Google?

          “It used to be that having spent some time in the military protecting the American way of life would get you at least an interview when you applied for a job.”

          First, I hope not. Nobody should ever get even an interview for a job if their resume clearly shows that they cannot do the job.

          Second, things change. Maybe there is less special treatment available for vets than there previously was, in the unspecified time to which you refer. If so, the superlative job training that the military advertises on television must be at least enough to compete against the unskilled fools who don’t even have the military to teach us marketable skills. After all, the government would never lie to us. Would it?

        • #3133347

          That was then …

          by too old for it ·

          In reply to Google?

          My hero in the job-hunting arena, whom we’ll call Gene, came home from his tour in the Korean Unpleasantness on a Friday. Got drunk, and stayed drunk all weekend. On Monday his brother got him breakfast, a cup of coffee, and took him to the plant manager at the local (Green Bay) paper converting plan, and they hired his hung over butt on the spot. Stayed there 35 years.

          I’m not suggesting that companies make space for unqualified candidates (tho making some new positions available, other than door guard, for returning vets would make one a good corporate citizen). But let us not assume that, simply because one enlisted, one is too stupid to work for your organization. Get your nose out of the air.

          The problem is that the returning vet represents a policy you abhor, and since you feel powerless to “do something” about it, not unlike the protestors who spit on returning Vietnam Vets while calling them “baby killers”, you deny any and all enlisted vets job opportunities.

          Also, the returning vet is something you are not. And much as I dislike long anonymous quotes, here goes:

          I am a soldier.
          My blood permeates the soil of many countries.

          I have gasped my last breath on many a desolate
          stretch of beach. For you…all of you, the children
          who play in the parks, the mothers who watch over them,
          the fathers who struggle to sustain them.

          There are those here who have belittled and reviled me,
          who have made a mockery of me and what I stand for.
          You, also, have I suffered and died for.
          I withstood heat, insects and disease
          So the right to dissent would be yours.

          I endured the pain and terror of battle and the maiming
          of my body to ensure that you might worship as
          you please. I died in agony in order that you,
          no matter who or what you are,
          Have the freedom to choose your own destinies.

          AND I WOULD DO IT AGAIN
          because I believe in the ideals that made this country
          what it is today… FREE.
          I love her with a deep and abiding love
          that transcends mere physical pain.

          I AM A SOLDIER.
          Pray that I will always be there,
          for if I disappear from this country, so will you.

          ~ Anonymous ~

        • #3133295

          I skipped the song & dance.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Google?

          Your assumptions are incorrect:

          “The problem is that the returning vet represents a policy you abhor, and since you feel powerless to “do something” about it, not unlike the protestors who spit on returning Vietnam Vets while calling them “baby killers”, you deny any and all enlisted vets job opportunities.”

          Your trick, attributing words to me that I didn’t say and beliefs that I don’t hold and haven’t expressed, is old and ineffective. I don’t disagree with the premise that a job well done deserves respect. I also believe that military service clearly demonstrates some character traits that are important in many jobs, but skills are also non-negotiable requirements in a growing number of jobs. That is not the result of a leftist conspiracy or cultural degradation. That is a fact of life with which everybody has to deal.

          I disagree with your wish that military service is, by itself, qualification for any job other than military service. Read closely and you’ll see that I never said that soldiers don’t deserve respect for their service. I didn’t say that because I didn’t mean it. I said precisely what I meant, and your assumptions do not apply to me.

          Of course serving in the military proves strong character just as much as performing consistently in a civilian job, and a strong military record does belong on a resume, [b]alongside qualifications for the job being sought[/b]. But shooting a gun and blowing up things are not qualifications for a job as an IT pro, the field normally discussed on this site. Military service is only a qualification for work with computers if computer technology was a major part of one’s military experience.

          On the other hand, from what I’ve been told about paper plants, sharply honed survival instincts are vital, and military service would be directly applicable there. But your original complaint was that military service would not, by itself, get you an interview for a civilian job. You didn’t specify what job, leaving the impression that you expect an interview for [b]any[/b] job you happen to fancy. The world never worked that way, and never will. I’m sure that previous military service is considered — positively — to different degrees in different HR departments depending on the job, and if you can find any paper plants hiring, I’m sure they’ll give a vet a chance. But there was never a time that military service, or any kind of work for that matter, entitled any person to more than respect for the work that they [b]have[/b] done.

          One last thing. Military service does not cause people to be stupid. That’s another stereotype that you have inaccurately attributed to me. I insult your intelligence individually, based on your irrational expectation of special treatment based on your military service, in jobs where that experience does not qualify you to do the work. I did not call you stupid because you were a soldier. I am saying that you are stupid because what you have said [b]is[/b] stupid.

          There is a name for the economic system in which the only qualification for any job is previous military experience: communism. You’re dismissed.

        • #3107899

          But I didn’t shoot a gun

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to Google?

          Your comment “But shooting a gun and blowing up things are not qualifications for a job as an IT pro…” reveals your invalid assumption that everybody in the military plays a combat role. Nothing could be further from the truth. Assuming somebody who was in the military served in combat arms is the equivalent of assuming that everybody who ever worked for IBM was a programmer.

          I’m not sure what the current numbers are, but back in the 90s, I believe it took at least 8 people to support an infantryman and over 30 to support a single fighter pilot. This includes personnel services, finance, supply, food service, equipment maintenance, transportation, and everything else it takes to reach the military’s corporate goal of putting the metal on the target.

        • #3107845

          For Absolutely the last time (I hope)

          by too old for it ·

          In reply to Google?

          If the job requires the skills of a server admin, and I have the skills of a server admin, all I ask is that I don’t have to answer any questions along the line of:

          “Why did you waste your time in the Marines instead of going to college after high school?”

          “Can you be a team player after so many leadership roles in the military?”

          “How does being in a combat unit develop your soft skills?” (Note, I was in combat units, but never was the fighter/attack/helo pilot either.)

          My apologies for confusing you with the Cindy Sheehan knockoffs that seem to populate so many HR departments these days.

        • #3107741

          Nick: my general assumption that combat experience does not apply to IT…

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Google?

          unless there is also extensive use of information technology in that combat experience, is fully valid. If your feelings were wounded by the implication, man up.

        • #3107740

          Too Old: no offense taken

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Google?

          If somebody asked me why I chose to “waste my time” after I risked my life protecting their freedom, I might be sensitive about that implication, and I apologize for not being more careful. There are anti-military dweebs who will take pot shots at any former soldier. By the time this Nick fellow joined in, I think I had already made that perfectly clear. Good day to you, Too Old.

        • #3107644

          Absolutely, Absolutely

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to Google?

          Not offended at all. If that is what you were saying, then I misunderstood your earlier post. I do agree with the Old Guy, though, that questions about military time being wasted, whether or not that time is related to the current position, are out of line.

          Fortunately, I’ve never faced that; I don’t think I would react very well.

        • #3107626

          Too Old For IT: have you tried turning those questions on their head

          by mjwx ·

          In reply to Google?

          [i]”Why did you waste your time in the Marines instead of going to college after high school?”[i]

          do you think those years were a waste? there must be something positive from this experience?

          [i]”Can you be a team player after so many leadership roles in the military?”[i]

          surely they dont promote people who dont play well in a group?

          [i]”How does being in a combat unit develop your soft skills?” (Note, I was in combat units, but never was the fighter/attack/helo pilot either.)”[i]

          cool under pressure? i think i’ll leave you to think of someting for this one. if they ask you these questions as a negative try to sway them towards the positives.

          alot of people dont draw inferences from observatons, especialiy if it is agaist their pesonal bias. if they can see reason they will listen and see and if they dont thank them for their time.

        • #3109163

          media

          by rixmail ·

          In reply to Your not quite right

          I also know that if there was one US citizen that has been damaged by our governments anti terrorist activities, we would see that person in every news medium available, every day. I haven’t seen that.

        • #3109157

          media

          by rixmail ·

          In reply to Your not quite right

          I also know that if there was one US citizen that has been damaged by our governments anti terrorist activities, we would see that person in every news medium available, every day. I haven’t seen that.

          sorry for double post….

          I can tell by that statement that you believe in the “liberal media” myth. Very little of the truth makes it to the incompetent(or corrupt) media in this country. I urge you to visit http://www.mediamatters.com. I’m sure Bill O’Rielly has told you that they are communists, but check them out anyway. You will see how useless our media really is.

        • #3108925

          Perhaps . . .

          by av . ·

          In reply to Your not quite right

          Maybe I should have said it this way:

          “Hats off to Google. Finally, a company thats willing to defend the right to privacy for its customers in America, because it can. The other companies complied without questioning why. Child porn is horrible but it is not a matter of national security.”

          No, I am not trusting of any government that infringes on my rights guaranteed by the constitution. And, I am always looking at what they do. Either its taking my rights away or my money.

          I can’t claim to have been a Marine, I’m just a person that is grateful that you were. I could not have done it. I totally understand why you would have a problem with people not trusting the government.

          Look at it this way. Its a debate. One that needs to take place so we can, hopefully, all do the right thing in the end.

          I agree with you that the basic function of government is to protect its people, but I don’t see the coordination necessary in our current government. Just look at the response to Hurricane Katrina.

      • #3108399

        If you have done nothing wrong …

        by peter_es_uk ·

        In reply to I don’t like it one bit

        But who decides what is wrong? Once you have the data the trap is laid – it does not have to be sprung for years and future administration may have very different ideas about what data is good. “Find all people with gold fillings and get the gold” could be worth a fortune to some future tax inspector???

      • #3108390

        Hey guys…where is your mom and dad?

        by fore_thought ·

        In reply to I don’t like it one bit

        Im certain that by writing this I will probably be flagged by some bit somewhere that labels troublemakers and freethinkers as terrorists sending a digital signal down some line and into the VOX of some white collar follow orders type person who is annoyed by run on sentences who then logs in and checks this post only to discover that there is indeed a run on sentence who then calls his pals at the Congress to make a new law that stipulates that run on sentences are now illegal and not to forget the grandfather clause just to make sure I see at least 10-15 years on jail for every letter of this one.

        Just because you dont like it…

        Doens’t mean you have the right to take it away from someone else…

        All men created equal remember?

        • #3108387

          But …

          by peter_es_uk ·

          In reply to Hey guys…where is your mom and dad?

          since 1984 equality is a relative concept…

        • #3133503

          So I have as much right to do you harm

          by wojnar ·

          In reply to Hey guys…where is your mom and dad?

          as you do me ? Personally I like the idea that your ‘right’ to injure me is taken away. I also thank the government that your right to conspire against me with a foriegn terrorist is also taken away from you.

          Lets see who is anti wiretap when the call that kicks off the next WTC is made and not stopped. Then the cry becomes ‘Why didn’t they watch what fore_thought was planning and bug his house so thousands could have remained alive.’

          If I don’t like it and all of my voting friends agree, then I DO have the right to take it away – with a vote and a constitutional ammendment if needed and democratically executed. (Though I believe we are still morally required to look out for everybody’s best interest.)

          (By the way – I already started the campaign for arresting run-on sentencers in the ‘…incorrect use of English’ thread. Gotcha now you little grammar commie !)

        • #3133484

          “It makes no difference to Al Qaeda”

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to So I have as much right to do you harm

          “…whether or not they are being wiretapped with a warrant or without a warrant. It makes a difference to the Amercian people whether or not the President is engaging in wiretaps of Americans without a warrant.”

          (Kate Martin, Center for National Security Studies, Director)

          More than one of the 19 suicide hijackers were already known to US “intelligence” agencies to be active members of Al Qaeda. That knowledge was acquired without the “improvements” of the Patriot Act, and without any illegal, unreasonable wiretaps without warrants. Pure incompetence was responsible for the fact that those terrorists were able to board planes.

          I do not agree to sacrifice my freedom to the incompetence of lazy bureaucrats, nor to the Texan they have elected.

      • #3108388

        Night of the Brown Shirts and 1984 Wrapped Together

        by jhughes ·

        In reply to I don’t like it one bit

        Obviously with a president and administration who don’t believe in the bill of rights, we are in a precarious position as a free society. It is necessary to take risks to defend freedom. I am not willing to let any administration, on their own motion, determine what is legal. The checks and balances of three branches of government are critical.

        Yea to Google for standing up. More of us need to make our feelings known. Write your congress person and senators. Don’t let W take away all our freedom!

      • #3109285

        It’s a deception !

        by sailnow ·

        In reply to I don’t like it one bit

        Bush, Cheney and the rest of the “War Cabinet” are very adept at deception! First filtering & deleting information regarding Iraq and the “call to war”. Then they selectively left out the deaths of support troops and non-military support people who were killer or injured. And I’ve read that they intentionally have left out those who became psychologically disabaled due to the war experience.
        How can you trust such a team to be honest about their itentions, and their proclaimed “safe guards for personal invasion”? Their record is proven – NOT TRUSTWORTHY !!

        On principle I oppose such mass invasion of privacy in the USA. The Bush campaign pushed “Conservative Compassion” I’ve missed both a true “conservation value” in much of Bushes actual performance. I’ve also missed most all of the promised compassion (when in New Orleans after Katrina – Bush was featured on a “stage the blocked out the tragedy & destruction” He made it all look quite ‘pretty’ and promised immediate & complete help and rebuilding. But investigations later and now point to graft, mismanagement, avoidance of reports fromt he field and a lot of denial from the top on down in the President’s office and in FEMA.

        We voted for clean government. That as a hoax. The truth hurts – he’s a fraud, and a clever deceptionist.

        Do not trust the word of the government at risk of your life and liberty !!!

      • #3109223

        All you folks are pieces of work

        by mikebytes ·

        In reply to I don’t like it one bit

        I find this very ironic if not hypocritical that most of us work in a field where our job is the security of networks and we believe we can “sniff”, monitor keystrokes, review email etc. to maintain security because it is “the company” that owns the data and resources used”. Then we turn around and piss and moan about the government doing the same thing we do on a network they own for the sake of helping to protect us from Muslim terrorists. I will not go into a litany of lives lost around the world to these jerks but I will close by reminding you that Constitutionally we have NO RIGHT OF PRIVACY. That arguement is a red herring.

        • #3134728

          Really?

          by jamesg ·

          In reply to All you folks are pieces of work

          Good, then you won’t mind George checking your bank balances, making you piss in a cup for a job, listening in on YOUR phone calls – I DO have a right to privacy whether the wingnuts like you acknowledge it or not.

        • #3133201

          Do you throw food too?

          by networthy ·

          In reply to Really?

          I really enjoy it when you Libs get your panties all in a bunch over this stuff! It’s very entertaining to say the least. You are so blind to the reality of what is going on in this world that when you get cornered with the truth, your ineptness and frustration takes hold. And like a child, you resort to name-calling, and food throwing. Keep it up! You guys are the gift that keeps giving! You’ve done well at exposing your self for the classless person you are. You definately fit the mold of the typical Liberal unhinged.

        • #3134412

          Ive had enough of this thread

          by danlm ·

          In reply to Do you throw food too?

          I voted for President Bush, I also think he won the first election based on newspaper recount. I like him. Does that make me extreme? Hope not, cause I liked President Clinton too. There was alot of things that irked me about him too, but I seen things(lots) that I thought he was doing right.
          The point of this post is. I do not think of anyone less because they did not vote the way I did. They have their oppinions, I have mine. But this trashing of character when a person doesn’t agree with you is just childish.
          I voted for President Bush because I thought it was time that America start slapping these terrorist back, in what ever manner it took. I think that people that didn’t vote for him, felt there was a better way. And they still feel that way. That’s fine, but enough of the trashing of your fellow americans. We just look like idiots to the world.
          Let’s move on.
          Dan Miller

        • #3108188

          Rare example of good sportsmanship

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Ive had enough of this thread

          My compliments to droolin, who may not read this, having had enough of this thread.

          I like the suggestion that we discuss issues instead of personalities, but there is one statement I find inaccurate.

          “I do not think of anyone less because they did not vote the way I did.”

          I doubt that. I know I do not feel the same way. When I vote, I believe that I am right, morally, in my vote, or I abstain. Disagreement logically requires an opinion that is morally inferior to mine. Therefore, difference of opinion does cause me to think less of the person who disagrees with me.

          Still, it’s useless to argue about [b]who[/b] is right. What matters is [b]what proposition[/b] is right.

        • #3108166

          What?

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to Rare example of good sportsmanship

          “Disagreement logically requires an opinion that is morally inferior to mine. Therefore, difference of opinion does cause me to think less of the person who disagrees with me.”

          So if I like veal parmigiana & you prefer veal marsala, I’m morally inferior? Because my favorite car is not the same as your favorite car, you are morally superior? The attitude you expressed shows an inability to deal with differences in opinion that does not bode well for future rational discourse, either in this form or elsewhere.

          Please explain to me how a difference of opinion is “logically…morally inferior.” I’m not so much interested in your moral arrogance as your logic.

        • #3134181

          The explanation is the previous sentence.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Rare example of good sportsmanship

          The one you didn’t quote.

          “When I vote, I believe that I am right, morally, in my vote, or I abstain.”

          It would have been clearer if I had added: “Given the belief that I am right, morally, in my choice”, before I continued: “Disagreement (therefore) logically requires an opinion that is morally inferior to mine. Therefore, difference of opinion does cause me to think less of the person who disagrees with me.”

          The premise is that one votes only for a person or proposition that is the best of the available options.

          The food you choose to eat is your own business, not a proposition on which I will ever vote. But if you vote later to arrogate some of my money for heart surgery necessitated by your repeated choice to eat unhealthy food, that would be the wrong vote, and my vote to control the money I earned is the morally superior one.

          Understand?

        • #3133963

          Still don’t get it

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to Rare example of good sportsmanship

          I understand that you have to feel morally right to vote for somebody or something; I am the same way. I also understand that you would feel violated should I attempt to force you to pay for the consequences of my choices; again, I feel the same way. However, I still fail to see the logic that requires you to feel morally superior to somebody who does not vote the same way you do.

          That person has made choices based on his beliefs and mores and is no doubt sure that he too is morally right. Does that then justify him feeling morally superior to you and belittling your choices? Suppose he only disagrees with you on a single issue; is he then only a little morally inferior?

          The attitude that one is morally superior to others because of a difference in opinion or belief leads to an arrogance that allows individuals to justify an action simply because it is “moral” or “right.” Some actions so justified include the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, witch-burnings, slavery, the attempted eradication of numerous peoples including the Kurds and American Indians, and 9/11. I’m with C.S. Lewis on this one: if you commit evil in the name of good, you still have committed evil.

          It’s the difference in opinions that gives life its spice; who wants to live in a Stepford world?

        • #3135015

          Belittle? I didn’t say that.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Rare example of good sportsmanship

          But you wouldn’t bother making a statement about morality unless you believe it’s correct. That belief is incompatible with accepting a contrary belief as equally valid. However, it’s still better to disagree civilly. My point is that “droolin” shouldn’t have to agree or concede his beliefs, or be insulted by the mob. I was really hoping he’d come back and defend his ideas, and emphasize how foolish the other party looks by contrast. I think the superiority of civility over incivility is much more important than anything else that has ever been discussed here, or ever could be.

        • #3096888

          I agree. It’s called “tolerance”

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to Rare example of good sportsmanship

          And there’s not nearly enough of it. Do I have to like another person’s ideas? No. Do I have to allow that person to express his ideas? Yes. Should I be civil while he does so? If I expect him to be civil while I express my ideas, you d*mn well betcha!

          Unfortunately, “freedom of speech” as exercised in the USA usually translates as “freedom of speech as long as I agree with you.” We all have our opinions and beliefs and don’t like to have them challenged, whether with or without facts.

          As one of my first supervisors in the military said on his retirement: “I’ve just finished 26 years of defending every American’s right to be as stupid as he wants to be.”

        • #3133182

          “Ad homonym” attacks do not cut it-sorry

          by mikebytes ·

          In reply to Really?

          As Joe Friday would say, “Just the facts mam, just the facts”. Yeah I am an old guy and one of the things I have found, as the products of the last 20 years of our decrepit school system comes of age, is that those products cannot think through an issue. That is gather all the “facts” and then come to an informed opinion. Rather is is better to call someone a name as if that writes them off. So James, here are some of the facts for my statement. Truly within our constitution there is no explicit right to privacy anywhere. That so called “right” is legislated later by congress and it is very precious to us all, however that which congress gives can be taken away. Our constitution clearly gives the President sweeping powers concerning the overriding of law during times of national emergency, crisis, or war. The document is short, read it sometime. Did you know that President Lincoln suspended hapius corpus among other “rights” during the Civil War. That means he allowed US citizens and non-citizens to be jailed with no charges brought. In the early 1940’s President Roosevelt authorized thousands of Americans of Japanese descent to be deprived of property and put into camps without “due process” based on the constitutional authority granted to the President. So this is not new. The second part of the facts issue is that even if the President has the authority to evesdrop on Americans please note that this is not a blanket practice, and we have no evidence that it is, if for no other reason than the logisitics of doing such a thing. It is intended to discover the plans of people in the US and abroad that intend to do harm to us or others and is focused on international communications. That is quite a large enough mission to keep the government busy.

          Let’s get back to the basic issue here that I addressed which was the double standard we live by in this situation. We tap phones, monitor emails, monitor surfing, limit computer activity, etc. etc. etc. of fellow employees for exactly the same reasons and think nothing about it. We do this all in the name of business, the Presents, past, present and future do it in the name of saving lives. James, please justify your actions for something as petty as the profits of the shareholder and contrast that with the rights of the thousands of Americans and others throughout the world who died, i.e. had there true right of “life, liberty and the persuit of happiness” taken away from them when they were not even combatants.

        • #3108028

          Lets look at the facts and not make up our own.

          by wojnar ·

          In reply to Really?

          Has Bush been accused of any of those things ? Has Bush said he wanted to do those things ?
          (I will give you a hint – the answer is NO)

          Now, what Bush’s administration is accused of is monitoring calls made to persons identified as terrorists or to groups which state that they support such groups. Keep your urine, nobody is interested in listening to you making arrangements for where you will watch the Steelers win the superbowl.

          Believe me, if there were evidence that the government was listening to your phone conversations, I would be just as upset as if it were listening to my conversations. Unless you have called Osama lately – you have nothing to worry about.

          Did I mention the Steelers (from my current ‘hometown’)were going to win the Superbowl – played in the city where I grew up ???

        • #3108000

          What?

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Lets look at the facts and not make up our own.

          You grew up in Seattle?

        • #3135042

          wojnar, not just terrorists

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Lets look at the facts and not make up our own.

          A man named Hersh claims the FBI spied on his peaceful gathering in a building owned by the Friends church.

          If Bush really has no agends other than “monitoring calls made to persons identified as terrorists or to groups which state that they support such groups” he can do that under the very easy rules granted by FISA: from the time that surveillance begins, he has 72 hours to get a warrant. In every case of wiretapping where a warrant isn’t granted within 72 hours, the Fourth Amendment rights of the affected US citizens are violated. It’s very simple.

        • #3134965

          the way I understand it

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to wojnar, not just terrorists

          is because this is the “war on terrorism”, and in war the pres does NOT have to follow these rules.

          Are we still officially at war according to the US Congress?

          Hersh “claims”? I missed this story, so I will have to google him, huh? they must not have done a very good job spying on him if he knew about it.

        • #3097032

          spying claims by Hersh

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to the way I understand it

          “The Pentagon sent an agent to spy on the group?s first meeting at the Quaker Meeting House in Lake Worth in 2004”
          http://www.pww.org/article/articleview/8447/1/306

          This was the best I could find, and I don’t see what this has to do with wire taps? There wasn’t ANYHING in any of the reports I read that said anything about them listening to his phone converstations.

          Did I miss something?

          Even with the writers intentionally trying to drum up sympathy for him by all of them having to slip in the non-relevent “partially disabled by a nerve disease that often confines him to a wheelchair”.

          Sorry, but I don’t see the connection to the questionable wire taps.

        • #3096984

          Significance of Hersh’s nerve disorder.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to the way I understand it

          He is too incapacitated to be a credible threat. The point is that Bush has ordered surveillance of a United States citizen who has no ties to any terrorist activity. What’s more, the government has not even [b]alleged[/b] that any of Hersh’s activities or associations are in any way suspicious, but they are spying on him. Criminals & terrorists don’t care whether their conversations are being monitored with a warrant, or without one. Law-abiding citizens care whether the Constitution is being obeyed, or whether the Executive Branch is able to circumvent the check on its power, imposed by the Fourth Amendment’s requirement of a warrant. There is no exception to that in the Constitution.

        • #3096908

          surveillance

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to the way I understand it

          but not wire tapping, thus has nothing to do with the talk about wire tapping, does it?

          His physical condition does not affect his ability to influence others, so not again, I don’t see the connection.

          You would have to show what pervistion in the Constitution prohibits sending agents to “spy” on an organization, as I know it has been going on for a long time. Yes, to tap his PHONE would require a warrent. Not sending agents into meetings.

        • #3096748

          Physical disabilities does not prevent anti American activity

          by wojnar ·

          In reply to wojnar, not just terrorists

          Do you recall the planner for the first WTC bombing was blind ? Should the US not watch him because he couldn’t drive the truck ?

          Hersh and his buddies were (are ?) passing out anti recruitment literature. Not illegal but certainly anti-American. What else would you call telling people not to sign up to defend their country ? Suggesting that people they don’t like should not attend their open meeting is discrimination.

          I would like to offer Mr. Fersh a deal – if the US is again presented with an act of war on our soil, we will make sure non of the military will bother to defend HIS house. That way it will be just like him getting his wish of no military. Betcha he doesn’t take the offer.

        • #3092574

          Of course I recall that the bomber who failed…

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Physical disabilities does not prevent anti American activity

          …to bring down the World Trade Center in the nineties is blind.

          The blind Al Qaeda member you mention distributed information about terrorism. Hersh, in his own words, distributes information about military service and all its costs and benefits to soldiers. He isn’t “telling people not to sign up to defend their country”, he’s giving them facts, which the military has not disputed. The government has not attempted to make the case that Hersh’s group has told any falsehoods in their education campaign. From those facts, I conclude that those treating Hersh as a threat want new recruits not to have all the facts about their new employer.

        • #3106908

          The information I have says differently

          by wojnar ·

          In reply to Physical disabilities does not prevent anti American activity

          From PWW.org, a liberal website:

          Richard Hersh, an activist with the Truth Project in Palm Beach, Fla., which distributes COUNTER-recruitment literature at local high schools, called surveillance directed at him and his group ?absolutely ridiculous.?

          From another site:
          Members of The Truth Project have visited several area schools including Lake Worth High, working to COUNTER the efforts of military recruiters by lecturing on alternatives to violence.

          The purpose of the literature is to counter (their word)recruiters. What is the recruiter’s job ? Getting people to sign up for service. What does countering these efforts mean ? Getting people to NOT sign up for service. That is anti American and should be monitored. Their right to say ‘leave the US undefended’ should be upheld but placing our country in a vulnerable position must be prevented.

          Hersh never says how he ‘Knows’ his phone conversations have been listened to and claims his meeting are all open. So why does he object to what he calls spying on the group meetings ? Maybe the ‘spies’ will be converted to his way of thinking !

        • #3093470

          That isn’t what your information says.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Physical disabilities does not prevent anti American activity

          You have managed to misinterpret the sources you quoted. “Counter-recruitment” does not equal “anti-American.” Invading an uninvolved country on false pretenses of (1) possession of weapons of mass destruction and (2) connections to Al Qaeda was an anti-American decision that GWB railroaded through the Legislative Branch with falsified documents and expired reconnaissance — I will not call it “intelligence”, it is nothing resembling intelligence!

          Support for this war in Iraq is anti-American, opposition to it is patriotic. Support the troops: bring them back, and never let another president initiate a war of aggression.

        • #3091627

          How can you say it is not un-American ?

          by wojnar ·

          In reply to Physical disabilities does not prevent anti American activity

          The group stands for nobody going into the armed forces. If they had their way, the US would not be able to staff an army. No army, no DEFENSE for the country. THAT IS un-American.

          Oh, sorry – forgot you liberals only think of the current moment and let others deal with the impact of ridculous decisions.

          As far as WMD’s is concerned, look at the actual information coming from the site. WMD’s were found, not in the quantity that would make you happy, but they have been found. I don’t know if the intelligence was flawed. Flawed means we did not know a contrary report. We could just sit on our hands and hope the report is wrong – or DO something about it.

          (sorry for the late response – been unavailable lately and left you liberals to try and use some brain power. I should have known better.)

        • #3080723

          The purpose of just wars is the protections of freedom.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Physical disabilities does not prevent anti American activity

          Mr. Fersh is entitled to believe what he does about the military, about the orders it is taking from the president, and to speak to others freely, convincing as many as he is able. He isn’t threatening anybody or in any way advocating violence. To oppose, limit, or interfere with his Constitutional right to free speech is un-American and un-patriotic.

      • #3108999

        You are right on the money

        by anelson159 ·

        In reply to I don’t like it one bit

        After supporting this administration for what I thought were the right reasons after 9-11 , I have now decided that they are pursuing a right wing agenda and hiding behing the “TERRORIST THREAT” agenda to get whatever they want. Now it fear of kiddie porn -(another buzzword) to get what they want about all Americans. I think I may be dropping my AOL and MSN accounts as a means of protest. I have never had a Yahoo account and won’t do one now.

        • #3108993

          do us all a favor

          by networthy ·

          In reply to You are right on the money

          analson, do us all a favor and drop all of your accounts with whomever! Your way to paranoid.
          Once again, if you aren’t doing anything wrong…you have nothing to worry about.

        • #3134588

          you have nothing to worry about

          by richard ·

          In reply to do us all a favor

          you are a fool

    • #3258574

      the goverment is forgetting what america is all about

      by pete russell ·

      In reply to What do you think of all the big brother stuff?

      I think the busch administration is forgetting what america is built upon. FREEDOM!! I feel like we are not free any more and that we are being punished for a bunch of losers actions.

      I get mad when I hear about children being exploited BUT I should not have my freedoms taken away because of it. I agree that it is not right I have to worry about what I search on.

      I Applaud google for taken there Users privacy seriously.

      • #3110260

        This has been going on for a long time

        by kniht ·

        In reply to the goverment is forgetting what america is all about

        I have been on this planet since the Truman presidency, and every administration from then on has been guilty of some sort of spying. Jimmy Carter – 1978, Bill Clinton – 1994 (Bill authorized the physical breakin and search of private homes without warrants!) I hate to see this discussion turn into “Bush Bashing”, study real American History and lets bash them all.
        I was 13 years old and remember John Kennedy at a speech in, I think, Berkley when he stated, and I quote “The office of the President was created to destroy the American people, I must bring this plight to the people.” Ten days later John Kennedy was shot dead in Dallas.
        We Americans need to keep our minds open and not cloud our thinking with hate for one administration or another, or we will be destroyed by the very government we elect.

        • #3108439

          Everything is Bushs fault

          by geozuk ·

          In reply to This has been going on for a long time

          I agree with you 100%. I like to listen to these liberials. They make me laugh. Busk won Back to Back and the American people aren’t fooled by the bias of the media.
          Anyway the spying under this administration I feel safe for them to do because I’m not doing anything to hurt this country. But say some other non-pro American becomes president it could be a different story.
          GO NSA and PRESIDENT BUSH save AMERICA and crush TERRORISM

        • #3109245

          Liberal “tunnel vision” and “paranoia”

          by networthy ·

          In reply to Everything is Bushs fault

          You can’t pay for the entertainment that liberals give us everyday. Kerry Lost, thank God, get over it. Your whinny tookus’ are safer because of Bush.

        • #3109104

          BS

          by rixmail ·

          In reply to Liberal “tunnel vision” and “paranoia”

          Bush has never won an election. He cheated in Florida, and he cheated in Ohio. Thats the truth and its history so I will focus on right now. You talk about tunnel vision and paranoia. You guys are just blind. You are so wrapped up in partisan “our team won” BS that you can’t see right and wrong. Conservative hippocracy is ridiculous. Ken Star spent 60 million trying to pin something on Clinton, all he got was a half truth about his personal sex life and you guys impeached him claiming it was all about the “rule of law”. THIS presidend LIED us into a WAR (www.downingstreetmemo.com), he lied about wiretaps (broke the FISA law and the 4th amendment), the list goes on and on. Suddenly the “rule of law” isn’t so important. As long as you get to be on the “winning team” you turn a blind eye to the crimes of this president and continue to vote against your own best interests. Laugh it up, sit there in your blind ignorance and make fun of the whiny paranoid liberals. I feel sorry for you, and I feel sorry for the generations of our children and grandchildren who will pay with their health and their freedom and their tax dollars for the crimes of this administration.

        • #3109051

          AMEN

          by pse ·

          In reply to BS

          Not much more I can add except to say that Bush should be held accountable for his incompetance and lies.

        • #3091642

          Accountability

          by krazykyngekorny ·

          In reply to AMEN

          And all you Democrats (socialists) should be accountable for fifty years of lies. Your politics failed in 19th century Europe, destroying several countries. It failed in WWII Germany, destroying another country. It failed in USSR, destroying another country, and, now, here you are destroying the USA with your sugar coated lies.

          The 2000 and 2004 elections said the Americans are fed up with your lies. You lost face and now you are bitter. Go, cry.

        • #3109007

          Liberalism “Unhiged”

          by networthy ·

          In reply to BS

          I love it when you Libs get your panties in a bunch over this stuff. It proves yet again, that you guys can’t be trusted with National Defense or the economy. Keep spewing the BS talking points from the left! It’s so entertaining to watch you guys implode.

        • #3107673

          You missed an “n” in your title.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Liberalism “Unhiged”

          You must have been too hurried to describe the problem with Liberals to spell-check. It’s insidious you know. First you’re misspelling things because you know your audience can figure out what you mean, and before you know it, you’ve travelled all the way down the slippery slope to skip fact-checking, too.

        • #3091641

          What’s on the left?

          by krazykyngekorny ·

          In reply to Liberalism “Unhiged”

          What’s on the left? Socialism, Communism, Nazziism, and, now, Democratism. There is nothing democrat about a Democrat. Their number one rule is, “we win.” They lost in 1996, 2000, 2002 and 2004. “We”, the Republicans, violated their number one rule by kicking derrier. HOORAY!

        • #3108784

          oh bs.

          by danlm ·

          In reply to BS

          They are right, you liberals really can’t stand the fact that Bush won. They are also right, every bloody president has been giving away our freedom. Both Repulicans and Democrats. You liberals only see bush. Your like horse’s with blinders on, you only see what you want.
          Do I agree with everything President Bush did or says. Hell no. I take it with a grain of salt, just like every other President we’ve had. Jesus, they all freaken lie.
          Quit your bitchen, and start looking at your histroy and realize that every president has done it. And previous presidents didn’t all have the issue of terrorists declaring war on America, even saying it in the bloody press release’s. Least President Bush took off his blinders to see that. Have you? Christ, what do they have to do. Blow up a mall in your home town before you relize it’s a bloody war? You think we didnt spy on american citizens during war war 1 and 2? Or, would you have bad mouthed those presidents also who in the end were proven correct?

          Dan Miller

        • #3108751

          Partisan? Who is being partisan

          by williamsmytheiii ·

          In reply to BS

          Your anger and your ‘facts’ are a bit convoluted. There has been no proof, only inuendo, regarding any cheating in any election. It is my solumn thanks to God that we didn’t have Pres. Gore when those plains hit on 9/11.

          Privacy is a gift, it is not a right. When we are under attack by Muslim’s, we must forego some of our freedom in order to remain free.

          What is it that really bothers you? Keary was a freak, a complete fake. He lied about so many aspects of his past, he makes W look like a boy scout. Keary never worked an honest day in his life; how can he profess to be like the majority of Americans – he couldn’t. Living off of his wives money and the public payroll does not make a great American.

          When Hillary runs, I only hope that we can look beyond her gender and vote on truth and the American way. RUN CONDI RUN!

          BIll S.

        • #3108726

          Sad

          by rixmail ·

          In reply to Partisan? Who is being partisan

          If Gore had been president he wouldn’t have sat in a classroom reading “my pet goat”. He wouldn’t have lied us into war with a country that had NOTHING TO DO WITH 9-11. It was the SOUDIS. But Bush had too many ties to the soudies. “Uncle Bandar Bush” might have been upset if he had gone after the real terrorists.
          No if Gore had been president we would have gotten osama in afganistan and been done with it.

          Privacy is a right granted by the fourth amendment to the constitution.

          Everything you say about Kerry is BS from the Rove propoganda machine. Look up kerry on snopes.com

          Read the conyers report on what happened in ohio. In the history of voting in this country, exit polls have been a near perfect predictor of the outcome of an election. 2004 was the first time this wasn’t the case. The only places where exit polls did not match the vote count were places using Diebold or ES&S voting machines.

          Condi Rice is a mindless puppet. Another tool of a corrupt administration.

          I’ve wasted enough time on this. Its hopeless.

          You love this criminal so much, he can break any law, lie all he wants. He can torture people, lock people up without due process, give the treasury to halliburton.

          Your minds are closed and I am tired of this.

          Adios.

        • #3134866

          Dear sad rixmail

          by networthy ·

          In reply to Partisan? Who is being partisan

          Thank goodness your angry comments are merely your OPINION. Adios dear sir. Remember this as you ride off into lala land – THE TRUTH NEVER CHANGES…and one fine day it will come to you and your blinded brethren.

        • #3134671

          Work?

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to Partisan? Who is being partisan

          W??

          The only difference I see between the two is their political views and the fact that Kerry had the guts to actually go get shot at. W couldn’t even show up for his flight physical.

          Did I vote for either one? No! I took one look at the major party options and asked myself “This is a choice?”

          Powell for President!

        • #3091646

          Feel sorry

          by krazykyngekorny ·

          In reply to BS

          [quote]I feel sorry for you, and I feel sorry for the genrations of our children and grandchildren who will pay with their health and their freedom and their tax dollars for the crimes of this administration.[/quote]

          But, you don’t feel sorry for fifty years of injustices committed by Democrats and their socuialist attitude, started by the “raw deal” of FDR (one of your heroes).

          And where were you law abiding Democrats when the government was stealing land from the Indians, and from Japanese-Americans in WWII? Nowhere! That’s where. You buried your heads in the sand and pretended no wrong was being committed. It’s called selective amnesia!

        • #3134675

          Speaking of tunnel vision

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to Liberal “tunnel vision” and “paranoia”

          If we get God back in the USA, everything will automatically get better…you can’t get any more tunnel than that.

          On the other hand, I think the almost automatic lawsuits against anything even remotely religious are just as stupid.

          Since many of the posts in this thread descend to name-calling and jingoistic rhetoric from both sides of the issue, they simply prove my point that if good sense was common, we wouldn’t need a name for it.

        • #3134322

          Liberals?

          by azson ·

          In reply to Liberal “tunnel vision” and “paranoia”

          I’ve come to the conclusion people like to use the liberal term when they dont like what you say, specifily when there is commonsense is being spoken. We are not any safer from terroist and where definatly not safer from our federal government, but hey, Halliburton has a safer oil supply. My biggest worry is who is going to make our service men and women safer from Bush?

        • #3091639

          Who is going to make service men safe?

          by krazykyngekorny ·

          In reply to Liberals?

          You, hero! You just volunteered to blow up the White House, just like McVey did in OK City!

          How stupid can people get? I don’t know, but it gets worse every day!

        • #2575366

          time keeps on slippin….

          by boxfiddler ·

          In reply to Who is going to make service men safe?

          .

        • #3091644

          Entertainment?

          by krazykyngekorny ·

          In reply to Liberal “tunnel vision” and “paranoia”

          That “entertainment” is killing our country!

        • #3133506

          Well said, gzuk

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Everything is Bushs fault

          “Anyway the spying under this administration I feel safe for them to do because I’m not doing anything to hurt this country. But say some other non-pro American becomes president it could be a different story.
          GO NSA and PRESIDENT BUSH save AMERICA and crush TERRORISM”

          As long as it’s our gang in charge, it’s OK, but if the other guys were elected by the same rules, the same power would be illegal, tyrannical, and treasonous.

        • #3133465

          who said?

          by mjwx ·

          In reply to Well said, gzuk

          “anyone who would give up a little liberty to gain a little security would deserve neither and loose both.”

          No, wait let me guess he was a moron and comunist?

          As I understand it, it is the very idea of a free nation to suspect it’s own govenment of wrong doing as a measure of protection for the people. we democratic nations (australia, US, UK) have terms of office to prevent one man from becoming so powerful that he can change any law through his force of will alone.

          “god save the queen because nothing can save the govenor-general” (this is for any australians playing along at home).

          Do try and maintain a perspective outside your media/goverment controlled life.

        • #3107738

          Anyone who uses “loose” as a verb IS a moron.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to who said?

          Although all communists are morons, not all morons are communists.

        • #3107622

          it was a typo

          by mjwx ·

          In reply to Anyone who uses “loose” as a verb IS a moron.

          and you are obviously not inteligent enough to tell that it was sarcasm?

        • #3134227

          you want to recheck your facts ???

          by wojnar ·

          In reply to Anyone who uses “loose” as a verb IS a moron.

          Although you are correct in identifying the typo, your statement is incorrect. From Webster:

          loose
          14 entries found for loose. The first 10 are listed below.
          To select an entry, click on it. For more results, click here.
          loose[1,adjective]loose[2,verb]loose[3,adverb]fast and loosehang[1,verb]loose boxloose cannonloose endloose-jointedloose-leaf

          Main Entry: loose
          Function: verb
          Inflected Form(s): loosed; loos?ing
          transitive senses
          1 a : to let loose : RELEASE b : to free from restraint
          2 : to make loose : UNTIE
          3 : to cast loose : DETACH
          4 : to let fly : DISCHARGE
          5 : to make less rigid, tight, or strict : RELAX
          intransitive senses : to let fly a missile (as an arrow)

          Not all morons are are morons – some are just ignorant !

          Couldn’t let your attack go without response.

        • #3108180

          nice catch

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Anyone who uses “loose” as a verb IS a moron.

          Very funny: “Not all morons are are morons”

          Correction: Anyone who misspells the word “lose” is a moron.

        • #3107962

          Trying to argure reason with unreasonable people

          by mjwx ·

          In reply to Anyone who uses “loose” as a verb IS a moron.

          sounds pretty moronic to me (BTW this is also sarcasm)

        • #3134014

          but the real question is

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Anyone who uses “loose” as a verb IS a moron.

          when do you decide if someone is a moron or an idiot? ;\

        • #3135030

          mjwx Not sarcasm

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Anyone who uses “loose” as a verb IS a moron.

          Your posts are not sarcasm.

          Don’t get me wrong, I’m one of those people who believes that sarcasm is one of the highest forms of insult. When used well, it’s devastating.

          What you posted to Absolutely – “sounds pretty moronic to me (BTW this is also sarcasm)” wasn’t sarcasm. It was just a simple insult.

          Let me help you out here so you can try for subtlety – always worth getting it right when you insult Absolutely.

          Irony is the use of words to express something different from and often opposite to their literal meaning. You can use an ironic literary style employing such contrasts for humorous or rhetorical effect.

          Sarcasm is irony with the specific intention of hurting the person at who it is aimed. You shouldn’t attempt to use sarcasm in TR even with the prompts because, being vocally-oriented, it doesn’t work anywhere near as well in print.

          However, what you wrote was not ironic and, therefore, cannot be sarcasm and no amount of flagging it as sarcasm makes it so.

          Neil 😀

          I knew that most Yanks don’t understand irony but I didn’t know the Aussies had forgotten as well.

          p.s. This entire post could be ironic…

        • #3096996

          Thanks so much, Neil.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Anyone who uses “loose” as a verb IS a moron.

          People who have the temerity to insult while misusing the language that allows them to express ideas in the first place really grate my cheese!

          Somebody asked how to tell when to use “moron” or “idiot”. Democrats are morons, Republicans are idiots.

        • #3092796

          thanks neil,

          by mjwx ·

          In reply to Anyone who uses “loose” as a verb IS a moron.

          After all the crap in this thread I needed a bit of a laugh.

          Point taken, I will label my posts/attitudes correctly.

          35 and clear skies here in Australia. How?s the whether in sunny London?

        • #3092759

          Weather

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Anyone who uses “loose” as a verb IS a moron.

          Cold, cloudy and dry. It’s been like this for a couple of weeks. It has warmed up from 2/3 to 7 over the last couple of days but we haven’t really seen the sun for ages. Very dry. No rain in January and no rain yet in Feb.

          Glad you enjoyed the grammar lesson. It was getting a bit heated. Just call him a “pedantic git”. Much easier. 😀

          Or call me that, as well.

        • #3134312

          Won back to back?

          by azson ·

          In reply to Everything is Bushs fault

          Bush won his first election barely, because he carried his btothers state election that was run by a Bush party worker. Also, he was the first president massively egged on his way to his inauguration because of election fraud he got away with a specific group of people.
          His second election was won, by only one state again, that just happened to start using machines for voting, which of course they had problems with them. I dont think he won either election, he just figured out how to fix the election.

        • #3134958

          better go take your meds

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Won back to back?

          because your a raving lunatic.

          The ballots were recounted by several newspapers AND the “honorable” Rev Jackson and NONE of them came up with a different result. Where did Gore run into problems? Because he didn’t follow the existing rules on disputing the results. Where did confusion come in for intellectual midgets? That they didn’t understand the Supreme Court not allowing Gore to change the rules in the middle of the election was NOT the courts giving ANYTHING to Bush. They said simply that there are proceedures, follow them.

          As for the second time around, don’t you remember this “army” of lawyers that Kerry had dispatched?

          Are you REALLY STUPID ENOUGH to think that if the boxes had been tampered with, that NO ONE would have found out about it by now? I think you must be.

          Your blind hate has robbed you of any logic or reason, leaving you a sad, pathetic person.

          FACT, Bush STILL got more votes than ANY president has gotten. He took both the electoral AND popular votes. He got a higher percent of the country than Clinton did.

          And your right about one thing. You don’t think.

      • #3108428

        administration vs bureacracy

        by brokeneagle ·

        In reply to the goverment is forgetting what america is all about

        Are you sure it is the Bush administration doing this and not just the bureacracy just trying to justify its existance?

    • #3258565

      “they should be put behind bars!”

      by absolutely ·

      In reply to What do you think of all the big brother stuff?

      The US “Justice Department”, that is, and any other fearmongers pretending that the cure to rape and sexual abuse of children involves spying on law-abiding citizens.

      Once the pictures or videos have been taken the most important crime has already occurred — the damage to the victim occurs in the predatory sexual act, not in the transmission of the images. Surveillance of the transmission of those pictures misses the point. The only solution to sex crime is cultural. As long as being a victim of abuse is taboo, reporting will be less frequent than abuse. As long as the public employees in the “justice” system treat delayed reports of abuse with suspicion instead of concern, they don’t deserve the trust bestowed to their positions. Instead of asking “Why didn’t you report this sooner” police should be encouraging immediate reporting and reminding plaintiffs that they did nothing wrong. The incompetence and immorality to which I’ve only alluded above is well known and pervasive in this country. That system certainly cannot be trusted with more power over private citizens until it learns to wield responsibly — uniformly, at every level — the power already assigned to it. We don’t give kids their driving licenses until they’ve proved themselves responsible with a learner’s permit. What morons put more faith in the anonymous strangers in government than in their own offspring?

      This example of expansion of government power into one more medium is inexcusable, as in previous cases, because the government has already failed miserably to effectively and morally exercise the power it already had.

      • #3257984

        Note about post

        by jdclyde ·

        In reply to “they should be put behind bars!”

        did you recycle this from a different board or just forget it is “[” and “]” here?

        Just asking.

        This also does sound very similar to a post you did about a month or so ago?

        Are you really recycling or just repeating yourself?

        • #3257909

          I do recycle

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Note about post

          but only plastic, paper, that sort of thing. If I repeat myself here, it’s only because I’m trying to make the same point a second time. I type fast enough that I don’t actually copy and paste, though.

          I just forgot that we use [] instead of <> here. Thanks.

        • #3109675

          Hmmm

          by too old for it ·

          In reply to I do recycle

          [b]hmmm[/b]

        • #3094255

          My dog recycles, also

          by montgomery gator ·

          In reply to I do recycle

          But I would not recommend his method.

        • #3094143

          I’m a compacter

          by jck ·

          In reply to My dog recycles, also

          I can eat a 32 oz steak…and it comes out about half of that…hahahaha :^O

    • #3259438

      I’m not opposed to information gathering…

      by jck ·

      In reply to What do you think of all the big brother stuff?

      I’m opposed to the law enforcement and government administration circumventing or “getting around on a technicality” of the legal process established to do it in the legal manner.

      If I’d been president, taps would have been done legally. And if I found out ANYONE under my employ broke the law, they’d be summarily fired and I’d present the evidence to law enforcement and direct them to pursue charges.

      Law is there to be followed by everyone, or changed if it is found not to be fair and just.

      Not to be followed only by those who don’t have a way around it.

      • #3259183

        So if…

        by noyoki ·

        In reply to I’m not opposed to information gathering…

        wiretaps are legal now (if you were president), anyone can do them? I can spy on you too? Gates can spy on Jobs? Hmm… I’m confused…

        • #3258050

          no…I was talking in regards…

          by jck ·

          In reply to So if…

          to the government thing…where Bush’s own investigators were not getting court approval to tap communications mediums as they were legally supposed to.

          I think it’d be funny if the head of the DOJ just were to walk out one day and say “You’re wrong. You’ve committed a crime.” and had U.S. Marshals arrest all the guys who were involved.

          I’d laugh my ass off.

          Neither position, nor appointment, nor affluence…should give you a free pass on circumventing the law.

        • #3258046

          And if they don’t

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to no…I was talking in regards…

          you will continue to to convict “all the guys who were involved” based on nothing more than what is fed to you through the news?

          I thought you were one of the “innocent until proven guilty” guys? Or does that only apply to people you like?

          I also thought you were smart enought to know that you never get the full, NOR clear story through the media. EVER.

          Doesn’t matter, because it fits right in with everything you have WANTED to believe anyways.

          Enjoy your crusifiction. Try not to look so gleeful as you do it though….

        • #3257776

          crusifiction or confusion

          by bcramer ·

          In reply to And if they don’t

          i think your not paying attention to what the news is feeding you. If you remember right, the President him self stated that he didn’t have time to get the required search warrents that were needed becdause it would slow things down. SO! I say whats good for the goose is good for the gander. What puts him above the law??

        • #3107475

          remains to be seen

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to crusifiction or confusion

          Will just have to see how this shakes out, but I don’t for a second believe that we are getting the whole story.

          If congress really was informed of this, I don’t know what the impact on all this is.

          I do know that if it wasn’t a person that jck and many others HATE, they would be calling waiting until he has had his day in court. (that was my point all along)

        • #3257742

          Therefore, what?

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to And if they don’t

          “…you never get the full, NOR clear story through the media. EVER.”

        • #3107471

          Do you REALLY not know?

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Therefore, what?

          It goes to the courts where they have to be proven “beyond a reasonable doubt” blah blah blah.

          You don’t know how the US legal system works yet? 😀

          The key wasn’t that I was saying he didn’t do anything, but that if it wasn’t someone hated by the left, the same people screaming for his head on a pike would instead be demanding to wait until he has had his day in court.

          Now you know, what the therefor is.

        • #3107313

          I honestly did not know.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Do you REALLY not know?

          I would have assumed you meant that some “fair and balanced” reporter always has all the right answers. I’m glad I asked!

          It’s true that depending on whether corruption occurs on the “Right” or the “Left” certain people agitate for swift, harsh justice or for slow, deliberate investigation. In fact, they all get their thorough investigation followed by their tedious, evasive days in court.

          Not only do I know how the US legal system works, I know pretty well how lawmakers and journalists avoid work!

          😀

        • #3109720

          Journalists of today

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Do you REALLY not know?

          are what the laywers of yesterday were. Bottom feeders and ambulance chasers.

          Not looking to inform, just hype a story to get ratings.

          “Is your house KILLING you? Watch tonight to find out!”

          Then the blantant ones with a politcal agenda are the worst kind of scum as “we the people” have to sit and be insulted by the lies by and about the opposing political parties.

          Channels with an agenda. What a scary thing.

        • #3093968

          Who pays the journalists of today?

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Do you REALLY not know?

          Via advertisers, you, the sheeple. Visiting 5 different conservative blogs or 5 different liberal blogs does not sum to an unbiased perspective, it’s just repetition of essentially the same bias. And journalists are no more at fault for the frivolous quality of journalism than IT helpdesk techs are at fault for the instability of certain operating systems and configurations. Businesses respond to demand, and professionals utilize the abilities that get them employed. If you don’t like a television program or station or newspaper, you don’t like its audience!

        • #3258316

          That is right

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Do you REALLY not know?

          I don’t. ;\

          media IS accountable for the substandard decpetions they spin out as “truth”.

          I personnally listen to more “liberal” media than “concervative” media until I just can’t take how stupid the ranting and raving gets.

          Next thing you know, some clueless sheeple will start about how because the High court in FL didn’t allow Gore to change the established rules for disputing an election half way through, that the courts “gave” the election to Bush. It is amazing that people are that STUPID, but many are.

        • #3107549

          it’s really basic, jdclyde

          by jck ·

          In reply to And if they don’t

          Bush went on TV and admitted they (the NSA) did it and with his approval…but insisted it was not illegal even though none of the 30 times he reauthorized it, it never went through the FISA Court for approval as is LEGALLY required.

          There was no judicial review for those taps. Bush admitted that openly…and was even so bold to say that he would continue doing it. Others in the government have also confirmed it had happened.

          So, you have free admittance of it from multiple sources in multiple departments.

          And, please don’t jest the man doesn’t know he could take the 5th…he can’t be *that* stupid…can he?

          That means they committed a breach of judicially established process. And whether that is law, regulation or code…it is illegal to breach that process.

          Now, are you saying they should be above the law simply because they (the NSA) are investigative personnel who are doing work approved by the president and with no regard to judiciarily established legal process?

          I’m not trying to crucify anyone. I’m simply saying…if you break a law…you should pay for it…especially when you get on TV and grin about it when you answer you approved it and say you’ll approve it again even though it breaks the legal process they are supposed to follow.

          Sorry man…Bush ordered them to break the law…they broke the law…why shouldn’t they be punished like any other American?

          Don’t worry about it…if it did lead to his impeachment, Cheney would pardon him.

        • #3107466

          Oh yea of little faith….

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to it’s really basic, jdclyde

          If I understand correctly, and as you have yourself stated, there were “loopholes” that were used to get around this. While you may not like loopholes, it doesn’t make them illegal, maing your entire argument invalid.

          Now, do you want to talk about loopholes?

          Oh and about impeachment, you know that is just bs talk and ONLY to try to get revenge for the impeachment of Americas first black president.

          Also, you seem to forget, impeachment does NOT remove you from office, NEEDING to be pardoned for anything. I know, you were just trying to be cute. Better luck next time. Maybe you should leave the humor to me or your pop? ;\

        • #3107434

          in the case of the NSA

          by jck ·

          In reply to Oh yea of little faith….

          which I purposefully defined for you in the last post to you (because I knew you’d nit-pick), there were no loopholes…they were caught red-handed. The FBI and DOJ used loopholes in the past…but not in the case of the NSA that came out in November/December 2005 timeframe.

          You seem to try and find loopholes too in arguments to make your case…glad I’ve caught onto your rhetorical cat-and-mouse debate game. Good republican zealot…good good republican zealot…GOTCHA! :^O

          As for impeachment, removal is part of the established process of impeaching a president from office. Therefore, you are wrong. Otherwise, why would an impeachment process exist?
          And I quote:

          [i]”The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

          –U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 4[/i]

          just let that run through your head for a minute

          …shall be removed from office on impeachment for…

          Impeachment *is* the process by which you remove a sitting president.

          You’re talking about the “impeachment inquiry” where they basically inquiry and then decide whether or not to accuse the president and get a trial in the senate.

          By the way you think things are, looks like you’ve been reading too many newspapers.

          The process of impeachment is TWO PART…and involves the hearings by the House of Representatives inquiry, and trial and possible removal by Senate vote on the grounds of the president being found guilty by the Senate “trial” as overseen by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

          let me line it out for you…in simple terms so maybe you can get more than a Limbaugh-esque understanding of how impeachment works:

          The House Judiciary Committee deliberates over whether to initiate an impeachment inquiry.

          Then, said Judiciary Committee makes resolution seeking authority from the entire House of Representatives to conduct an inquiry.

          The Judiciary Committee then holds the impeachment inquiry. At the end of it, articles of impeachment are prepared and require approval by majority of the committee.

          Finally, the House of Representatives debates the articles. Each article requires a majority vote of the entire House to pass.

          Once an article is approved, the Senate holds trial on the articles of impeachment approved by the House. The Senate sits as a jury, and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides over the trial.

          At the end of the trial, the Senate votes on whether to remove the President from office, requiring a two thirds vote for removal.

          Saying you have been impeached a president after the House moves the Senate to try him…is like a prosecutor saying they’re convicting a criminal when they file the indictment with the court.

          Also, there have been supreme court decisions also stating subsequent to the writing of the United States Constitution that the sole power of impeachment does not lie with either body of the legislature…but, the legislature as a WHOLE. So under legal finding as well, neither body of legislation can “impeach” a president.

          This has been your civics lecture for the day.

          As for America’s first black president, I assume you’re referring to Clinton.

          I don’t know if you think he’s black cause you looked at his willie (get it…slick Willie? that’s funny) or if you’re tryin to be slick (there I go again! :^O)…but…

          a) You need some new glasses.
          b) Clinton is about as black as Bush is smart.

          As for humour…I’ll leave that to Bush, seeing as he seems to be a big joke in almost every country in the world…including his own. 😉

          I encourage you though…keep backing Bush. It’s good for the economy…guys like Leno and Limbaugh wouldn’t have a job without him. :^O

        • #3110224

          Apparently it is NOT legally required

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to it’s really basic, jdclyde

          since he did it without the FISA court. Or, as they say in southern Ohio: “It ain’t illegal unless you’re doin’ time for it!”

        • #3110146

          oh come on now

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Apparently it is NOT legally required

          you will ruin his rant! Let him have his fun. I think he even might start to believe it if allowed to say it a few more times. ;\

        • #3107609

          So the difference is…

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to it’s really basic, jdclyde

          Clinton tapped an aide and got impeached. Bush aids the taps and gets away?

        • #3107610

          The full, clear story is available…

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to And if they don’t

          …but not from American media. CNN has the left, Fox has the right (talk about name-calling!), and the BBC doesn’t care either way.

        • #3258045

          But in your example

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to no…I was talking in regards…

          No laws have been broken.

        • #3107539

          I’ll put it fairly concisely for you as well

          by jck ·

          In reply to But in your example

          The NSA was in breach of established legal process that requires approval of taps from the FISA Court when they deployed them.

          Bush’s approval to move forward with those taps without FISA Court approval was also a breach of the establish legal process that is required for such programs.

          Henceforth, Bush and NSA personnel broke legal process…whether law, regulation or code.

          Therefore, there should be adequate punishment for the illegal activity in which those who participated in all were involved.

          Is that clear enough?

          Have a nice day

        • #3107521

          No, it’s not “clear enough”

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to I’ll put it fairly concisely for you as well

          All you’re doing is repeating the rhetoric of your Democrat Party buddies. Until a “ruling” by a legitimate legal authority is announced, just because you might say it’s illegal, it doesn’t mean that it is.

          You guys have trouble differentiating between political rhetoric and fact; and all too often you try to get away with passing-off the former as the latter.

        • #3107501

          good example

          by bcramer ·

          In reply to No, it’s not “clear enough”

          you have an interesting outlook on the law. I’ll remember to use your analogy of breaking the law the next time I get stopped for speeding.

        • #3107427

          My analogy?

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to No, it’s not “clear enough”

          I offered no analogy, at least not according to my definition of the word. Your speeding example, however, is an analogy. And since you offered that analogy, I’ll comment on it.

          If you get pulled over for speeding, but you weren’t violating any speeding laws, I sure hope you speak up. And if there’s a disagreement on whether or not you were, in fact, speeding, then here come da’ judge; here come da’ judge…..

          And in the case brought up in this discussion, I’ll wait for “da’ judge” to speak up, rather than listen to a bunch of partisan politicians.

          (Due credit given to the late great Flip Wilson.)

        • #3107424

          and you seem to have trouble

          by jck ·

          In reply to No, it’s not “clear enough”

          understanding legal establishment of authority in government.

          I encourage you to go read about the establishment of the FISA Court and what it has jurisdiction over the approval of under its legal establishment within the government.

          Then, go back and deny Bush [b]admitted[/b] to approving it, re-approving it “30 plus” times, and said he’d keep doing it in a December press conference.

          His comments are even on the White House website. Go look for yourself. December 17th, 2005.

          Also, it would have been okay if he or the NSA notified them (the FISA CourT) of it happening within 72 hours. According to several sources, that never happened either.

          After you have read all that, come back and tell me what you found and deny neither Bush nor the NSA did wrong in approving and using those wiretaps that require the approval of the FISA Court, and never subsequently informed the FISA Court within 72 hours as they are supposed to do.

          Civics and governmental process class #2 of the day is now done.

          You and jdclyde go compare notes now and see if you both understand how the wiretapping process through the FISA works for the NSA…ok? 😉

          BTW…damn I’m glad my father worked with the government. :^O

        • #3107404

          jck – your rhetoric is old

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to No, it’s not “clear enough”

          I didn’t post my message in an attempt to persuade you to change your mind. That won’t happen, and I’m not even gonna’ try.

          I posted for the benefit of others who might be reading this, to give them some different perspective. I state again, just because YOU and/or your Democrat Party loonies CLAIM that illegalities are taking place, it doesn’t make it so.

          Care to wager on the outcome of the upcoming Senate hearings on the matter? Senate hearings, by the way, that President Bush welcomes. This will be just like all the other false, hollow, and obviously partisan charges levied against President Bush. Nothing will come of it, and it will soon make way for the next smear campaign of the day.

          I recently watched some pretty extensive interviews conducted by PBS’s Jim Lehrer on this very issue. He interviewed both Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez (Republican) and Vermont’s Senator Patrick Leahy (Democrat). The attorney general was much more persuasive than the senator. And one thing that struck me very odd about Senator Leahy’s answers was his incessant suggestion that this is ONLY about capturing Osama bin Laden, while conveniently overlooking the tens of thousands of other terrorists intent on destroying America.

          And in the spirit of being open to sharing BOTH sides of the issues:

          Senator Leahy’s interview:

          http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/jan-june06/leahy_1-23.html

          Attorney General Gonzalez’s interview:

          http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/jan-june06/gonzales_1-23.html

          You’re too full of yourself, jck, for me to go round-and-round with you. You’re a first-class, know-it-all, bore with nothing but left-speak spewing from your partisan mouth. And like I said, I won’t change your mind, so I won’t even try. The links are for the “open minded” among us — and that ain’t you.

        • #3107397

          Another “interesting” interview

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to No, it’s not “clear enough”

          Slightly off-track, but interesting, nonetheless.

          http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec98/berger_11-16.html

        • #3107308

          Here’s something that seemed very clear to me.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to No, it’s not “clear enough”

          Although admittedly I haven’t heard GWB’s answer to the following: Bush asked for legislation allowing the NSA et al to skip the FISA courts, and was refused. Asking permission is an implicit admission of a need for permission, which he didn’t get. He has now admitted to the very action for which he asked permission, but was refused. That makes good sense to me, and I haven’t seen Bush or any member of his administration address that specific argument. I don’t mean to say that I know that they haven’t, but if they have, it was not aired or re-aired during one of the times that I was watching C-SPAN. I’m [b]extremely[/b] eager to hear how they will answer that!

          [title edited for clarity]

        • #3109912

          Max

          by jck ·

          In reply to No, it’s not “clear enough”

          First of all, you chastise me because you claim I’m the know-it-all and blindly partisan, when you and others sit here and do nothing but same…chastise the Democratic party and the liberal left partisanly in a highly-biased, self-important manner.

          Your demeanor and tone, and those of select others, show that you simply think your views on topics to be matter-of-fact and that your references are the singular point of fact for others to consider and live by.

          I have often addressed the wrong doings of others, including Democrats, who had done wrong. In fact, I’d be glad to address people such as Dan Rostenkowski, Tipp O’Neill, or Tom Foley and their shady dealings during their time as public servants as well.

          It would have been very different if President Bush had said nothing. It would not have made his act any less illegal. However, he confirmed he approved those wiretaps freely and openly. He, like any other American citizen, has the right to protection under the 5th Amendment.

          So, let’s run down facts for you so that you and your wonderously open mind might actually grasp the concept that Bush approved the taps as I have said he did in a manner which is illegal without the review and approval of the FISA court:

          Fact: Story by NY Times that Bush approved the NSA to proceed with wiretaps that were not reviewed and approved by the FISA Court, which is the body whose approval is required for those taps.

          Fact: In a December 17, 2005 address, Bush confirmed that he had approved the program of wiretapping Americans who had communications outside of the country, and that these were wiretaps “to intercept the international communications of people with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations.”

          Fact: The 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act makes it illegal to spy on U.S. citizens in the United States without the approval of a special secret court (the FISA Court).

          So:

          Bush knowingly approved wiretaps that were illegal without the approval of the FISA Court.

          The NSA executed those wiretaps illegally without the FISA Court approval.

          It’s pretty cut and dry.

          And if these individuals are “known” associates of Al-Qaeda, I believe they can be arrested for such for helping to plot, organize, or facilitate terrorist acts.

          I believe Bush’s statement was misleading to the American people, because people who are [b]known[/b] to participate in terrorism themselves are criminal and can be prosecuted as such.

          I think a more appropriate word for Bush to use would have been…[b]suspected[/b], since none of them have been prosecuted for the crime of committing or plotting terrorist acts, or assisting those doing so, under the Patriot Act.

          That is, Bush is blowing a lot of smoke to try and cover his arse.

          As for the Senate hearings…I’m sure they’ll be about as unbiased as any other…not at all. I have little faith in our federal legislative system as a whole. It is, and has been for years now, more about controlling the political power for self-interest and personal gain rather than doing what is best for all American citizens.

          It’s both sides of the ball. And, I’d blame Democrats just the same for this if they had done it.

          But the fact is, Bush is the president. And, he has approved an illegal act to take place. He is, at a minimum, an accessory to illegal activity by approving wiretaps not having gained FISA court approval mandated under the 1978 FISA.

          I encourage you to offer proof to the contrary.

        • #3109766

          Crying Wolf

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to No, it’s not “clear enough”

          The Democrat Party in general, and the Democrat Party leadership specifically, has been relentlessly attempting to smear and discredit President Bush ever since they lost the 2000 presidential election by a slim margin of ~500 Florida votes. It’s been one bogus charge after another, none of which have had much — or any — substance at all. If anyone believes a single thing uttered by those buffoons, he’s either uninformed, or an idiot, or both. They’ve cried wolf too many times to have any credibility. Moreover, they’re blatantly lying about what’s even going on! And it’s absolutely pointless debating it with an obvious partisan.

          The only Democrat giving the president the benefit of the doubt, not passing judgement until the Senate hearings, is John McCain (sarcasm intended).

          It all boils down to this: You guys, and you know who you are, believe the like of Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Howard “screamin” Dean, Harry Reid, et al. And I pity you poor fools.

        • #3109753

          vs. crying like a baby?

          by jck ·

          In reply to No, it’s not “clear enough”

          I see you couldn’t contradict my facts. Thanks for the recognition through non-action.

          BTW, I quoted the NY Times directly.

          Bush’s speech is available at http://www.whitehouse.gov or in a news story at http://www.cnn.com

          The facts about the FISA are available at several websites findable by using http://www.google.com or your favorite search engine.

          BTW, another great Democrat named Arlen Spector (R-PA) (sarcasm noted here) is doubting Bush’s choice to move forward the NSA with the wiretaps and whether he had constitutional right to do it as Bush has claimed.

          Must be a migration of GOPers to the Demos side of the fence now…wonder why that could be?? Maybe there’s too much crap in the GOP pasture?

          Get ready for the pendulum to swing back left starting this year, Max. Bush is not helping his party any with his policies, decisions, and regular mistakes and breaches of law, policy, and etiquette.

          Most of the old folks I know around here (most of my neighbors are 60 and over) said they don’t understand what Bush is trying to prove, their standard of living has diminished more since his re-election, and that Congress is doing nothing to help them sustain a decent life.

          You better let your boys know to lobby the AARP harder, or Bush is gonna cause the GOP to lose the majority of 20M+ voters.

          As for me, I’ll just keep quoting news sources and government websites and let you keep telling me I’m spewing Democratic material.

          Kam sa ham ni da

        • #3109750

          jck – you’re the one “crying”, not me

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to No, it’s not “clear enough”

          I didn’t even read your message. I skimmed it at best. Like I said, it’s pointless.

        • #3109733

          yes well

          by jck ·

          In reply to No, it’s not “clear enough”

          that’s your opinion, Max.

          I presented logical facts about what Bush had done (confirmed by his own admission, I might add), and you went back to whining about Democrats.

          You didn’t even present one counter to the Bush facts I’d given.

          Hence, you cried…not me.

          I tried to keep this argument logical and maintain some mature decorum in it, in hopes that you’d actually present something to me that might be influencing.

          I see I’ve been let down yet again.

          I encourage you again. Present facts to the contrary of what I have presented about the NY Times story about Bush approving illegally exercised wiretaps, Bush confirming he’d done it, and what the FISA says about not conducting those activities without proper approval.

          Other than Bush simply saying it was his constitutional right…what other backing do you have for your interpretation of these events that validates what Bush did?

          It’s pretty cut and dry. QED.

          And again, I think the Senate hearings on it that will be exercised by Senator Spector will be a mockery. Nothing will come out of it but the “good ole boys” scratching each others’ backs and declaring no harm, no foul.

          Congress is a den of snakes…the whole lot of em.

        • #3093972

          re: crying wolf

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to No, it’s not “clear enough”

          “The Democrat Party in general, and the Democrat Party leadership specifically, has been relentlessly attempting to smear and discredit President Bush ever since they lost the 2000 presidential election by a slim margin of ~500 Florida votes. It’s been one bogus charge after another, none of which have had much — or any — substance at all.”

          Agreed. However, Bush has also [b]admitted[/b] that he ordered wiretapping without warrants after asking for permission to do so and being declined. Those are facts, not exaggeration or political rhetoric.

          “Therefore what?” you may ask, if you respond at all. Therefore, I say, he has committed a felony and must be removed from office posthaste.

        • #3258307

          “Mens Rea”

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to No, it’s not “clear enough”

          or the English translation “to know to do”.

          Its a fundamental principle of law. Its the basis for which insane people can’t be found guilty because they lack the mental capacity.

          In this case, I am not calling Bush insane. But if this is a situation where the “law” is in doubt, either the existing law, or what power have been given the president through the Homeland Security Act, then the President essentially gets a free ride. If the White House Advisors had enough confidence and legal advice to tell the president he could legally do this, than he isn’t guilty of anything unless and until the court tells him otherwise(and then he is only guilty if he ignores the court ruling and continues).

          This is not to say I agree with what he is doing. I’m sure Max can quote Jefferson on the topic. But calling for his removal from office is a little over the top, unless you can show where he ignored legal advice and knew (mens rea) that he was committing a crime – and I do believe on that question there is a reasonable doubt.

          James

        • #3258276

          Absolutely – – – – –

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to No, it’s not “clear enough”

          You said, “However, Bush has also admitted that he ordered wiretapping without warrants after asking for permission to do so and being declined. Those are facts, not exaggeration or political rhetoric.”

          You asked me to comment on that, and I’ll be glad to do so — if, that is, you will be kind enough to point me to a source where I can read and reply to [b]exactly[/b] what the president said, in his own words, and in full context.

          But I don’t really want to comment on what you said he said. That’s pointless.

        • #3258213

          link n stuff

          by jck ·

          In reply to No, it’s not “clear enough”

          Bush’s December 17, 2005 radio address concerning approving the NSA to wiretap.

          http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051217.html

          In the speech, he admits he gave the nod to the NSA to [i]”intercept the international communications of people with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations.”[/i]

          He follows this up with examples of two of the terrorist hijackers who were in the United States that [i]”…we didn’t know they were here, until it was too late.”[/i]

          I guess the guys didn’t have to show ID or anything coming into the country.

          Then of course, he implies whomever leaked the story committed an illegal act by saying:

          [i]”Yesterday the existence of this secret program was revealed in media reports, after being improperly provided to news organizations. As a result, our enemies have learned information they should not have, and the unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk. Revealing classified information is illegal, alerts our enemies, and endangers our country.”[/i]

          Ooh…they learn the government is listening into calls? That’s a shocker? Right…

          And being the silly nut he is, he then lines out what the process of review of the information is within a classified program is by stating:

          [i]”The activities I authorized are reviewed approximately every 45 days. Each review is based on a fresh intelligence assessment of terrorist threats to the continuity of our government and the threat of catastrophic damage to our homeland. During each assessment, previous activities under the authorization are reviewed. The review includes approval by our nation’s top legal officials, including the Attorney General and the Counsel to the President.”[/i]

          He just leaked more detailed information about the program than the NY Times.

          Guess by his own standards, he should be arrested for this illegal act as well? Isn’t this divulging operational aspects of a classified program a treasonous act?

          By the way, it is. I know. I held clearances. You don’t talk about who, what, when, where or why of a classified program to anyone outside of it.

          The guy is such a dolt.

          And you guys tell me I’m so bad? Yet, you respect this guy as a leader?

          Give me a break.

        • #3258127

          jck – your message is ridiculous

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to No, it’s not “clear enough”

          I did read your entire message, and I did read the entire speech. I’m amazed at the things you took from that. They’re so silly that they speak for themselves; no need for me to comment any further.

          However, in the speech you referred to, the president did not say what absolutely said he said.

          I’ll wait for absolutely’s reply. At least he usually [i]seems [/i] a bit more rational that you, at least more often. You’re just a total idiot.

        • #3258111

          yet again

          by jck ·

          In reply to No, it’s not “clear enough”

          that’s your opinion, Max.

          However, I quoted Bush and gave you the link.

          And yet again, you give no opposing information.

          He discussed the interception the international communications of individuals in respect to catching those like the two terrorists who flew the plane into Pentagon that were [b]in[/b] the United States.

          I don’t know what you drew from the speech, but if you didn’t see what he was referring to when he spoke of approving the program to stop people like those two…then, you are the real idiot.

          Maybe you need everything spoon-fed to you in little bites so you can understand them?

          Jesus…you’re obtuse.

        • #3258098

          jck – I’ll try one more time

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to No, it’s not “clear enough”

          I’m not claiming that the president did not approve the monitoring. Of course he approved it. I fully admit that he did approve it. Moreover, I fully support what he did. If you do not support it, fine; we’ll agree to disagree.

          What you and absolutely have said, however, is that it’s illegal. I disagree.

          You two have also said that he [b]asked [/b] Congress for [b]specific [/b] approval for the monitoring; you said that Congress [b]specifically [/b] said no; and you suggest that he did it anyway. Again, I disagree. That is not what happened. Moreover, you two claim that the president has admitted to this sequence of events, which he has not.

          And you wonder why I see you as an idiot!

        • #3110220

          go back and read

          by jck ·

          In reply to No, it’s not “clear enough”

          I didn’t say that…I think that was Ab.

          I said he had the wiretaps have to go before the FISA Court, which they do. Otherwise, it’s illegal to tap in such a manner.

          I gave you references…links…and you still call me an idiot?

          Get it straight…go back and read…

          I’ll give you a pass though…cause…I’ve been so ragged in the head from being busy I couldn’t keep names and things said straight either.

          You see, that’s what nice about being unbiased…I can give a break to the guy who busts my balls…as quick as the guy who helped me out.

          I know I’m human…and you are too.

          Now I just gotta convince jdclyde he is as well. :^O

        • #3110168

          Maxwell: here is what I have on me.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to No, it’s not “clear enough”

          I got the chain of events on C-SPAN, from a Democrat (sorry) during the “briefing” on the wiretapping issue.

          Bush’s admission occurred on December 17, 2005, I think. I did not watch that, but have seen many second-hand references to it since. I hope that qualifies it as common knowledge, or at least that you are familiar enough with the entire speech to comment on it. My understanding is that Bush stated that he had in fact ordered surveillance without approval from the FISA court that has jurisdiction and proudly continued that he has every intention of continuing to do so. Allegedly, he asked Congress for that exact privilege the last time they considered FISA rules, and was rejected. I’ll find sources if you like. Just tell me which facts are unsubstantiated in your opinion, and I’ll see how well I can document them.

        • #3109300

          Absolutely

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to No, it’s not “clear enough”

          You said, “I got the chain of events on C-SPAN, from a Democrat (sorry)…”

          Well, that alone is reason to be [b]extremely [/b] skeptical. Moreover, on one hand, I believe you’ve agreed with me that Democrats are only looking for one thing after another to discredit the president, and this is only the smear-tactic of the day; but on the other hand, you cite THEM as your source! Give me a break!

          And you guys (you and jck) keep saying the same thing over and over, and I keep replying with the same answer. Words mean things, and try to be VERY specific, at least I am in this case. For example, the word “asked” is a significant difference in what you two claim and what I rebut. The president [b]never [/b] admitted to doing that in his December 17th speech, but, for some reason, you two continue to claim that he did. I suppose it’s because that’s what the Democrats are saying. In the case of jck, the idiot even posted a link to the speech as proof that he did, but one read of the speech makes it clear that he didn’t.

          But my reply is still is still here:

          http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=188275&messageID=1936122

          Neither you or jck has said anything to convince me. I’m amazed at how people make-up their own version of events just to satisfy a desired outcome. I’ve come to expect as much from jck, but you?

          Don’t tell me what ANY Democrat has said about it, especially when it comes to what the president has [b]admitted[/b]. Use his own words, please.

        • #3108951

          About what I expected

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to No, it’s not “clear enough”

          I understand rejecting a rival or opponent as a source of objective fact, so I’ll track down a copy of the transcript of GWB’s speech of 2005-12-17 in which he describes the wiretapping he has been ordering without warrants and his intention to continue doing so. The record of his attempt to get that ability written into the most recent revisions to the FISA will be more difficult, I’m sure, but worth the trouble.

          As an aside, I implicitly distrust both major political parties, neither more nor less than the other. The way I see it, they’re flanking us, the people, legislating away all our rights from opposite philosophical poles, both of which are absurd.

        • #3108912

          Absolutely – I’ll try one more time

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to No, it’s not “clear enough”

          The SAME answer applies:

          http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=188275&messageID=1936122

          No need to track down the 12-17-05 speech. The link has already been posted.

          But here it is AGAIN:

          http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051217.html

          The apparent disagreement between you and me is not that the president said certain things, but it’s the things YOU CLAIM he said, which he didn’t. This whole tangent started when the idiot jck stated that the president ASKED congress, that congress specifically said no, but he did it anyway. IT DID NOT HAPPEN THAT WAY!

          Damn, are you two really that dense that you can’t even understand this one very simple, yet very distinctive point?

          And can’t anyone admit when they’re mistaken? Damn, I’ve done it, and it ain’t that hard. But you’re wrong! Admit it and move on.

        • #3108911

          Addendum to “admit it and move on”

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to No, it’s not “clear enough”

          And then make up something else — something new to justify your position.

        • #3108719

          Maxwell, I will admit it.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to No, it’s not “clear enough”

          I may have missed it, but your message two posts up is the first I’ve seen a dispute of MY assertion (not jck’s, to my knowledge) that Bush was denied permission, by Congress, to wiretap without a warrant. If that assertion, which I paraphrased from a Democrat Senater on C-SPAN, proves false, I’ll admit it willingly. Finding that evidence of the proceedings of the Senate is the part of my research that I already said would be more difficult. I beg your patience.

          “The apparent disagreement between you and me is not that the president said certain things, but it’s the things YOU CLAIM he said, which he didn’t. This whole tangent started when the idiot jck stated that the president ASKED congress, that congress specifically said no, but he did it anyway. IT DID NOT HAPPEN THAT WAY!”

          I don’t know if the idiot jck ever made that claim — I ignore him in the hope that he’ll go away! — but I certainly saw a Democrat, during a briefing which they hoped would lead to impeachment hearings, make that claim on C-SPAN, and I plan to find the official record of that event, or the official record of that day’s proceedings without that event, which would prove that it never happened.

        • #3134799

          absolutely – I’ll indulge your further research

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to No, it’s not “clear enough”

          But be advised, my lack of patience with political sniping and posturing, the lack of opinion based on core principle, the constant dealing with desired conclusions in search of justification, and the fact that I’m getting tired of the same old, worn-out rhetoric and silly back-and-forth comments, is showing. I need a break. These types of discussions are doing absolutely nothing for me any more.

          The challenge of debate is gone. The satisfaction of sharing my opinion is gone. And any fulfillment that I might have gained at one time is pretty much nonexistent. I need to say gimme’ a break to myself. And it may be time that I take my silver hammer to myself and beat myself outta’ here.

          So if I stop replying, you know why.

        • #3133469

          source citation

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to No, it’s not “clear enough”

          Adam Schiff, Democratic Representative from California, stated in a briefing on the unwarranted wiretaps, that Bush had requested legislation allowing domestic spying without a warrant, and that Congress did not oblige. He concluded, and I agree, that the request logically admits knowledge that Congress’ approval was necessary for any modification of FISA rules for spying.

        • #3133374

          Absolutely – I never questioned. . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to No, it’s not “clear enough”

          … the fact that the Democrats have made that “charge”.

          I don’t question that the “charge”, as stated, has been made. I don’t question that Adam Schiff, Democratic Representative from California, made that claim. (He’s not the only one.) I don’t question that you heard it that way you claim. In fact, I’ll even help you out in tracking down the source. The source for that “charge” was a December article written by Tom Daschle, former Senate Majority leader, and former Democrat Senator from South Dakota, in yet another one of his lame attempts to impugn and damage the Bush administration. (The last half of that sentence was, of course, editorializing on my part.)

          To be specific, what I question is your further claim (and/or jck’s further claim) that the Bush administration ADMITTED to the chain of events as presented by said Democrats.

          Did it happen the way Senator Daschle claimed it did? Hell, I don’t know. And if you and jck were totally honest, you would admit that you don’t know either. The Senate hearings in which the alleged “request” was made were, in part, closed negotiations. But I do know that the president, and/or his national security team, and/or his advisors, and/or his spokes-people did not ADMIT that it did. And I do know that it was further reported, in that same article, that the Republicans who were also involved in those negotiations “could not be reached for comment”. (What exactly does “could not be reached for comment” really mean? Perhaps a cell phone battery was dead.)

          Even if it came down to this one simple question: Who do I believe, Senator Daschle or __________ ? The answer will always be the latter.

          Both you and jck are accepting that “charge” as truth, not because you know it to be true, but because you want it to be true. But that’s the way politics works, I suppose, or so I have learned. Personally, I try to rise above that sort of thing. But if you choose to believe Senator Daschle in this case, I hope you place your total trust in him, and believe everything he ever has said and everything he ever will say in the future. He’s such a straight-shooting guy, after all; and he never embellishes the truth for political gain. (That last sentence, by the way, in case you didn’t know, is dripping with editorialized sarcasm.)

          I’m not surprised that jck would take a “charge” like this and run with it. But YOU? Even though we’ve had our disagreements, you’ve proven to be “absolute” in your stances, and it’s not like you to give blanket credence to some comments uttered by one of the most disingenuous liberal Democrats in the country. (More editorializing, of course.) But if that’s what you choose to do, in this case, knock yourself out. I guess you now believe Senator Kerry is a friggin’ war hero as well?

          P.S. Send your contributions to the Democrat National Committee to further support this “claim”. Screamin’ Howard Dean has spent most of their money (on what, I do not know), and they need more to prepare for the upcoming elections — much more.

          By the way, absolutely. If a conclusion is based on a false premise, what does that make the conclusion?

        • #3133254

          Max, I DO admit that.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to No, it’s not “clear enough”

          I’m just trying to keep you interested. From the length of your response, I have some hope that I’m succeeding! Here’s what I admit: I don’t know exactly what is true about the disputed claims, but based on the facts as agreed by both sides, Bush acted outside the law.

          Max: “Did it happen the way Senator Daschle claimed it did? Hell, I don’t know. And if you and jck were totally honest, you would admit that you don’t know either.”

          True, and I do admit to not knowing. I don’t know what I’m not being told. But based on what I do know, I’m entitled, as are the rest of the taxpayers, to much more explanation of unwarranted wiretaps than the Bush administration has willingly given so far.

          Max: “The Senate hearings in which the alleged “request” was made were, in part, closed negotiations. But I do know that the president, and/or his national security team, and/or his advisors, and/or his spokes-people did not ADMIT that it did. And I do know that it was further reported, in that same article, that the Republicans who were also involved in those negotiations “could not be reached for comment”. (What exactly does “could not be reached for comment” really mean? Perhaps a cell phone battery was dead.)”

          Perhaps. But I’m more inclined to believe that the phones were being deliberately ignored. I believe people in the highest levels of government use the most reliable technology, not the least. I claim that the probability that simultaneous technical phone failure of all administration officials sought for comment is statistically negligible, as are all other scenarios other than deliberately ignoring attempts to make contact.

          So, what exactly do [b]you[/b] think “could not be reached for comment” really means? I think it means that those sought for comment ignored attempts at contact, and have the pull to do so [b]and[/b] have the euphemism “could not be reached for comment” applied to their actions.

          For the sake of reference, I believe that if I did that to you, you might say I “finally buggered off!”, but if you [b]wanted[/b] a response, I think you’d be more likely to say that I ignored your messages than that I “could not be reached for comment”.

        • #3107604

          You guys? Who?

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to No, it’s not “clear enough”

          Rush Limbaugh? Karl Rove? Talk about the inability to distinguish between political rhetoric & fact!

          A pox on all your houses. Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats is worth the effort to throw them out of office.

          Yo, Oz! You got room up there? I can deal with corruption, but not with willful incompetence.

        • #3135039

          commies/perverts/towel heads

          by wknaack9 ·

          In reply to But in your example

          Hey Max, lets hunt them all, together. Lock and load……Semper Fi

        • #3135034

          Towel heads?

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to commies/perverts/towel heads

          How about stupid Yankees? The rest of the world would love to manhunt stupid Yankees, but they aren’t that ignorant.

          How can you POSSIBLY go around calling yourself American when you make such a ridiculous comment as to hunt towel heads. Please explain specifically which race or religion you are targeting with that ignorant BS. then explain how you have excluded all of the other TOWEL HEADS from such a venemous comment.

          Man your type is so pathetic, I am stunned that you even have the mental stability to find this site and then post to it.

        • #3134894

          Towel heads

          by wknaack9 ·

          In reply to Towel heads?

          The “Towel Heads” I am refering to are the Religious zelots that live in the Middle East who call us infidels.By the way, of which YOU are one! Ill say one more thing, Liberalism is a Mental Disorder. Go to Michael Savages web site and watch our people getting their heads SAWED off and then tell me I’m a moron,Look in the mirror.

        • #3097035

          Actually

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Towel heads?

          you will find OZ is a “liberal zelot”, not a “religious zelot”.

          Being a Brit, I would bet wearing a “towel” on his head would go with the leather jacket and shades! B-)

        • #3096999

          If you had even a slight clue what you were saying

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Towel heads?

          You MAY make some sense. Again, you have not defined a towel head in any way shape or form. You have simply taken a major religion and applied it to slander a small specific group of people.

          So then all Christians ARE infidels, because a few actually are pig headed and unaccepting of other world religions?

          You will soon learn that making ridiculous blanket statements does not fly here.

          “In many regions of the globe, swaddling the head in fabric is simply a natural response to the scorching heat and dust. Scholars believe it was an ancient people living under a merciless sun who first invented the turban.

          Understanding turbans

          Like other types of clothing, the turban means different things depending on who is wearing it and how it is worn. Times artist Paul Schmid illustrates several varieties.

          But in the wake of recent terrorist attacks, the turban, originally a practical idea for protection, has become a symbol many Americans associate with terrorists…”

          “Hundreds of assaults on Sikhs have been reported across the country, a trend that strikes many as bizarrely misguided.

          Yes, Sikhs wear turbans. But they have no connection to the Islamic extremists now wanted by the U.S.

          Rather, Sikhs are members of the world’s fifth-largest religion, which traces its roots to northern India and espouses egalitarianism.

          President Bush describes the new American enemy as shadowy and hard to find, which may explain why some Americans are grasping for a way to identify terrorists. But equating the ancient headgear with terrorism shows how little is known about turbans.”

          Here’s the MENTALity you display in your rash conclusion: In Seattle, a man was arrested after he allegedly tried to choke a Sikh, telling him, “You have no right to attack our country.”

          In Arizona, a man shot a Sikh gas-station owner to death, later explaining to authorities: “I’m a patriot.”

          You are displaying yourself as the most ignorant and uninformed form of life to exist. No less ignorant than radical extremists, at least they KNOW who they are opposed to, unlike yourself.

          “Yes, Sikhs wear turbans. But they have no connection to the Islamic extremists now wanted by the U.S.

          Rather, Sikhs are members of the world’s fifth-largest religion, which traces its roots to northern India and espouses egalitarianism.

          President Bush describes the new American enemy as shadowy and hard to find, which may explain why some Americans are grasping for a way to identify terrorists. But equating the ancient headgear with terrorism shows how little is known about turbans.”

          If you only had a brain.

        • #3096985

          Identifying terrorists

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Towel heads?

          in a handbook found at one of the scumbag training camps, it gave them ideas on how to BLEND IN.

          They shave the beards.
          They cut their hair.
          They dress the same as everyone else does.
          Once all this has been done, it is hard for many to identify the country of origin and many here are too STUPID to even know the countries in the regions they come from.

          They typically do NOT live in high muslim areas, as they suspect muslims choosing to live in places such as the US and Canada as not being sypathetic to their cause and are likely to turn them in if an attack is planned.

          “Towel heads” has been a slam against all middle easterners long before 911, and has since then come to mean terrorist to many.

          (at first glance, I thought your post was directed at me instead of wknaack! 😀 )

        • #3096976

          You’re right, Oz, but there’s more.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Towel heads?

          Not only are there many “towel-heads” (to be precise, people who wear turbans in observance of tradition, especially religious tradition) who are not Moslem terrorists, those Moslem terrorists [b]don’t bother with turbans[/b] when they get to the free (now less free, due to Bush’s [b]response[/b] to 9-11) countries where they commit their violence. In conclusion, the fools attacking Sikhs, or even Moslems if the ever mangage to find a Moslem, are not only worthless, racist wastes of skin, [b]they’re lazy cowards who aren’t looking for the real terrorists.[/b] Terrorists don’t wear turbans, they try to blend. If they only had a brain.

        • #3096900

          OZ not alot of people here think like That!

          by zlitocook ·

          In reply to Towel heads?

          I am 50% American Indian and the other half is German. I know it takes all kinds of people to make our country great. The eastern people have had a Civilization long before we did, it is how some or thier misguided people chose to read thier version of thier bible.
          But hey look to our past and we did the same! The dark ages, The crusades, the witch craft trials, slavery, police actions, we even traded arms for prisoners to the people we are fighting, and now republicans in the majority! Where will it end? Why Iraq is looking like another good place to fight? Sorry I am getting tired of why dose that country has more then we do? Don?t get me wrong I hate child labor, slavery, not letting people say what they want and countries like China where if you do not do as they say well they just remove you. My wife and I have sent more then two thousand packages overseas to our troops to help them get by while protecting our rights! We fully support our troops and will do any thing to help them. And people are worried about the Kama sutra virus doing damage!
          Boy I love to start stuff;)

        • #3096876

          wknaack

          by richard ·

          In reply to commies/perverts/towel heads

          you don’t have to live up to anyone’s idea of how you are suposed to think.
          I’m with you, I’m tired of those who want to damage americans. We don’t have to make them like us, but we can sure make them afraid to piss us off.
          We have a war and try not to kill anyone.
          I say nuke the whole damn middle east. do it now, do it first.

          I don’t know what that has to do with bush thinking he does not have to follow the law, but I stand by it and IMPEACH the Monkey brain Bush

        • #3096801

          Richard

          by wknaack9 ·

          In reply to wknaack

          Richard, we can go on and on about whos right and whos wrong reguarding this issue. The main thing is that we are all Americans and should stand behind our government in a time of war, by the way, Richard, we are at war!Go to Michael Savages web site and view the attachments on be-headings I think you might change your mind, or at the very least get sick like I did.

        • #3092804

          I stand behind my government

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to wknaack

          I also expect my government to obey the law. I agree with Richard–if the allegations are true, the President should be impeached. Failure to impeach in such a case is to stand behind the people in office, not behind the government.

        • #3107030

          Better than standing in front of them

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to wknaack

          You’re liable to get shot, standing in front of those guys. Let the SS deal with that stuff.

        • #3134689

          Don’t be confused…..

          by oldjags ·

          In reply to no…I was talking in regards…

          by the difference between the law and the constitution!!

          Congress CANNOT pass a law that in any way restricts the presidents’ constitutionally granted authorities. That would take a constitutional amendment to achieve. FISA was a law passed by congress, and as such, it’s trumped by whatever constitutional authority the presidency has during a time of war.

          We can debate what those authorities include, but time and again, the courts have ruled that the presidency has those powers. Don’t forget that during WW2, Japanese-American were imprisoned by FDR without any due process.

          It’s that separation of powers thing that everyone only screams about when it’s their toes that are getting stepped on. If congress had it’s way, the presidency would be nothing but a public relations position much like the monarchy in England.

      • #3108359

        Warrants Impractical

        by woodrow ·

        In reply to I’m not opposed to information gathering…

        In principal I agree, the law should be enforced
        evenly. However it is not practical in the age of
        multipal modes of communication. A message from
        Pakistan could be relayed through multiple countries
        and modes before it arrived in the USA. It could have started as an oral phone message and arrived as
        an encrypted JPEG attachment of an email. There is no way to track all of this using warrants.

        • #3109263

          UH? Completely Practical

          by kirby5 ·

          In reply to Warrants Impractical

          It doesn’t matter the route of the communication, we only need to get a warrant on the destination, if they are in the United States.
          FISA court would approve a warrant fairly quickly and then the FBI could legally monitor the person for as long as they wanted.
          As for international traffic… We are already monitoring international traffic. Eschelon comes to mind immediately… and there is not need for warrants in oversea intelligence work.

          Now you do bring up one point … IFF the eavesdropping would have been focused on the on International side one could argue that it falls under current international espionage. The problem was, from what we have been told, we targeted US citizan on US soil … this still requires a warrant as I read the law.

        • #3107897

          Destination or person?

          by woodrow ·

          In reply to UH? Completely Practical

          If the warrant covers the person,I suppose it will
          work.However if it only covers a destination then there is a problem.
          Also,I have not even mentioned the issue of shared
          communication facillities.

        • #3134692

          Even with a 72 hour wait period?

          by conquistador ·

          In reply to Warrants Impractical

          Under FISA, they can monitor any international transmissions to a chosen US line for up to 72 hours before requesting a warrant. Everything they collect in that 72 hours is a freebie. If anything interesting turned up in that 72 hours, no court would disallow the warrant. Why is that impractical or unworkable? Anyway, if FISA is in fact impractical, the correct approach would be to notify Congress that a more practical methodology needs to be enacted – NOT ignoring the law and doing it in secret.

      • #3134237

        I’m not opposed to it either, but

        by azson ·

        In reply to I’m not opposed to information gathering…

        But when the Bush does not want to have to get a warrant, it makes me think what does he not want other people to know about who he is spying on and why. Just get a warrant like the law requires him to do, not mention using that a war excuse is kind of silly considering, according to him as he spoke on that aircraft carrier, it’s over.

    • #3259275

      And this from the party

      by dmambo ·

      In reply to What do you think of all the big brother stuff?

      that professes its desire to get government out of peoples’ lives.

      • #3257900

        The party you have dialed does not answer.

        by absolutely ·

        In reply to And this from the party

        Shall I keep ringing?

        Republicans have not been emphasizing small government for several years. Definitely nothing like they did when led by Newt Gingrich. I’m so sad that I miss him.

        🙁

      • #3257851

        Re: And this from the party

        by mjwx ·

        In reply to And this from the party

        ?And this from the party that professes its desire to get government out of peoples’ lives.?

        Maybe they meant “we want to keep average people from interfering in our governance”?

        I find that a major problem with the Australian government is that it has become not only out of touch with the average Australian but inaccessible to the average Australian. Most people don?t know who their MP (member of parliament) is let alone how to contact him/her. Once apon a time poly?s (politicians) would travel seeking to communicate with the average Australian. Now it seems they will only sit in party meetings with their supporters and bash the opposition.

        This is my view of the Australian political landscape, but it seems to me (looking in from the outside) that the US and UK gov?s are in similar states.

    • #3257850

      National Security

      by mjwx ·

      In reply to What do you think of all the big brother stuff?

      I’m sure knowing what teenage asian slut$ are up to is of vital importance to national security

    • #3257688

      Big Brother Is Watching!

      by derryck ·

      In reply to What do you think of all the big brother stuff?

      Big Brother is Watching!

      With regard for the concern about the Federal government wanting permission to conduct espionage upon the private lives of Americans, and anyone they deem a terrorist or terror suspect.

      This is my TAKE on this issue:

      No government or private enterprise has the right or authority to peek into the private affairs of citizens or customers without their permission, (written-oral or implied). With the advent of the National Patriot Act-2002, the Federal government have used this Act., to un-scrupulously peek into the lives and affairs of citizens “willy nilly,” and without their prior knowledge.

      Now that they were found snooping, and ‘the cat is out of the bag,’ The White House administration is adamant about this infringement on people’s privacy. And has the temerity to say to the American people, that these action/s were done in the national security interest.

      Oh give me a break!

      Snooping into the affairs of anyone is wrong, malicious, evil, contemptuous, and disregards the civil liberties to personal privacy.

      On Shanti.
      Derryck S. Griffith.
      Educator & Advocate.
      Greenwich Village.
      New York City.

      • #3107419

        A question for you

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to Big Brother Is Watching!

        While I am a privacy advocate and a passionate civil libertarian, I’m also a realist, realizing that nothing is absolute.

        You said, “Snooping into the affairs of anyone is wrong, malicious, evil, contemptuous, and disregards the civil liberties to personal privacy.”

        Is this an “absolute” sentiment on your part? And if so, how would law enforcement agencies investigate suspected criminals — rapists, murderers, and embezzlers, for example — or are you suggesting they should not? The same applies to investigating suspected terrorists.

        Personally speaking, I see the Internal Revenue Service as posing more of a threat on privacy and civil liberties than almost all other government agencies combined.

        (By the way, welcome to the TR forums.)

        • #3094273

          IRS and more …

          by too old for it ·

          In reply to A question for you

          I agree with you about the IRS. I heard a guest on one of the local radio talk shows express the opinion that all talk about campaign reform is a joke until you shut off the tax spigot.

          I am a huge privacy advocate and take it one step further: Who the blazes are we to say that something perfectly legal in another part of the globe is illegal simply because the internet / phone / radio / TV / snail-mail brought it here?

          I remember the big dust-up over Club Seventeen in Holland, where the legal age for photographing ? naked teens and posting said images on the internet is lower than the US. I notice, with some bemusement, that the US government has not succeeded in shutting them down or blocking their sites from US internet users.

          The government likely doesn’t care even now, unless it involves a politician or activist that needs to be made to heel like a proper lap dog.

          (Maxwell, nice to see you out here again.)

        • #3094140

          Good points

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to IRS and more …

          And as an after-thought, I’m absolutely amazed at the people who are crying foul with privacy issues when it concerns the NSA monitoring ONLY international communication in search of ONLY terrorist related activities, but they are ignorantly (or politically) quiet when it comes to the REAL invasion of people’s privacy at the hands of the IRS and the like. The reason is because, for the most part, it’s the left crying about it, and it’s the left who LOVES the IRS. This tells me that they don’t give a rat’s behind about “privacy”; they only want to attack President Bush, and this is their tactic of the day. (And they wonder why I overuse the word disingenuous to describe them — because they are.)

          Senator Kerry, I call for the abolition of the IRS because, not only do they violate my civil liberties, but they invade my privacy! Will YOU support this? I didn’t think so. Enough said.

        • #3258103

          I’m calling alQuida on my cell, but I want privacy …

          by too old for it ·

          In reply to Good points

          The NSA wire tapping is not nearly enough. We (Homeland Security) are so hypocritical regarding terrorists. For instance, every single hijacker on 9/11 was an Arabic male with ties to al-Quida. So we, as a security measure, take Granny Clampett?s knitting needles away and give her a full cavity search.

          The security chief over at El Al has to laughing his arse off.

          Senator DeWine, I call for the abolition of the IRS because, not only do they violate my civil liberties, AND invade my privacy, cutting off the flow of tax money to Washington is the only way to halt the corruption in government.

        • #3110161

          Racial blindness IS discriminatory.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to I’m calling alQuida on my cell, but I want privacy …

          The word “discriminate” means to choose. In the case of Al Qaida, there are a few relevant observables which dictate that Arabs are scrutinized more closely than others where suspicion of terrorism is involved.

          (1) All Al Qaida are Moslem.

          (2) Many Arabs are Moslem, and many Moslems are Arabs.

          (3) Most known Al Qaida are Moslem, and from what I have seen, most suspected members are also Moslem.

          Terrorism is always ideological. Anglicans did not join the IRA and only Moslems join Al Qaida. It’s idiotic to claim that racial profiling of Arabs is racist. It is not discrimination against Arabs for being Arab, it is the correct, intelligent way to find more Al Qaidas. You don’t go to a shoe store to find a computer, and you don’t look for Al Qaidas in nursing homes or up white grannies’ bums.

        • #3110145

          Are you going to say

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Racial blindness IS discriminatory.

          they don’t have a RIGHT to be scumbag terrorists?

          Or does that offend people? “freedom fighters”? No, scumbag terrorists was right the first time.

        • #3110134

          Well we (the US)…

          by noyoki ·

          In reply to Racial blindness IS discriminatory.

          did basically create the Al Quieda.

          But if you are going to tell me that everyone is something, then I’m going to tell you that:

          All black people are gangsters,
          All white people hate black people,
          All mexicans are skeevey perverts,
          All jewish people are greedy & “thrifty”,
          All italians are with the mob…

          The list goes on and on. If any of these are 100% true, I’ll give your list a second thought.

          But they aren’t.

        • #3109615

          Profiling is not the same as internment camps.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Racial blindness IS discriminatory.

          I did not say that all Arabs should now be rounded up and put in camps as if they were Japanese US citizens during World War II. It does make sense, though, to limit the list of suspects to plausible suspects, which means, when trying to find Al Qaida: Arabs. All Al Qaida (so far) are Arabs. That does not mean that all Arabs are Al Qaida, but it does mean there is no rational excuse for performing random searches in airports on non-Arabs.

    • #3109828

      Who are they kidding?

      by krazykyngekorny ·

      In reply to What do you think of all the big brother stuff?

      If you checked to see what the DOJ is actually looking at, you would see they are reading cold statistics- how many people looked at (a), (b), etc. What can they learn from that? ZIP!

      XX people searched porn sites- so what? Were they all adults? Maybe. Were they all children? Maybe. Or , what percentage of each? Can’t tell from statistics. So, the government is wasting money. The Rupublicans have adopted a Democrat tactic- whatever works FOR THEM!

      Have a nice day.

      • #3108486

        And who would have the time to read all this?

        by bruce ·

        In reply to Who are they kidding?

        If they were looking at actual searches, there are on average about 625 million searches done every day, using Google and Yahoo, which account for over 60% of all search engine traffic. If the average search used say 50 Kb of data (I am making an educated guess), then that would be about 31,250 Terabytes (PER DAY ! ). Where would you store all that? Even using computing power to filter for targeted content, who has time to read through millions of search results?

        • #3134290

          What difference would it make?

          by krazykyngekorny ·

          In reply to And who would have the time to read all this?

          Point is, if they DID read it all, and if they DID have room to store it (which would cost a large amount of taxpayer money), it would tell them ZIP, ZIP, ZIP, and, we, the taxpayer would be stuck with the bill FOR NOTHING!!

    • #3109660

      My Grumpy Take On The Issue

      by too old for it ·

      In reply to What do you think of all the big brother stuff?

      The whole “kids viewing porn” (which is different from “kiddie porn”) argument is the same faded red herring that was waved during the “mob scare” and the “commie scare” before that.

      Accepting for a moment the proposition that:

      Kids view porn on the internet.
      Organized crime is growing.
      There were and are communists in the government trying to bring down the United States.

      [b]NONE[/b] of the above would be an excuse for the government prying into the private lives of US citizens and businesses, had the forefathers had the foresight to put a right to privacy in the Bill of Rights (and if said right had not been shitcanned, along with all other individual and states rights during the reconstruction era).

      But they didn’t, so it wasn’t and hasn’t been necessary for the government to bother much with a right that doesn’t exist. Still a red herring.

      That said, I think that throttling back the power of the government should be the goal of the next 20 years or so, lest we have root the government out of out lives with a full-blown revolution at some future date.

    • #3109656

      Don’t Worry, Be Happy!

      by techytype ·

      In reply to What do you think of all the big brother stuff?

      People, both in the United States, and around the world have always been willing to let “them” (be it government, dictators, business, etc.) take care of things. Until it becomes obvious there is a problem and often when it is too late to do anything.

      Yes, people should be paying more attention and ensuring that their opinions are heard. This is not as simple as it appears though. Remember one of the first steps to silencing unpopular (with authorities) messages is to belittle and make offending person appear to be a member of a lunatic fringe. Failing that they work to destroy you financially. If that doesn’t work and you don’t have the ability to protect yourself you may find yourself experiencing unfortunate accidents. Of course in countries where human rights don’t count for much you just disappear.

      Now this would never happen in the United States right? Minor details like wiretaps without warrants, holding people for years without charge, or sending people to other countries for torture are not related and you can feel safe knowing your government is working to protect you. The same way there was such an efficient and immediate response following the hurricane Katrina.

      Now stop thinking, forget everything you have seen and read today. It hurts your little brain all these complicated topics. Go back to sleep and let your government do what you elected them to do. You did elect them right?

      • #3094182

        good point

        by bcramer ·

        In reply to Don’t Worry, Be Happy!

        reading some of these, makes me think back and wonder where some of these people were at when the topic of world history was discussed. It’s amazing how it can repeat and go unnoticed.