Slashdot Mirror
Dodd's Filibuster Threat Stalls Wiretap Bill
otakuj462 sends in an important followup to this morning's story on telecom immunity legislation. "Senator Chris Dodd won a temporary victory today after his threats of a filibuster forced Democratic leadership to push back consideration of a measure that would grant immunity to telecom companies that were complicit in warrantless surveillance... [T]he threat of Dodd's filibuster... persuaded Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-NV, to table the act until January. A compromise on the immunity will ostensibly be worked out in the interim period."
Finally, someone not just rolling over for this crap. Way to go, Dodd.
What, you don't want us to chop off your head and cut your body into little pieces?
Let's compromise: we'll just cut off your head.
And so it goes, on and on...
You can find Chris Dodd's voting record on this site. I live in CT, by thw way.
512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
Don't you wish the rest of congress could grow a spine?
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
I read on Slashdot just about every day people saying "Democracy may not be perfect, but if you don't like what your elected officials are doing just vote them out and vote in someone competent!" This might be a sign to put our money where our mouth is...
If you like Dodd's move, be sure to contact his office and express your support. Let him know he is doing the right thing.
Just because you can, does not mean you should.
They used filters and monitors and logging to spy on all traffic passing through key peering nodes on the say-so of the white house and the intelligence agencies even though such spying was illegal at the time it happened. I say we should hang AT&T, Verizon and the others out to dry for what they did. If it means they make less profit this year, tough, its their own fault for following the directions of G.W.Bush and his cronies instead of following the law (and demanding warrants for the spying)
Despite the favourable outcome in this case, isn't a filibuster a kind of Denial Of Service attack on democracy?
Blancmange
Don't look at this as a permanent victory either guys- the pressure needs to be kept up on all of the members of the Senate, especially those that may be on the fence (the other spineless democrats). Calls and emails made a difference today- Orrin Hatch was livid about "the blogs" spreading misinformation, and Reid obviously heard by the end of the day that his constituents were not happy that he was going to try and ram this bill through. When this comes back up in January, be heard. And better yet, contact your senator between now and then and let them know you won't accept retroactive immunity.
Democrats want immunity for big business. Republicans want big government.
Are the parties flip-flopping again or are they finally coming into parity with the fact that they're just one big party with two masks so the people get a sense they they're getting a change every 4 or 8 years?
The threat of a filibuster shouldn't have even been necessary if the government was really for the people by the people.
...and that's the way the cookie crumbles.
If you search for writings and speeches by US Rep Dr. Ron Paul (who is running for President) you'll notice that he wouldn't allow secret wiretapping etc...
Libertas in infinitum
If you feel strongly enough about this, send him a message; let him know how you feel about it. And if you're like me, you'll let him know how much you appreciate that he has some balls. http://dodd.senate.gov/index.php?q=node/3128&cat=Opinion
It was quite refreshing to listen to Dodd describe in fair detail the crap that's been going on:
The installation of systems poorly suited to specific taps but ideally suited to dragnet surveillance. In major fiber exchanges that aren't where the main foreign fiber trunks or satellite dishes are (i.e. the San Fransisco case that started it). And now we learn that Qwest balked because they wanted to put a dragnet on a switch center that handled almost entirely local traffic.
Then Orrin "destroy their computers" Hatch started speaking. About how the American government didn't do {the bombings in Beruit, the Bali nightclub bombing, the bombings in Kenya, the London tube bombings, the Madrid train bombings, and (of course) 9/11}, the Turrists did. And I'm sitting here trying hard not to scream "And how would dragnet surveillance of domestic calls have stopped a single damn one of those things!?!?"
Glenn Greenwald had a good report on this today; incredibly, only 10 senators voted against this bill. Reid allowed the bill to proceed despite Dodd's hold (the only one Reid has disallowed). You'd think Reid was bought and paid for by AT&T or something.
Dog is my co-pilot.
For standing up for our rights.
I haven't said a thank you like that with such heartfelt gratitude to a politician in a long time.
A ray of light in an era where the "threat of terrorism" is the darkness where our rights and freedoms are taken away one law, one amendment at a time.
(Yes, I did call my Senator today - not him. Yes I belong to the ACLU, the EFF and MoveOn.org)
uR iGn0ranc3, Their Power
I'm out of moderator points or I'd give you some. Why the hell is this immunity even being considered by politicians from either party?
"If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." -
Maybe it could become popular to do what the people want done, in Congress.
expandfairuse.org
For being the ONLY Democratic Presidential candidate to take the time to show up in Washington to stop this insanity (or at least give more time to get RID of the retroactive immunity for the telcos who broke laws when spying on US citizens).. I'm not sure what they rest of the Dems are smoking but a whole HECK of a lot f the voted YES to pass this bill.
In the Constitution, See Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3:
Which means no retroactive anything is legal. I'm amazed that the media continues to overlook this critical bit.
On second thought, no I'm not. There can be no compromise on this. The telcos colluded with Bushco to perform illegal acts, and granting them immunity after the fact is not allowed.
For those wanting to voice their support you can contact Dodd here
Dodd put a hold on this bill; under Senate traditions that should have killed it. And under Harry Reid's turn as majority leader, that's still the case...if you're a Republican. Lindsey Graham placed a hold on a bill to prevent the CIA from using torture. Or when Tom Coburn placed a hold on a nondiscrimination bill. But when a Democrat wants to place a hold on a bill to protect our rights, he is simply ignored.
the 10 votes were against cloture, not against the bill itself. But it's still bad - some Dems try the cop out of voting for cloture but then voting against the bill/nominee.
Reid postponed it to after January so that the Democrats can get their primaries over without being attacked as being "soft on terror". That way, Hillary and Obama and co. don't have to go on record as going against the bill. This undermines Dodd's position, so come January, Dodd might have a harder time finding supporters.
rescue. remember, evile never sleeps, & it's running more scared now than ever in yOUR history, because of all the awareness of its' life0cidal intentions.
/.) continues to attempt to shed some light on yOUR foibles;
in the end game, the creators will prevail (world without end, etc...), as it has always been. the process of gaining yOUR release from the hostage situation may not be what you might think it is. butt of course, most of US don't know, or care what a precarious/fatal situation we're in.
some 'races' we'll wish we lost;
for example; the insidious attempts by the felonious corepirate nazi execrable to block the suns' light, interfering with a requirement (sunlight) for us to stay healthy/alive. it's likely not good for yOUR health/memories 'else they'd be bragging about it?
we're intending for the nazis to give up/fail even further, in attempting to control the 'weather'.
http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&q=video+cloud+spraying
meanwhile, the life0cidal philistines continues on their path of death, debt, & disruption for most of US;
gov. bush denies health care for the little ones
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/03/bush.veto/index.html
whilst demanding/extorting billions to paint more targets on the bigger kids
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/12/bush.war.funding/index.html
all is not lost/forgotten/forgiven
whilst (yOUR elected) president al gore (deciding not to wait for the much anticipated 'lonesome al answers yOUR questions' interview here on
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article3046116.ece
still making his views known worldwide, whilst many of US keep yOUR heads firmly lodged up yOUR infactdead.asp(s) hoping (against overwhelming information to the contrary) that the party LIEn scriptdead pr ?firm? fairytail hypenosys scenario will never end.
for each of the creators' innocents harmed in any way, there is a debt that must/will be repaid by you/us, as the perpetrators/minions of unprecedented evile, will not be available after the big flash occurs.
'vote' with (what's left in) yOUR wallet. help bring an end to unprecedented evile's manifestation through yOUR owned felonious corepirate nazi glowbull warmongering execrable.
consult with/trust in yOUR creators. providing more than enough of everything for everyone (without any distracting/spiritdead personal gain motives), whilst badtolling unprecedented evile, using an unlimited supply of newclear power, since/until forever. see you there?
To be clear, the US isn't a Democracy. It's a Republic.
Not again! Why does this inane crap get modded insightful? Democracy is that system of government where the People (however that is defined from time to time) are periodically consulted as to whether an incumbent government should be removed from office or not. Most republics are in fact democracies. There is simply no use case for the word 'democracy' to mean a system where the people vote on each piece of legislation - it has never existed, and hopefully it never will. The only sense in which the US is not a democracy is that it is the manufacturers of voting machines rather than the People who are being consulted.
Let's see...
He seems to like the Thought Crime concept. Rather than merely punishing people for bad actions, he supports the idea that we should try to guess if a criminal might hate his victim. Extra years in prison for Thought Crime makes sense to him.
He's OK with the government taking people's legally owned firearms during an emergency or major disaster. (as in Katrina... where the cops were followed by thugs preying on the now-unarmed residents) Got a disaster? Time to steal from the people!
He somehow thinks that firearm suppliers should be held liable for the actions of firearm users. If this seems sane to you, consider applying it to computers or vehicles. (on the plus side, that kind of liability would put Microsoft out of business and solve all our traffic problems)
He likes the PATRIOT act. Oh dear...
He's a CAN SPAM kind of guy.
He's OK with shovelling money to sugarcane growers.
So really, what's at stake here is not actually ending the practice of wiretaps, its about a bunch of lawyers wanting to cash in and sue the people that did it. What's the net result to any single plaintiff? 50 cents per email read? Yet, a bunch of telecoms will go belly up so lawyers can get rich.
Way to go, Democrats. One of the few industries we have left in the USA not destroyed by litigation, and now, that's all going down the shitter to. I think its obvious that the issue here is not the companies that obeyed a request from the guy in the oval office, its the guy in the oval office. What's even more amazing, at the end of the day, is that Democrats will ultimately create a legal framework that says a corporation doesn't actually even have to listen to the government at all, unless the government provides legal immunity for lawsuits. So... from here on out, we will have to immunize firms for complying with every other federal act, which is to say everything.
Stupid, stupid, stupid.
This is my sig.
In short: yay!
(Reply follows)
----
Dear Mr. InvisiblePinkUnicorn:
Thank you for expressing your views on legislation that would provide retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that participated in the National Security Agency's (NSA) warrantless surveillance program.
In December of 2005 it was first reported that President Bush had authorized the NSA to monitor communication between U.S. citizens and terrorist suspects outside the United States without first obtaining a warrant. Some telecommunications companies participated in this program and provided the government with access to phone records. Serious questions arose about the legality of this program and its compliance with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA).
In August 2007, Congress passed revisions to FISA, which I opposed, expanding the authority of the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence to conduct surveillance of foreign targets. Under this legislation telecommunications companies that assist the government in the future implementation of this program were granted immunity from criminal and civil action.
This legislation expires in early February, and Congress is currently considering further revisions to FISA. President Bush has requested that any further modifications to FISA contain retroactive immunity for any telecommunications company that participated in the program since its inception. While developments in technology may require modest modifications to our intelligence laws, I will oppose efforts to provide retroactive immunity for illegal wiretapping as it is inconsistent with our democratic principles. All citizens must have legal recourse when their rights are infringed upon, and companies must bear the responsibility for breaking the law.
Thank you again for contacting me.
Sincerely,
Sherrod Brown
The Dodd Gambit is a success.
And as he reluctantly tabled the bill. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was heard muttering "Dodd Gambit" under his breath.
Wow, Poor Harry Reid, I wouldn't even cut off my hair for 22k, who knew senators were so cheap to buy. Soon they will probably be available on Ebay.
Thank dog for the filibuster. It's nice to know that the founding fathers had a little foresight. I never really appreciated this little piece of magic until now. Good to see that it can be used for good too.
So really, what's at stake here is not actually ending the practice of wiretaps, its about a bunch of lawyers wanting to cash in and sue the people that did it.
Ah ha ha ah ha. No. It's about massive, serial lawbreaking and attempts to sweep it under the rug. And who gives a shit if it ends up in the hands of lawyers! Give it to Britney Spears, burn it, open a mime school - the point is that it's out of the hands of those who conspired to violate our Constitutional rights.
One of the few industries we have left in the USA not destroyed by litigation, and now, that's all going down the shitter to.
AT&T's market cap is 425 BILLION DOLLARS Yes, poor beleaguered AT&T REALLY needs legal protection here.
What's even more amazing, at the end of the day, is that Democrats will ultimately create a legal framework that says a corporation doesn't actually even have to listen to the government at all
When you're done drinking the Kool-Aid, try reading up on the Nuremberg trials.
Link
See how these lying bastards try to confuse?
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
How much have you really studied the UN to be qualified to make such a judgment? I don't want to come off as snobbish but I've found that people who say such things have done very little actual academic research in this field of study. Here I'll rip off some of the basic arguments for why international government organizations (IGOs) such as the UN can be forces of good from my International Relations 101 textbook (International Politics on the World Stage). These are just the claims of the arguments, if you want to read the reasoning behind them you can find the textbook in any college library on pages 192-194.
The UN creates and fosters norms against violence.
Provides a debate alternative towards violence.
Intervenes diplomatically to assist and encourage countries to settle their disputes peacefully.
Promotes arms control and disarmament (IAEA).
Provides peacekeeping forces.
Promotes economic development (UNDP, World Bank, IMF, etc).
Advocates human rights (UDOHR of 1948).
Advances international law and norms.
Advocate for the environment.
Encourages independence.
"Last time I checked a woman's right to choose was protected by a Supreme Court decision, not the Constitution. Whether or not one supports abortion is another matter, but lets be clear on that."
I want you to follow me here. A document is meaningless unless it is interpreted. The Supreme Court is the final authority on who can interpret the constitution. The Supreme Court has decided that the 4th amendment of the constitution protects a woman's right to choose.
"Not a bad idea considering the Constitution provides no basis for the federal government to be involved in education, and our schools are failing anyway. Plus, our students did better comparatively against other nations before the US Dept of Education was instituted."
I bet those other nations that you are comparing the US to also have public education.
The problem is that democracy sucks. Democracy leads to countless evils. Slavery in the US was democracy in action, as were Jim Crow Laws. The South splitting from the US was democracy in action. Hitler rising to power was democracy in action. There is nothing "good" about democracy other than it leaves a way to kick someone who is utterly incompetent out of power. Democracy is less likely to cause brutal oppression than a dictatorship due to the electorate having the ability to remove the government, but it is by no means a guarantee.
The US constitution, something that is generally revered as being as a model constitution is an example of an UNDEMOCRATIC document. The constitution sets in place limits that a democratically elected government must follow, irregardless of what the will of the people is. It sets in place a method of changing the constitution that demands far more than a "democratic" majority vote. The Supreme Court which upholds the constitution is an example of an undemocratic institution. In fact, I would say the things I like best about the American part are its undemocratic parts, not the democratically elected pieces of it.
So, is a filibuster an example of an anti-democratic purpose? Hell yes, and I love it! The best thing about the American system is the fact that a simple majority can't impose its will upon the minority. In order to get even the simplest of things done, you need a majority of 60%. To get truly earth shattering done (like changing the constitution), you need a super majority well over 2/3's. This is a good thing. This is one of the reasons why despite Europe being far more liberal than the US, the US still has much strong free speech laws. It isn't because Americans are hippies, it is because the non-democratic aspects of the American government make it virtually impossible to pass anti-free speech legislation, and even when it is passed, it promptly gets struck down.
I say hurray for the non-democratic institutions. I think we need MORE of them. This world needs more liberal (liberal as in liberty, not leftist) institutions and less democracy.
... persuaded Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-NV, to table the act until JanuaryWhy does American English use the verb table in this way? Yes, I know, different dialects of English are equally valid, but I'm just curious about how it makes sense to use to table to mean to set aside and not consider?
When I say "he will table the bill tomorrow", meaning "he will submit the bill for active consideration, tomorrow", I picture a metaphorical table that everyone is sitting around while discussing things. When an American English speaker says "he will table the bill tomorrow", meaning "he will remove the bill from consideration, tomorrow", what do they picture? Is a metaphorical table in a dusty corner of a basement being pictured?
Atheism is a religion to the same extent that not collecting stamps is a hobby.
The average person is easy to sway with a great big ad campaign. If the latest pop star says to vote YES on #42 for the children, well, people sure will. This may be the least-bad problem though!
Where would the laws come from? Imagine them all filled with vague non-lawyer language that will be difficult to interpret and full of holes.
As it is already, laws have both a bad part and some bait. It's purposely complicated.
Most people are clueless about basic economics. A lot of people would try to set price limits, just print more money, or massively screw with interest rates. We'd be totally sunk in no time.
It's likely that everybody would give themselves welfare without taxes. At best, jealosy would result in something crazy that wipes out all the business owners.
It's kind of like DDOSing the RIAA's website
Dodd did it, so it looks like someone stood against it.
The truth is, they'll pass and do whatever they want without being accountable for it.
I went to this website:
http://www.wqad.com/Global/link.asp?L=259460 Select a candidate quiz,
which asks you questions about various issues and then tells you how closely various candidates match what you say, and for me it was Chris Dodd, and I couldn't remember ever hearing about him before. I'm a lot more sensitized to his name now of course.
In theory, theory and practice are the same; in practice they're different. (Yogi Berra & A. Einstein)
The committee that wrote the immunity bill had eight democrats on it, of which six voted for it: Rockefeller (WV), Feinstein (CA), Bayh (IN), Mikulski (MD), Nelson (FL), and Whitehouse (RI). Only Feingold (WI) and Wyden (OR) voted against.
In addition, Dodd's first attempt to stall the legislation failed, 76-10. Only 9 other Democrats supported him.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
You mean you want Edwards to win the democratic nomination and then lose the election?
The holding in Roe v. Wade doesn't even completely apply anymore, as there've been a dozen or so cases since then amending, explaining, or otherwise complicating the holding to the point where only experts can really tell you what the Supreme Court thinks the Constitution says on the subject. And it will probably say something different a few years from now too.
The Supreme Court also has a long history of inventing rights not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, which are later overturned. One of the earliest major ones was actually invented by conservatives and later overturned by liberals: the early-20th-century Court held that there was a Constitutional right to "freedom of contract", and therefore that legislation for e.g. minimum-wage laws was unconstitutional, as it impeded citizens' freedom to enter into contracts of their own choosing. A later court decided that the Constitution didn't say this after all.
So basically unless it's really clearly spelled out in the Constitution, a Supreme Court holding is really just that, an opinion of the Supreme Court, based largely on political views and subject to change in the future.
Or do you really think it was the Constitution that resolved Bush v. Gore in 2004? No, it was the Supreme Court, under the convenient fiction of "interpreting the Constitution".
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Lets go through some terms, shall we?
Demos: Greek for "common people" or "lower class"
Kratia: Greek for the word "rule".
Thus the word demos-krates; democracy.
Polity: Aristotle considered it to be the perfect form of government because it was neither Democracy (self-serving by the poor) or Oligarchy (self-serving rule by the wealthy) - but rather a form of government where things are ruled by everyone in the interest of the whole community.
Democracy used to be the corrupt equivalent of "polity" in the day of Athens, according to Aristotle's typology of governments. Back in the day during the time when the founding fathers framed the constitution, the word "democracy" used to have the negative connotation of "tyranny of the majority" (still exists to this day). As demonstrated by their influence to call one of the parliamentary chambers "the Senate", they opted to use another word inspired by the Romans:
Res publica: The word "republic" in latin, which means thing business / thing of the people.
Madison and Jefferson DID in turn change the definition of "Republic" to mean scheme of representation. It is different from the term Res Publica which just implies people's business. Since then the definitions and usage of both the words have changed, as hundreds of years have passed. "Democracy" changed in the sense that it now includes a representative structure ("liberal democracy" is what we all mean) and "Republic" today commonly refers to a country whose head of state is not a monarch (China is a republic, but they for sure aint democratic). In essence, the founding fathers used the word "Republic" exactly in the way we use the word "Democracy" today. I.e. Representative Democracy.
So when people claim that the United States is a Republic and not a Democracy, they're using age old definitions. If they claim the today's linguistical definition of Republic is wrong, then they ought to go back to the true Roman definition! So when someone tells you that the United States isn't democracy - do the right thing and tell them they're wrong!
What's so bad about being lazy? What if there was a war and nobody showed up?
Thank you for the link. I learned something I had not previously known.
Ron Paul made a speech just before he voted for that bill.... you can read the entire speech here:
http://ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=635
Here is an excerpt:
"As an obstetrician, I know that partial birth abortion is never a necessary medical procedure. It is a gruesome, uncivilized solution to a social problem......
Unfortunately, H.R. 760 takes a different approach, one that is not only constitutionally flawed, but flawed in principle, as well. Though I will vote to ban the horrible partial-birth abortion procedure, I fear that the language used in this bill does not further the pro-life cause, but rather cements fallacious principles into both our culture and legal system....
Despite its severe flaws, this bill nonetheless has the possibility of saving innocent human life, and I will vote in favor of it. I fear, though, that when the pro-life community uses the arguments of the opposing side to advance its agenda, it does more harm than good."
Libertas in infinitum
Why are businesses to blamed for taking goverment orders? Do you know what would have happened to them if they didn't comply? So now congress wants to blame american business for the administrations mistakes...? Why cause its easier? All this is doing is killing american business if you haven't looked at the markets lately...
The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman.
Physics is like sex: sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it.
Yeah, despite the fact that AT&T et al. were asked to do this about 2 weeks after Bush took office.
Would someone remind me why we wanted to kick out the Republicans by bringing in the Democrats again? I seem to recall being told that they'd be better than this, but I'm sure it's just me 'cause I always get that feeling after Democrats are elected.
Property is theft.
Republic: The position of head honcho in the country isn't hereditary.
Democracy: People get to vote on stuff. (Stuff being representatives, bills, or other things depending on the flavor of democracy)
1. Of the 5 veto-bearing members, the US has been, BY FAR, the one to use it the most. In fact, in the last 20 years, IIRC, it has used it an order of magnitude more than any other member.
2. The US is / was for years late on his dues to the organizations, so much so that European countries had to pay for them. That's some way to do some legwork you've got here.
3. Of all the MANY functions the UN performs, of all the many international partnerships it covers, the US is the country to usually block it. You don't have to look very far, just this week the US was AGAIN blocking progress on global warming, ONE country against ALL others. The few exceptions are when its client states (Israel mostly), paid-for foreign governments (Bliar's, Howard's) or bought countries (various pacific island) support its scandalous, unilateral positions.
Just look at ANYTHING regarding Israel. EVERY country in the world on one side, save for US+Israel voting against, UK abstaining. But you probably believe the neocon line, in which case, you're on the side of the war criminals.
Along with the Bush Dogs in the House.
I sincerely wish that /.'s Ron Paul cheerleading squad would look a little deeper into his voting record and stance on issues.
While getting every oath breaking (protect the Constitution) coward out of office would be nice, it's not very practical. But that's okay - a few primaries can have great effect. After Lieberman was successfully primaried, the Dems finally pulled their outs out of their ass when it came to criticizing the occupation of Iraq. A few more and the Dems might finally pull their heads out of their asses on ending the war in Iraq and block any legislation that does not have a hard withdrawal date. Jane Harman for example has improved considerably just at the threat of being primaried.
Republicans fear their base. Too many Democrats deliberately vote against theirs, and with the most unpopular president in history. This is because they think they have nothing to fear from the left or the center, only the right - so they move to the right. Oh, and they crave approval from the Joke Line beltway pundits. They need to learn that is not the case.
This reminds me of the "No Amnesty for Illegals" drive awhile back when the Senate was discussing changes to our immigration laws.
What I'm curious about is whether it's the same people opposing both of these "amnesties" or just one or the other (XOR?).
Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
http://www.boingboing.net/2007/11/21/top-ten-most-viewed.html
Wikipedia is "The Free Encyclopedia." What's on the mind of Wikipedia its readers? Here are the top ten most viewed pages on Wikipedia:
1. Main Page [30,090,900]
2. Wiki [904,800]
3. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows [413,400]
4. Naruto [401,400]
5. Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock [396,000]
6. United States [330,000]
7. Wikipedia [329,400]
8. Deaths in 2007 [321,300]
9. Heroes (TV series) [307,500]
10. Transformers (film) [303,600]
Conservapedia is "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia." What's on the mind of its readers? Here are the top ten most viewed pages on Conservapedia:
1. Main Page [1,906,729]
2. Homosexuality [1,572,713]
3. Homosexuality and Hepatitis [517,086]
4. Homosexuality and Promiscuity [420,687]
5. Gay Bowel Syndrome [389,052]
6. Homosexuality and Parasites [388,123]
7. Homosexuality and Domestic Violence [365,888]
8. Homosexuality and Gonorrhea [331,553]
9. Homosexuality and Mental Health [291,179]
10. Homosexuality and Syphilis [265,322
so Coldie, Gay Bowel Syndrome? is that painful?
Your doing a heck of a job Coldie
What a waste of a perfectly good subject with a absolutely worthless troll. It could have been the basis for a +5 insightful but no you had to make a comment like a 10yr aiming to piss people off.
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
Personally, I've always been against the charge of attempted murder. I don't think that a lesser sentence is necessary simply because the perpetrator wasn't competant.
Well your honor, while my client did fire the pistol into the face of Mr. Jones, he was a bad shot, and therefore didn't mean to kill Mr. Jones as much.
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
Billary and Osama, on the other hand, get bupkiss from me. I'm not impressed. Her Highness the Pre-Crowned is just Repugnican Lite as far as I'm concerned.
I kinda hope Edwards pulls a Kerry, frankly. Aside from what some want to modbomb into oblivion...
That would make the race a bit more interesting if we saw an Edwards/Huckabee run race. Either way, you bring economic policy back to a saner level.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
The exact rights the Court chooses to recognize at any given time changes depending on the political views of the Supreme Court justices. Put some conservatives on the Court and contracts are a Constitutional right; put some liberals on the Court and they aren't. The reverse with abortion.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
By the looks of this source(and those whom they link towards), there seems to be no real way they're going to object as they have not in previous times. It seems they'd have no problem with abusing this position to throw someone in jail that objected to this - Qwest for example.
You might as well read any of the other linked blogs and see one voice, one opinion, no room for dissent towards the administration.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
My God! He's in Sierra Nevada's pocket too! This explains the hop shortage. (Warehouse fires in Oregon, hailstorms in Slovenia -- they're all just cover stories!) I keep trying to buy cascade hops, and every time I find a supplier, the government MitMs my order, tells me "sold out," and sends the hop availability intell to Sierra Nevada. Dejected by my inability to get ingredients for a pale ale, I drown my sorrows in a few pints of SNPA. It all makes perfect sense, now.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
When are they going to learn that right after they grant immunity, they find out exactly how bad things really were they they regret doing it because they can't punish the people responsible.
They need to subpoena people, make them testify, and if they don't know or don't remember, make them responsible to find out and hold them accountable. Let them know that the Alzheimer's defense doesn't work any more, by holding them in "Contempt of Congress" or perjury. Memories will start getting better, and people will start showing up prepared to answer the questions, when the realize that failure to properly prepare could land them in prison.
If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
as long as you can keep your guns?
Keep firing away.
The NSA is keeping track of your every bullet anyway
"He seems to like the Thought Crime concept. Rather than merely punishing people for bad actions, he supports the idea that we should try to guess if a criminal might hate his victim. Extra years in prison for Thought Crime makes sense to him." Another person who doesn't know the meaning of the words "thought crime." What you are calling "thought crime" is actually "mens rea" and it is a basic staple underpinning the entire legal framework of Western civilization. Of course you take into account a perpetrator's state of mind, and adjust their punishment accordingly. We've been doing that centuries before America was even colonized. That isn't "thought crime" at all. It's appropriate sentencing. This isn't a very insightful post and should be down-graded.
The free market has no inherent quality that makes it more or less "correct" than anything else. It is not a natural order, it is not a universal truth or force.
Actually, the free market is a natural order. It's the law of the jungle. Right now, China's economy is probably the free-est market around in that if you bribe the right people you can pretty much sell whatever you want, at least to foreigners. Look at the results: fantastic economic growth coupled with insane amounts of pollution, poisoning and dangerous products being sold. Not to mention the speculative bubbles in the Chinese financial markets.
On the other hand, free market economics as traditionally discussed in educational and political circles is just as much of an ivory-tower concept as socialism. Where socialism falsely postulates that individuals will rationally limit their consumption in order to make production available to other members of society, free-market economics falsely postulates that all market participants share all the information they have about the market, and provide equal access to that information to all market participants. We gave up on trying to actually use this model in the U.S. in the 19th century when the government cracked down on the snake-oil salesmen and other purveyors of useless drugs.
So socialism ends up bringing government management of the economy in order to balance production, demand and distribution. In essence to make sharing rational. The free market brings government management of the economy in order to balance information about the economy.
This last might not be clear, since on the face of it, the government has tons of regulations regarding product quality, fiduciary responsibility and thousands of other economic bits. But at their core, all of these laws prevent suppliers from hiding negative information about their products and services, or buyers from hiding information about the value of their payment. So market participants have assurance that in almost all cases, products satisfy the regulatory requirements, and in most cases (or at least a sufficient percentage to achieve a deterrent effect) where products fail to satisfy the requirements they can be prosecuted. The government also regulates things like pollution, where production of a product or service damages common property. From a market perspective ensures that more of the hidden costs of producing a product are actually reflected in the price.
And of course all bureaucracies enact regulations that allow the bureaucracies to remain funded and perpetuate. In its own way, the government is a market itself, where legislators, voters, lobbyists and bureaucrats all negotiating trading prices for votes (both election and legislative), taxes, campaign funds, budget dollars, government services and other marketable items within the government economy. From this perspective, Dodd seems to pander to the voters a bit more than the lobbyists. Most of his "questionable" votes were in response to "crises" (as perceived by the public) like terrorism and the anarchy of the internet.
We are the 198 proof..
Absolutely true. The Constitution has been really suffering lately.
Much in the same theme as the essay on "The Market for Lemons", there's a number of fundamental problems with attempting to apply free-market solutions for health care. First of all, without something like the FDA, placebo effect means that there's essentially no way to tell snake oil from antibiotics. So you need a minimal level of regulation.
The assumption of the free market is that if you don't like what you get from vendor A, you can shop around to vendor B or C or D.
But when you get shot or injured in a traffic accident, it's not like you're going to haggle with the paramedics on price. You need to go to the hospital, or you die.
So since buyers can't just decide to "do without" lifesaving surgery (or any other medical treatment), then there's no reduction of demand as prices increase.
Finally, take the example of an HIV vaccine. Now, granted, some researchers suspect that it may be flat out impossible. But if you look at the economics of the situation, what society as a whole needs is a vaccine. But what drug producers need is a steady revenue stream. A one off solution like a vaccine has a very low profit margin, especially compared to taking a couple dozen pills every day for the rest of a patient's life. So there's very little incentive to put R & D into a vaccine. (arguably, there's even an incentive to prevent others from working on one, but I'm not wearing my conspiracy theory hat today...)
These examples are not exceptional 'edge cases'. These sorts of problems are common in many marketplaces, and may not be solvable problems. So let's be very, very, careful when we talk about free markets and heath care.
The plural form of "anecdote" is "anecdotes", not "evidence".
I get it.
So when a black man dares to commit a crime against a white person, he should get 50 lashings on top of his beheading for daring to intimate a white man.
And should someone of a lessor stock get uppity with their superiors, more jail time to send a clear message that this terrorism will not be tolerated!
</sarcasm>
What would be the wingnut response if:
- Clinton apologized to a communist government for a mid-air crash clearly caused by their pilot
- Clinton was warned point blank that Al Queda was determined to attack the U.S., possibly using hijacked airplanes as weapons, and ignored it
- Clinton sat around on his ass and read a children's book for 20 minutes when he knew the nation was under attack
- Clinton was warned point blank that a coastal city was in danger of being destroyed by a hurricane, and rushed!...to go on vacation
- Clinton stays on vacation after hurricane hits and destroys said coastal city.
- Clinton lied us into attacking and occupying another country
- Clinton's administration did zero planing for how to run said occupied country
- Clinton fired United States Attorneys because they wouldn't press bogus cases against Republicans just before an election
- Clinton started a massive wiretapping program, without warrants, with the NSA
- Clinton's DOJ held American citizens in jail, without trial, and tortured them (yes, sensory deprivation is torture)
- Clinton tried lying us into war again on Iran
- Clinton routinely used recessed appointments to get around the Republican Senate. Remember how Republicans freaked out when Dems discussed filibustering a few of Bush's nominees, when the UpOrDownVote party blocked 60 of Clinton's?
Considering the wingnut Republicans impeached Bill Clinton over a blowjob (no, it was NOT for lying under oath), I'd imagine he'd be strung up by his testicles in some cave with a permanent blood transfusion so they could torture him 24 hours a day. You guys should go for some truth in advertising and change your name from the Republic Party to the Giant Fucking Hypocrisy Party.It's just a socialist joke.
So if Democrats are socialists for objecting to unconstitutional wiretapping, that would make the Republic Party communists for complaining about FBI files, right?
Seriously stork, I don't know why you even bother replying anymore when I catch you trying to spread your BS. You're Charlie, I'm Lucy, and I pull your football of lame talking points out from under you every time.
We've already seen "how things work out" in those experiments. Things were really, really bad .
I have often wondered...
Why should someone be punished any less for having poor aim? (timing/knowledge/experience/etc...)
Shouldn't the punishment be based on intent instead of ability?
It's the *thought* that counts, not the execution (pun?) of said thought...
You are simply confused as to what is behind the obsessive interest this bunch has with the communications and other private affairs of American citizens. The target is not international terrorist groups or drug cartels. What this is all about is getting as much data as possible on domestic malcontents. These include, but are not limited to, some pretty radical and well heeled militia groups that operate far enough within the law to prevent monitoring by normal (ie:legal unconstitutionally sanctioned) methods.
The misuse of the FISA court to enable the NSA wiretapping agenda, the Patriot Act I and II and other such provide a means to circumvent the public face of the judicial system to allow the secret operation of unconstitutional programs. Of course there is also the advantage that via the same methods they could also generate enough fear quiet other citizens like journalists. Taken far enough these programs are bound to stir up the more radical, and usually well armed factions. I cannot not help to think that the current bunch of nitwits is trying to stir the stink and cause an event that will allow them to take even more radical steps to consolidate power.
The big picture is rather chilling. This nation has had problems from the start with things like the slavery and segregation of blacks, genocide and apartheid of native peoples, bondage and serfdom of Irish, Asian and other later immigrants, and the more recent abuses of Hispanics. It has serious problems with wealth distribution and it is getting worse all the time. It has a judicial system that operates in relation to the $$ one has to spend on bribes, oops sorry "on qualified representation". The methods we have used over the years to elect representatives has always been far from perfect, but seems to be on the brink of collapse lately. The horrendous laws that have been passed in recent years, combined with the total lack of respect for that "god-damned piece of paper" by a bunch of nitwits, well I see a storm on the horizon.
Yet YOU STILL believe what that chicken hawk and some right wing blog says, you poor thing. Just be careful where you stand when the storm arrives. Quit reading and listening to the same old shit, dig around some. Things are not the way BillO says they are, not at all.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" Benjamin Franklin
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." Winston Churchill
When the people fear their Government, there is tyranny. When the Government fears it's people, there is liberty.." Thomas Paine
Wabi-Sabi
Matthew
"The Supreme Court also has a long history of inventing rights not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, which are later overturned."
SCOTUS nor any other government entity has EVER invented a right. All rights not explicitly defined or disallowed in the constitution are retained by the people. The fact that a specific SCOTUS, POTUS, COTUS or other butthead(s) chooses to misinterpret, misapply or outright ignore or violate the constitution has no bearing on what it is or what rights it defines. The example you specified for instance on the minimum wage laws was simply a dirty attempt to thwart constitutional granted congressional power to regulate commerce and contract law by misdirection and misapplication of the constitution. The conservatives had a much larger agenda than the minimum wage law, it was just a tool. They intended to muckup several areas of government relations with business in the regulation of commerce and in contract law. Hell they have been at that same mud hole for the better part of at least the last 150 years or so. An economic survival of the slickest. The belief that government should not interfere with ones ability to take any advantage of any opportunity one has to increase ones holdings, regardless of the harm it could cause to the knaves.
Why do so many have trouble understanding this article of the document? It is so damn simple and should be honored as the most hallowed writ in the constitution. Most of the first eight articles of the Bill Of Rights could have actually been left out and article nine would have covered them anyways. The only reason they were explicitly defined is that those were where the framers had seen the most onerous abuse from the crown and thus they wanted to make a especially strong statements on those issues. Yes I wish they would have had the foresight to explicitly define a few more rights, but overall I think they did an amazing job. What would it matter anyways when you have so many willing to ignore or violate it outright, with so many others apparently willing to support or ignore the transgressions.
Article ten has a similar nature but is more targeted to the greater body of the constitution and thus on issues like congressional powers to regulate commerce and contract law rather than mostly focused on the Bill Of Rights as nine is. This elegant document has been a great inspiration for so many across the world in the last couple of century's. It is a shame than so many in this nation have such a shallow understanding of it and so little respect for it. But then again we have a sitting president that has the gall to say:
"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It's just a god damned piece of paper!"
The situation in America is a frackin shameful mess. I think the people that penned that wonderful document would be appalled and very ticked off as well. I think Franklin would tell us all to grow some hairy ones before we piss it all away.
Wabi-Sabi
Matthew
Amendment 9 - Construction of Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.