Slashdot Mirror
Feds Have a High-Speed Backdoor Into Wireless Carrier
An anonymous reader writes "An unnamed U.S. wireless carrier maintains an unfiltered, unmonitored DS-3 line from its internal network to a facility in Quantico, Virginia, according to Babak Pasdar, a computer security consultant who did work for the company in 2003. Customer voice calls, billing records, location information and data traffic are all allegedly exposed. A similar claim was leveled against Verizon Wireless in a 2006 lawsuit."
If some guy said it, it must be true!
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
It's very likely this is to meet the realtime reporting/relay requirements of the CALEA statue which governs lawful intercept of voice and data communications.
Does anyone know what the status of any opportunistic encryption packages for Windows or Linux? Can this stuff be set up easily now?
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
Babak, Agha!
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.
"Can you hear me now?"
"Yes we can, perfectly clear."
....Babak Pasdar, a computer security consultant, has not been seen nor heard from since he left a client site earlier today. His family life was stable and solid - his family suspects foul play. Federal officials suggest that no foul play was involved, and regret that they cannot waste their resources on a missing person who 'probably ran away to start a new life.'
Full story at eleven....
When you're dead, you don't know you're dead. It only affects the people around you. Same thing when you're stupid.
How do i get one to my house?
---- Booth was a patriot ----
So another Whistleblower speaks, its a MOO http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOO But then again, The FBI Academy is located on the United States Marine Corps Base at Quantico, Virginia.
With a pipe this big, the RIAA needs to know this so they can start suing these students.
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
If your interested in applying, call your mother and tell her.
What are we going to do tonight Brain?
Make a roaring bluster about this and then fold like wet paper tigers when it comes time to put up or shut up..
Do you want to know why Bushco thinks it's above the law? Because until you fucking cowards grow a goddamn spine and stand up to their evil, corrosive attitude towards the rule of law THEY ARE.
Why is it that in 8 years, I have never, EVER heard of a major Democrat standing up and saying outright, without analogy, subtlety or tact, that thanks to Bush the terrorists have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams? That thanks to him, 19 insane religious fanatics have gone from "attacked three buildings and got their organization crushed like a bug for it's trouble" to "shook the rule of law, the foundation of the most powerful country in the world, to it's base?" That thanks to him and the Republican fear machine, bin Laden has changed and hurt American society in ways he never could have dreamed of? That thanks to him, the terrorists have won in every way that matters?
Hear, hear. Mod parent up!
Someone should stand up and fight for our rights - Land of the Free?
I don't understand why people in general, and specifically the /. crowd, are surprised to learn about such accommodations? Anyone that knows even a little bit about networking should realize that unless they are encrypting their connections they are open to anyone along the line. What would be more interesting would be if there was a claim that they were breaking AES encryption in real time. That would be of interest. But since that is not the case there is nothing of real interest here. Nothing to see. Move along folks.
there's little difference between the Democrats and the Republicans. They're both intent on maintaining and building government power. It's only their _priorities_ which are different. Ultimately, they're for the same end result. That's the great scam - they stay in power by making the plebes think they have some sort of say in their destiny.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
I'll tell you why: it's because the Democrats are no better than Bush.
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
Because thanks to him, the Democrats have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. Literally. As in, they were criticizing the prescription drug boondoggle as going to far. When is that supposed to kick in, anyway?
And they got their education bill: "No Child Left Behind" was co-written by senator Edward "water under the bridge" Kennedy.
Technically, Bush got his tax cuts through, I guess, but taxes are an merely an inflation-control measure. Spending is where the real problems start, and he didn't get any cuts at all on that front. In fact, he presided over the largest expansion of the federal government since FDR!
And do you really think that Democrats were opposed to federalizing airport security screeners? More fodder for the government employees' union.
I do wonder, though, what Gore would've done post 9/11. I imagine that domestically, it would be very similar to what Bush has done. Only difference I'd guess is that Gore would probably have bombed afghanistan right away, and then considered that the end of it on the foreign agenda side.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
Has anyone here had an experience where they were busted by federal wire-tapping? Does anyone personally know anyone who has been busted by federal wire tapping?
Just give me a rebate. At least don't make me pay so much for being raped. Thanks.
>Make a roaring bluster about this and then fold like wet paper tigers when it comes time to put up or shut up..
a pretty big assumption there,
as many have made blusters and never folded, and you've never heard of them;
but, rage on because rage is appropriate, though clouded
i read in your words an unproven faith in your own discernment of those you describe in words as possessed with a courage and the dismissable mad person on the street
Would were! Should is! Could be! And live a hundred times three.
Shouting her name from the basement constantly until she responds probably won't help, either. You should consider getting off the couch and asking her in person. Eye contact will help greatly.
Big brother has been doing this for ever!
-- I am the NRA, enough said...
Right on.
Go read "1984" and get the hell off my lawn!
I love how everyone on slashdot is an expert. Everyone on Slashdot has setup private circuits from government agencies to telecommuncations companies, and do it fulltime. The fact that a noted security professional has seen unfettered access to a communications carrier is news. Congress thinks so. But I am glad I share slashdot with other people who know everything about everything.
Woosh!
I Download a metric FUCKTON of pirated material. I Get drunk and download a lot of porn off limewire. Even though I Check through the stuff, I have found porn that is legally "questionable" that being said, as long as they only prosecute terrorists and their ilk, wtf do I give if they Look at my Shit???
Only the most naive people in this world actually believe that the US government doesn't listen in on whoever whenever.
Give me a fucking break.
Mever nind the typos.
None of the laws in place that force carriers to play ball with the FBI were passed without the support of the Democrats. And I think it's quite reasonable. Whether or not you believe they always do so legitimately, the FBI needs the capability installing wiretaps as part of its mission. If they do so too often, the remedy is legislative, not technical.
And demonizing Bush is wrong and counterproductive. He isn't "evil", and he's not stupid. The guy is focused on preventing the next 9/11. Legitimate arguments can be made over policy, over whether the government ought to be doing this or that, but there are truly evil people in the world, and Bush isn't one of them.
Have fun storming the castle!
What have you done for freedom today except post expletives and blame outgoing administration?
- real hackers don't have sigs -
Which means in all likelihood it's carried on optical fiber. Someone should chop that fiber into a million little pieces. And then lets litigate the current incumbents into non-existence and have companies that understand the rule of law take over.
Do you seriously believe that President Gore or President Kerry would have initiated/continued the kind of blatant attacks on the rule of law & accountability that are so characteristic of the Bush administration? Would they have debased our ability to claim any moral high ground by condoning and supporting torture? Would they have used "national security" as a cover to try and build a corporate-sponsored surveillance state? Would they madly cling to policies under the banner of "stay the course," no matter how horribly and obviously wrong those policies were or turned out to be? Name the last Democratic president who said in an interview that this would be a lot easier in a dictatorship if he were the dictator.
The Democrats are no better than Bush? Then why is it Bush, and the party which routinely condemns "tax-and-spend liberals" and trumpets itself as the bringer of small government and fiscal responsibility, the one which has in 8 years saddled us and our children with more debt than every other president combined, and doubled the size of the federal budget whose cancerous growth he and the Republicans so vehemently denounce?
Neither party is at all better than the other? Since when have the Democrats proclaimed themselves to be the sole beacon of light, Moral Decency, and the Traditional American Family in the smothering night of evil secularism, only for one Democrat after another to turn out to be those gays or adulterers whom they so ardently and stridently insist are going to be the downfall of America?
What Democratic or Republican president before Bush has taken that fabled shining city upon a hill, and desecrated it such that his supporter's defense in a debate is no longer "Because we are better than they are," but "We aren't the worst human rights violator on Earth?"
No, the Democrats have a very long way to go before they are as bad as Bush has been, for both his party and the nation.
But I guess if the only thing that matters to you is "government power", then yes, you might think they're the same, because you're ignoring all the substantial differences.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
Yes, I do. I trust all politicians equally: zero trust, until proven otherwise. No exceptions.
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
You didn't answer any of my questions, but reiterated that you refuse to admit to the existence of a continuum of gray between black and white.
To every complex question, there is an answer that is simple, concise, and wrong - paraphrase of H.L. Mencken.
A GSM half-rate channel is 5.6Kbps (a fullrate channel is twice that, but let's look at the most extreme case). A DS3 = 45 Mbps. 45Mbps = 45000Kbps
45000Kbps / 5.6Kbps = 8037 simultaneous calls supported on a DS3, assuming 0% overhead, protocol, encryption, and that all calls are half-rate.
VZW and ATTW have subscriber counts in the millions.
Whatever the legality or circumstance of this, a single DS3 is hardly wholesale snooping.
Need Geek Rock? Try The Franchise!
That plan is probably $1 billion a day, not including supplimental spending packages.
A whopping 45Mbit/s... Sure, that wouldn't be bad for a home internet connection, but in the grand scheme of the FBI connecting to comms companies, surely this counts as comparable to wet string?
How is this guy saying these things and not already on his way to prison? I have a TS clearance and agreed to not disclose anything I know or worked on while in a TS position. If this guys statements are even mildly true, he should be on his way to prison for breaking his end of the deal. Whether you think it is right or not, he signed on to a job that had requirements, and he broke those requirements by talking about it.
"We need a fourth law of Robotics: Stop Fingering My Wife"
Wooosh!
This is by far the most clear and concise description I've seen on the U.S. reaction to the 9/11 events.
Okay, so the DS3 is a Very Bad Thing for a tonne of reasons.
BUT ... The linked .doc says that
The scope of uncontrolled "Quantico Circuit" access allowed the third party to obtain significant information about any mobile phone subscribers, including -- listening in and recording all conversations en-mass; {Note the focus on 'phone' and 'conversations'. Aside from demonstrating ignorance on the difference between 'mass' and masse', this statement *directly contradicts* the linked .pdf, which states that the exposed 'Data network' transports all mobile data service traffic and related business app traffic but *not* the raw traffic of the 'Cell network', which was not examined in the audit.
Anyone else read this similarly?
Which is it? This, plus the lack of detail around the location of the 'network vcrs', which presumably are traffic copy mechanisms, the location of which will determine exactly what data is exposed by this mechanism, gives me less of a warm-and-fuzzy feeling with respect to the allegation's supporting documentation.
I am in no way supporting the existence of this no-ACL, no-logging circuit into what is allegedly a major carrier's mobile support network. The devil is in the details in this dialogue, however, and there is no excuse for direct contradictions and lack of important detail.
[17] Leary, T., White, C., Wood, P. R., Bhabha, W. D., and Wirth, N. Lambda calculus considered harmful. In Proceedings
Sure, their backdoor is "high-speed*", but they'll find out it's just burst speed, and their favorite spying protocols get throttled by forged packets saying the party ended the phone call even though they really didn't. They should have listened to us about network neutrality!
Damn. Well put.
I'm posting here so that I'll have a link back to this in the years to come.
I think you need to try a little harder to understand the difference between an individual abusing the system and what you're suggesting.
They are not equivalent, not comparable, and your argument is not convincing as a result.
Any system will always have the potential for individual abuse.
Before the next person posts something about what he/she thinks CALEA is or is not, needs to do a little research first.
:)
There's a lot of false information here about it.
One of the most absurd is that every wireline or wireless carrier has a similar circuit set up for monitoring calls/data..
I've been in quite a few telephone facilities ranging from small to large, and never once saw anything like this.
There is nothing anywhere dealing with CALEA requiring such a circuit.
Do your research folks!
"What law? The one passed in 1970s? That was repealed by Bush last year."
Would you mind explaining how a President can repeal a law? I think you could benefit from some education.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower#Whistleblower_Protection_Act_of_2007
As to this
"Today no law protects Federal Whistleblowers."
That's wrong too. Both the Whistleblower Protection Act and the No FEAR act protect federal whistleblowers.
No FEAR Act
+4 informative for being totally wrong...
So if a bunch of sleazoids in Virginia want to listen to your daughter talk dirty to her boyfriend, there's no way to know and even if you did, nothing you can do about it.
And yet the remedy is legislative? Really? Yeah, if we pass a law to forbid casual spying on domestic citizens for no reason other than prurient interest, that'll take care of it!
I feel safer already.
I don't know what Gore would have done post-9/11, but I doubt that Kerry would have UN-done anything that the Bush admin has done, especially when it comes to accumulation of power in the executive branch. Recall also that the Democrats overwhelmingly voted to approve The Patriot Act, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the military tribunals legislation. Not to mention the fact that they recently voted in droves to approve the "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Protection Act" and the only bone of contention with the "Protect America" Act is the telecom immunity provision. Then there's the whole gun control issue. The last time the Dems controlled Congress and the Presidency, they began to assault the Second Amendment.
They've also had control of Congress for more than a year, and they haven't done a damned thing but talk when it comes to the war and civil liberties. I also don't hear any of the Democratic Presidential candidates coming out with a strong agenda to restore civil liberties.
Don't pay any attention to the criticism that the Republicans and Democrats throw at one another and the confrontational rhetoric they spout in public. It's all a smoke and mirrors show. When it comes down to actually passing legislation, they tend to fall into lockstep with the big government and big corporation agenda.
The OP is right. The Republicans and Democrats are opposite sides of the same coin.
After looking at the highly ranked comments to this post and finding nothing but conspiracy theorys and Bush bashing, I want to contribute to the discussion with a simple observation:
If the FBI obtains a legal warrant to tap somebody's phone and/or obtain their calling records, then there has to be some way to move that information from Verizon to the feds. Doesn't it seem likely that THIS is the way? Our government has many checks and balances. Probably half of the FBI employess are democrats (if their demographics reflect the general population). How long would an illegal program last in such an environment? The main problem with the conspiracy crowd & Bush bashers is that they do not TRUST our government. If they would open their eyes and learn more about it, they would likely change their opinions. To put it more simply, most of the anti-government stuff posted here is founded in ignorance. Sure there are bad people in government just as there are bad people in business. They all eventually go down in flames because there is so much visability.
No they don't. We don't. None of our peer ILECs or CLECs do. The only case in which this would ever be the norm is if you are an RBOC, very large CLEC or very large wireless carrier and regularly field CALEA requests from the same law enforcement agency. Read that again just to make sure what I'd said registered. Even then it would have be be in excess of 23 simultaneous calls to justify more than a single PRI (possible for a large carrier but that's still 23 CALEA requests to the same LEA). Any law enforcement agency can go to court to get an order for a CALEA request. This could be the CIA, the FBI, your state's BI, your local county sheriff or even small town rural 2-person police department. LEAs do not share facilities; by law they aren't permitted to. There are 10s of thousands of LEAs that could get a court ordered CALEA request on one of your subs. The law that is CALEA was written to require that the tapped service be indistinguishable from the untapped service. It also requires that LEAs not know another LEA has a trap on said line. Ie, you can't say to the 2nd LEA that wants to tap a given line that "the xBI already tapped that one; are you part of the same LEA?"
Sorry but that doesn't even pass the sniff test.
You completely failed to understand and address my point.
You are using an example of an individual abuse to argue against systemic abuse.
They are not equivalent or comparable, and what you did is disingenuous, as the difference is obvious an significant.
I wasn't really asking for a reply, I was just making you aware of a fault in your post that makes your argument fail.
And beat it like a wing yo
Can't stereotype my thing yo
Bingo I got em in the thing yo I was just making you aware of a fault in your post that makes your argument fail. No, you set up a strawman and knocked it down.
My argument was never what you said it was.
Bingo.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
In response to some of the comments here and elsewhere: No, it's not CALEA. CALEA requires phone companies to give the FBI real time access to call content and call detail information on specific targets when presented with a warrant. It does not oblige them to give the FBI or anyone else direct unmonitored access to switches, billing systems or databases.
We are one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. Back to you with the weather, Bob!
From TFA: "In response to some of the comments here and elsewhere: No, it's not CALEA. CALEA requires phone companies to give the FBI real time access to call content and call detail information on specific targets when presented with a warrant. It does not oblige them to give the FBI or anyone else direct unmonitored access to switches, billing systems or databases."
"No, you set up a strawman and knocked it down.
My argument was never what you said it was."
I never said your argument was anything, I took exception with an example you used, which was faulty.
I don't know why you're trying so hard, but you've totally missed the point and no doubt will ignore what I've said in a rush to reply with a point I neither brought up nor care about.
So, as clear as I can, INDIVIDUAL ABUSE IS DIFFERENT FROM SYSTEMIC ABUSE. You'll notice that nowhere in there did I say anything about your argument.
As to "straw men", I think you need to look that one up so you don't incorrectly accuse someone of using one again. You DID give an example of an individual abuse, so you're completely wrong.
The government can and does wiretap anything they want for any reason or no reason. They're never going to relinquish power like that, we just have to give up and accept this as a fact of life.
did everyone over look the simple fact that this could be the FBIs corprate link to the internet? Unfiltered and unmonitored would be a normal configuration of a law enforcement organization's link to the world. I'm pretty sure the FBI would not want some nosey Verizon employee snooping on the line for anonymous tips. And like some readers have eluded to a DS3 is pretty low bandwidth for monitoring calls, but not so low for a internet link for a company the size of the FBI.
We have apparently entered an age where congress don't fully understand the the bills they pass.
Inspiring stuff.
You feel sleepy. Close your eyes. The opinions stated above are yours. You cannot imagine why you ever felt otherwise.
....and the FBI has a great big ass telescope in the sky too so the can watch you & the Mrs. ____________ [fill in blank]
h, and their policies. You know, little things like health care, social security, abortion, welfare, environmental and industry regulations, taxes, teaching religion in schools... those things matter, at least to most of us.
Yes, looking at their policies, there is virtually no difference. They both have their preferred groups among those listed, but they both want to do the exact same thing: use government to favor their benefactors while suppressing those who do not side with them.
They both want to use the threat of bodily harm, incarceration, and death to force you to do they things they want done with other people's money, or to not do the things they don't want you to do (though they exempt themselves and their friends).
The topical differences you allege are not substantive differences. A mugger using a gun or a mugger using a knife is not substantively different from each other. In either case the person is taking the results of your efforts in life to do the things they want to do.
It used to be that you could say that Democrats wanted to cut off your right hand while Republicans want to cut your left off. Now they've mostly merged: they each want some fingers off of each hand removed.
The ultimate question that should be asked in the areas you mentioned is whether federal government should be operating monopolies on these things, whether the government should be doing those to begin with.
To mix another metaphor, Republican vs. Democrat policy is like two wolves and a sheep discussing HOW they are going to eat the sheep. Note they aren't deciding WHAT to eat, but HOW to eat the subject.
My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
You're proving my point here. Yes, if you ignore all the substantial differences, then everything looks the same, but that says more about you than it does about the things you're comparing. They both want to use the threat of bodily harm, incarceration, and death to force you to do they things they want done with other people's money, or to not do the things they don't want you to do (though they exempt themselves and their friends). Also: they're both political parties, they both run human candidates for office, and they both have web sites. The similarities are endless! The ultimate question that should be asked in the areas you mentioned is whether federal government should be operating monopolies on these things, whether the government should be doing those to begin with. You know, most of us have already answered that question and moved on. It's only the radical libertarians, a vocal but ultimately insignificant minority of voters, who think it's still up for debate. To mix another metaphor, Republican vs. Democrat policy is like two wolves and a sheep discussing HOW they are going to eat the sheep. Note they aren't deciding WHAT to eat, but HOW to eat the subject. Again, the fact that you think all uses of government power are equal says more about you than it does about the government. There's a difference between, say, taxing you to pay for schools and taxing you to pay for bombs, but if you can't get past the word "taxing" without frothing at the mouth about how The Man Is Stealing Your Money At Gunpoint, you won't be able to grasp it. That's a shame, but you have to realize it's a problem that affects you and virtually no one else - the rest of us are quite capable of seeing the distinction.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
Typical of one without an argument, you use wild allusions instead of dealing with the substance. This in an argument about substance.
...
To your assertion that the world except for "radical libertarians" has decided government is for and should be doing everything from deciding what type of vehicle you should use to what you should be able to do with your CDs or computer, whether or not you should be allowed to keep your private data well, private, how you spend your money, etc. is laughable.
The fact of the matter is that the world has not made that decision anymore than than the people of the US made the decision that the only three people worth holding the POTUS seat are McCain, Hillary, and Obama. I bet even you haven't decided that, you just assume it.
Question: If someone gave you 100 million dollars (after taxes) and you wanted to help "the poor" or "the homeless", or "the sick", would you give 50 millions USD to the government to do it, or directly to the people or private charities and groups that help people?
If I ask if you would choose Evil A or Evil B, it is invalid for me to then, upon getting your answer of A or B) to say that you prefer evil. Yet that is what you are doing.
The fact is that I've not said all government power is the same, but your argument is obviously ignorant of what reality, instead relying on your own biases. The fact is that some government power is valid and other power is not. But unable to actually draw the distinction you opted yo instead label anyone who disagrees with your position as an extremist. You conducted an ad hominem attack instead of pointing to specific instances.
You made the assertion and failed to back it up.
When you look at the policies the three media candidates espouse, the substance of them is virtually the same, despite the rhetoric. When you look at the voting record, the similarities are still present, and the differences are indeed minor.
Let's see
Increase taxes on "the rich"
Increase protection from political movements unseating incumbents? check.
Increase welfare expenditures without accountability? Check.
Tell citizens how to spend their money or how to invest/save it? Check.
Increase "gun control" restrictions? Check.
Increase government spending? Check.
Increase government control of the financial markets through government "investment"? Check.
Increase government control over private contracts? Check.
Mandate what type of fuel people use? Check.
Play games about what type of "science" is funded and what isn't? Check.
Talk about "Global Warming", but avoid "the small stuff" that makes significant changes? Check.
Government should be the arbiter on what marriage is? Check.
Let the RIAA and MPAA continue to have unwarranted power over music and video? Check.
Extend that power? Check.
Claim to want to "end earmarks" yet continue to seek them? Check.
Continue the class warfare? Check.
Not all similarities are bad, something you clearly miss out on in your zeal to demonize opponents. For example, both sides (H&O), McCain) are against Kyoto, and rightly so. Kyoto would cost trillions for a paltry ephemeral savings of less than a billion, and in comparison to other things that could be done, is an even worse choice. This is reflective of another area they all share: they talk about not doing things that make no financial sense, but then advocate things that do not make financial sense, live spending 1 trillion to save (as in prevent payout of) 100M.
On the rhetoric side, every time one side says "we will do this", what is the response from the other? "It isn't enough". It never is. When was the last time you saw one side, or even a "bipartisan panel" put forth a bill and the other side said "yup that's just right"?
One of the few examples substantive differences is a part of the immigration debate. Virtually the only difference there is one side says "no form of amnesty" and the other side wants it. That is a
My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
To your assertion that the world except for "radical libertarians" has decided government is for and should be doing everything from deciding what type of vehicle you should use to what you should be able to do with your CDs or computer, whether or not you should be allowed to keep your private data well, private, how you spend your money, etc. is laughable.
Yes, that would be a laughable assertion if I had made it. But I didn't, so it's just a laughable strawman.
The fact of the matter is that the world has not made that decision anymore than than the people of the US made the decision that the only three people worth holding the POTUS seat are McCain, Hillary, and Obama. I bet even you haven't decided that, you just assume it.
I've assumed no such thing. Those people are indeed the only candidates with a chance of winning, but they got there through a process that was laid out centuries ago, in a very different country, with the assumption that candidates would run as individuals instead of members of a party. (That system is long overdue for a redesign, but that's beside the point.)
If I ask if you would choose Evil A or Evil B, it is invalid for me to then, upon getting your answer of A or B) to say that you prefer evil. Yet that is what you are doing.
Hmm. It seems to me that what you're doing is saying "Evil A and Evil B are the same because they're both evil", ignoring the fact that (1) they're still very different proposals for doing very different things, and (2) most people don't even agree that they're both evil.
The fact is that I've not said all government power is the same, but your argument is obviously ignorant of what reality, instead relying on your own biases. The fact is that some government power is valid and other power is not. But unable to actually draw the distinction you opted yo instead label anyone who disagrees with your position as an extremist. You conducted an ad hominem attack instead of pointing to specific instances.
Chill out, buddy. There's no ad hominem there.
Your views are radical: that's not an insult, it's just a fact. The role of government you seem to have in mind is radically different from the role government actually plays today, in this country as well as most others. And your views are shared by only a small minority of voters. Surely you know that already, right?
When you look at the policies the three media candidates espouse, the substance of them is virtually the same, despite the rhetoric. When you look at the voting record, the similarities are still present, and the differences are indeed minor.
The differences are minor if you only consider the issues that you chose to consider. On other issues, the differences are quite major, but you don't seem to care about those because you don't think the government has any business meddling in those issues anyway.
You are, of course, free to choose to care about whatever you want. But you can't expect everyone else to share your priorities, and you can't expect an argument that relies on those priorities to be persuasive to anyone who doesn't share them.
Increase taxes on "the rich"
[...]
Increase welfare expenditures without accountability? Check.
[...]
Increase "gun control" restrictions? Check.
On these issues, and probably others from your list, there are significant differences between Obama/Clinton and McCain - if you care to look for them.
Not all similarities are bad, something you clearly miss out on in your zeal to demonize opponents.
Huh? You seem to have mistaken me for someone else. No problem, I get that a lot.
For example, both sides (H&O), McCain) are against Kyoto, and rightly so. Kyoto would cost trillions for a paltry ephemeral savings of less than a billion, and in comparison to other things that could be done, is an even worse choice.
You realize that the
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.