This does not stop our country from thumbing its nose at U.N. resolutions, however. Who is going to enforce it? If history is to judge, I dunno, the US?
"The President spied on US persons" is much different in legal-ese than "the President directed people to spy on US Persons". Choose your words carefully or get laughed out of court.
*sigh*. USSID 18. Google. Read. But if you must, here's the Cliff Notes (wikipedia.org):
"The NSA's United States Signals Intelligence Directive 18 (USSID 18) strictly prohibits the interception or collection of information about "...US persons, entities, corporations or organizations..." without explicit written legal permission from the Attorney General of the United States".
I'm in the business of teaching Intelligence professionals the MOST BASIC tenets of their role in our government, not to interpret the Constitution for their own self-serving goals.
Basically what I'm saying is that I have no idea what the pertinence of your quoted Articles is to the fact that the National Security Agency, as one of the members of the United States Intelligence Community, has written an explicit law (USSID 18) that clearly and legally outlines the rules pertaining to collection against US Persons.
I lived in Harrogate, UK, and my idiot American coworkers brought their Ford Expeditions over!!! Talk about laughable...they had to park blocks (if not miles) outside of the town just to go shopping!
Except you are wrong. I've been teaching this stuff since 1999 and although popular opinion is, well, popular, it is also often wrong, as in this case.
The NSA prohibits collection on US Persons (to include US corporations) anywhere in the world without legal permission from the Attorney General of the United States.
(source: my lesson plans, derived from USSID 18).
The Attorney General, thus, is not repealing any law, he is merely following existing law.
As for your linked story, that is old news. It doesn't recall the Attorney General's right to administer a warrant, it only points out that Gonzales was unwilling to do so.
The attorney general isn't a court. He's generally considered more of an attorney(aka lawyer, person who pleads a case in a court), than a judge. Doesn't matter if he's a court, a waiter or a pilot, because he alone has the authority to administer waivers to eavesdrop on US Persons without a warrant.
Well, in the world of law, you do need to be very precise in the words you choose. Wouldn't want your argument thrown out on a technicality now, would you?
What's the point of an SUV to drive through the city?
Image and looks, of course! My last car purchase was based primarily on how I thought my car looks, secondarily by user reviews. Much of what we humans do is based on aesthetics.
How do you explain the abundance of ugly-ass SUVs then? Oh, that's right...most Americans are lack taste. (Just go abroad and see how biased the rest of the world is against us, usually rightfully so).
A toyota pious might seem like a good idea, but 46mpg is deadfully low for such a compromised hybrid - 20 year old diesels will happily do that all day. So I'm supposed to prefer a stinky, poor performing Diesel that runs on fuel that costs over $1/gallon more than regular fuel, instead of a hybrid that gets the same MPG, with cheaper fuel?
They still sell Rangers. Just because moron giant-truck/suv drivers are choosing irresponsible vehicles doesn't mean Ford is killing of the Ranger...just selling less of them. Not really Ford's fault. My Ford Ranger is on the market now, and I just marked it up $3000 in hope of capitalizing on the fervor to get into smaller trucks.
Well stated. We Americans DO have to rely on driving to do anything. We DON'T, however, have to drive ridiculously large SUVs to get from point A to point B, no matter how hard those irresponsible people will tell you they HAVE to have one for their 18 kids or for driving through their 20 feet of snow.
If Kucinich weren't so busy on his personal crusades, he'd understand the mistake in this logic:
President "Sp[ied] on American Citizens, Without a Court-Ordered Warrant, in Violation of the Law and the Fourth Amendment,' That's nice and all, but all that is needed is approval from the Attorney General, which I'm willing to bet every paycheck from here on out that he did exactly that. Nothing illegal to see here, move along please.
Oh yeah, as if the President has time to personally spy on anyone is pretty laughable as well.
Well now I know how Gore must feel, having my comments taken out of context and all. Except, there's the small detail that I actually qualified my statements elsewhere in this discussion thread, leaving no doubt as to my meaning (unless you only chose to read my one entry). Gore didn't take the chance to elaborate on what he meant by "taking the initiative", leaving millions up to thinking he's a smug sob.
You don't "need" something larger than an Xterra for four people. My 4-door hatchback is plenty big for me, my wife, and my two children, and my drum set.
I keep seeing the SUV profit line, but I don't see it. A mid-sized Ford SUV isn't really any more money than a mid-sized Ford sedan. Maybe you are talking about the high-end luxury SUV market, which I really don't see a lot of anyway. Its all the Chevy Tahoes clogging up our streets, not the Cadillac Escalades.
My 2.4L Ranger gets FAR better gas mileage than my 2.3L Mazda3....of course, my Mazda3 also has a turbocharger and twice as much horsepower, but hey, let the CAFE standard dorks keep not understanding hp-to-fuel mileage correlations and let them keep wanting to hold vehicles to fuel standards based on their displacement and disregard things like turbos/superchargers/variable-valve-timing, etc. etc. I'm just glad they "think" I drive a fuel efficient car.
Cheney is decidedly NOT Texan. Unless Wyoming has become the 13th Province of Austin?
Re:This is how economics is supposed to work!
on
The SUV Is Dethroned
·
· Score: 1
overtaking, which is more difficult to do with a sedan. Are you serious? Name ONE non-racing-specialty truck that has better overtaking ability than say a modest sedan (Honda Accord V6, Chevy Malibu, BMW 325). Hell, even a four-cylinder Ford Fusion overtakes better than most SUV/trucks on the road. I think you've opened the secret to the love of SUVs....false sense of ability...and also the secret to why they are such a menace...false sense of ability...
My solution would be to tax the hell out of ginormous vehicles that aren't used as the primary source of income (i.e., construction worker, vehicle towing, anything requiring towing big loads around). In my scheme, you'd have to prove that you use your F-350 for work (not just getting to and from work, but actually used for work), or you'd pay a huge tax.
Actually, unscientifically, I've noticed it at least "seems" that (in the US) those who can least afford the cost of operating an SUV are the very same people drawn to them. (Goes for big pickup trucks too).
That's nice that YOU need an SUV for your 8-bikes. Now just explain those THOUSANDS of rich bitches driving their husbands' ginormous Escalade two blocks to the grocery store to get Fancy Feast dinners for their cat(s).
So yes, there is an SUV market for outdoorsy folks like you. Most people, however, see them as some sort of blue-collar workingman hero status symbol. They get what they deserve...$4/gallon gasoline and a vehicle that is more ridiculous (for their needs) now than it has ever been.
Oh lordie...perspective man. I used to live in the UK. You do not have an SUV infestation in the least. The largest Audi is smaller than the smallest US SUV, pretty much. I'd take 1,000 of those Audis over one stupid Chevy Suburban anyday of the week.
Slashdot Mirror
Yet we can still chew gum freely.
"The President spied on US persons" is much different in legal-ese than "the President directed people to spy on US Persons". Choose your words carefully or get laughed out of court.
I'm in the business of teaching Intelligence professionals the MOST BASIC tenets of their role in our government, not to interpret the Constitution for their own self-serving goals.
Basically what I'm saying is that I have no idea what the pertinence of your quoted Articles is to the fact that the National Security Agency, as one of the members of the United States Intelligence Community, has written an explicit law (USSID 18) that clearly and legally outlines the rules pertaining to collection against US Persons.
I lived in Harrogate, UK, and my idiot American coworkers brought their Ford Expeditions over!!! Talk about laughable...they had to park blocks (if not miles) outside of the town just to go shopping!
The NSA prohibits collection on US Persons (to include US corporations) anywhere in the world without legal permission from the Attorney General of the United States.
(source: my lesson plans, derived from USSID 18).
The Attorney General, thus, is not repealing any law, he is merely following existing law.
As for your linked story, that is old news. It doesn't recall the Attorney General's right to administer a warrant, it only points out that Gonzales was unwilling to do so.
Well, in the world of law, you do need to be very precise in the words you choose. Wouldn't want your argument thrown out on a technicality now, would you?
What's the point of an SUV to drive through the city?
Image and looks, of course! My last car purchase was based primarily on how I thought my car looks, secondarily by user reviews. Much of what we humans do is based on aesthetics.
How do you explain the abundance of ugly-ass SUVs then? Oh, that's right...most Americans are lack taste. (Just go abroad and see how biased the rest of the world is against us, usually rightfully so).They still sell Rangers. Just because moron giant-truck/suv drivers are choosing irresponsible vehicles doesn't mean Ford is killing of the Ranger...just selling less of them. Not really Ford's fault. My Ford Ranger is on the market now, and I just marked it up $3000 in hope of capitalizing on the fervor to get into smaller trucks.
Considering gas prices have risen much slower than the cost of living, $4/gallon gas is still pretty cheap for today's youth.
Well stated. We Americans DO have to rely on driving to do anything. We DON'T, however, have to drive ridiculously large SUVs to get from point A to point B, no matter how hard those irresponsible people will tell you they HAVE to have one for their 18 kids or for driving through their 20 feet of snow.
Oh yeah, as if the President has time to personally spy on anyone is pretty laughable as well.
Well now I know how Gore must feel, having my comments taken out of context and all. Except, there's the small detail that I actually qualified my statements elsewhere in this discussion thread, leaving no doubt as to my meaning (unless you only chose to read my one entry). Gore didn't take the chance to elaborate on what he meant by "taking the initiative", leaving millions up to thinking he's a smug sob.
You don't "need" something larger than an Xterra for four people. My 4-door hatchback is plenty big for me, my wife, and my two children, and my drum set.
I keep seeing the SUV profit line, but I don't see it. A mid-sized Ford SUV isn't really any more money than a mid-sized Ford sedan. Maybe you are talking about the high-end luxury SUV market, which I really don't see a lot of anyway. Its all the Chevy Tahoes clogging up our streets, not the Cadillac Escalades.
My 2.4L Ranger gets FAR better gas mileage than my 2.3L Mazda3....of course, my Mazda3 also has a turbocharger and twice as much horsepower, but hey, let the CAFE standard dorks keep not understanding hp-to-fuel mileage correlations and let them keep wanting to hold vehicles to fuel standards based on their displacement and disregard things like turbos/superchargers/variable-valve-timing, etc. etc. I'm just glad they "think" I drive a fuel efficient car.
Cheney is decidedly NOT Texan. Unless Wyoming has become the 13th Province of Austin?
My solution would be to tax the hell out of ginormous vehicles that aren't used as the primary source of income (i.e., construction worker, vehicle towing, anything requiring towing big loads around). In my scheme, you'd have to prove that you use your F-350 for work (not just getting to and from work, but actually used for work), or you'd pay a huge tax.
Actually, unscientifically, I've noticed it at least "seems" that (in the US) those who can least afford the cost of operating an SUV are the very same people drawn to them. (Goes for big pickup trucks too).
So yes, there is an SUV market for outdoorsy folks like you. Most people, however, see them as some sort of blue-collar workingman hero status symbol. They get what they deserve...$4/gallon gasoline and a vehicle that is more ridiculous (for their needs) now than it has ever been.
Oh lordie...perspective man. I used to live in the UK. You do not have an SUV infestation in the least. The largest Audi is smaller than the smallest US SUV, pretty much. I'd take 1,000 of those Audis over one stupid Chevy Suburban anyday of the week.
All streets in America are "public transport isolated".