If this story is true, and I mean IF, then the president has violated his OATH OF OFFICE. Are you so loyal to a political party that you would be willing to overlook such a thing?
Let me put it another way,
Can you HONESTLY tell me if Clinton was reported to have said this you would be so indifferent to it?
If we have gotten to a point where the president can call the Constitution a goddamned piece of paper in front of witnesses, and get away with it, we have IMO a much bigger problem than terrorism. It is the death knell of the Republic.
It would be nice, for a change, to hear of some specific examples of how the government has used its powers beyond the reasonable scope of national security.
"Some NSA officials were so concerned about the legality of the program that they refused to participate, the Times said. Questions about the legality of the program led the administration to temporarily suspend it last year and impose new restrictions."
When even people inside the NSA question its legality I'd say it's pretty clear it has crossed the line.
It is absolutely not real. It was from an editorial piece written by Doug Thompson.
From the article : "I've talked to three people present for the meeting that day and they all confirm that the President of the United States called the Constitution "a goddamned piece of paper." "
"When a GOP operative first emailed me about the White House meeting where Bush called the Constitution "just a goddamned piece of paper," I put it aside as one of many reports I get about the President's temper tantrums."
"We get tips about Bush's temper and his comments all the time. Most of the tips don't get used because we don't go with information from just one source. The tip about "the goddamned piece of paper" seemed destined for the byte bin until a second aide, in casual conversation, mentioned the comment.
So I called a third source who has confirmed information in the past. At first he was defensive.
"Who told you about that?" I told him I'd picked it up from two other sources.
"Look, you know how the President is," he said. "He gets agitated when people challenge him."
All I wanted to know was did the President of the United States call the Constitution a "goddamned piece of paper."
We were the first news outlet to identify the names of women who claimed sexual abuse by Bill Clinton when he was attorney general and later governor of Arkansas. We were the first news outlet to report on the ethical problems of many members of Congress in our series: America's Criminal Class: The Congress of the United States. And we were the first to report on the abuse of underage girls on teen model web sites. Links to all of these award-winning stories can be found on our home page.
That doesn't mean you should take everything we print as gospel. Never do that with us or any other news source. Do your own research and reach your own conclusions. And consider the record of the sources you use for news and information. We've published more than 25,000 stories since going online on October 1, 1994, and we've had to retract two of them. That's a record I'm willing to stand on.
My bio can be found on this link. I put my name on everything I write. And I stand behind what I write. I'm an arrogant, stubborn, driven bastard who takes no prisoners and backs down from no one. When I'm wrong, I admit it. Thankfully, I haven't had to do that very often. When I'm right I don't give a damn who doesn't like it or what they say about it.
An editor who taught me a lot once said: "If you piss off both sides you're doing your job."
Ah, a lefty mouthpiece reports it... So it must be true, right? The libs are letting their hatred for Bush blur the line between reality and fantasy. These kooks are the GOPs best friends.
If he did nothing wrong, he has nothing to hide. Just have him answer whether he said it UNDER OATH.
Interesting part : "Thompson took a sabbatical from newspapers in 1981 and moved to Washington to work on Capitol Hill. He served as press secretary for two Congressmen and then Chief of Staff for another before joining the House Committee on Science & Technology. "
I'd love to see him answer that question under oath.
At least one former liuetenant colonel believes it:
Karen Kwiatkowski, Ph.D. [send her mail], a retired USAF lieutenant colonel who spent her final four and a half years in uniform working at the Pentagon's Near East/South Asia bureau. She lives with her freedom-loving family in the Shenandoah Valley, and among other things, has written on defense issues with a libertarian perspective for militaryweek.com, hosts the call-in radio show American Forum on Saturday nights, and blogs occasionally for Huffingtonpost.com. To receive automatic announcements of new articles and upcoming guests on her American Forum radio
Bush followed all the applicable laws, and members of congress knew about it. I don't see what the problem is. Bullshit.
From the article :
"Some NSA officials were so concerned about the legality of the program that they refused to participate, the Times said. Questions about the legality of the program led the administration to temporarily suspend it last year and impose new restrictions."
When people inside the NSA have a problem with its constitutionality, I think thats a pretty clear indication of just how legal it is.
Where does it say in the constitution that you have a right to know when the FBI has been in your house snooping around? I don't think that comes up in an ammenment.
Umm at least two places.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The 4th says they need a warrant, which THEY MUST SERVE to the person whose effects they are searching.
The ninth says I retain rights NOT listed within the constitution, one of which I would say is the right to know when the secure status of my personal effects has been violated.
Now can you tell me exactly where in the constitution the government has the power to CREATE an FBI? Or where in the constitution they gain the power to snoop in my house without informing me?
It is a relatively modern Idea that Freedom is equal to Privacy.
If by relatively modern you mean the 1700's then yes.
But just recently the right of privacy seems to be implicit to your freedom of speech. am not saying you shouldn't fight to keep your privacy, but it is not taking away a right, it is taking away a luxury, that we enjoy.
Umm no.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Obviously, for my papers and effects to be secure, I must be able to lock them away from prying eyes. Privacy is a RIGHT. (at least when it comes to monitoring by the government).
I have a real problem with people who assume we have no rights except those clearly delineated by the constitution. Remember this?
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
In theory, the government has only the power listed within the constitution, that power given to it by us. We the people however have and always will have inherent natural rights. As shocking as it may seem to you, we even have rights NOT LISTED within the constitution.
"A third good way would be to *require* intelligent, statefull inspection firewalls for any fiber optic line leaving the United States, as well as for any satellite link up."
Umm slow down there buddy. First, your handle is Marxist hacker, so why are you pissed at the chinese?
Second, requiring chokepoints essentially sets up government monitoring and thus control (ala "patriot" act). Thanks but no thanks.
P.S. perhaps you should change your handle to "National Socialist Hacker" instead?
It's the fact that the western world in general is compromising its principles of liberty, for security. America and the EU are both falling all over themselves to limit and monitor their citizenry.
The alleged quote from Bush was in regards to the Constitutional concerns regarding the Patriot Act, hence the war on terror. The EU act amounts to parts of the Patriot act (surveillance) writ large.
Every time freedom is curtailed in the name of security, the terrorists have scored a victory. If we are willing to sacrifice liberty for security, how is western civilization any different from the thuggish regimes (e.g. china, syria, Iran) where the invidivual is subordinate to the state?
" How can a guy (Doug Thompon) whose website tagline reads "Because nobody's life, liberty or property are safe while Congress is in session or the White House is occupied" have THREE informants at a private presidential meeting? "
"Thompson took a sabbatical from newspapers in 1981 and moved to Washington to work on Capitol Hill. He served as press secretary for two Congressmen and then Chief of Staff for another before joining the House Committee on Science & Technology. "
This guy is not an outsider. You work that long in D.C. you make contacts.
If the story is false, fine, he should be sued for libel. If true we have a serious problem.
There have been a number of report about Bush having outbursts lately. Couple that with his extreme isolation and I think its probably true.
Funny how everyone wanted to investigate Clinton for sex in the oval office, but not one peep from the mainstream media about a report that Bush violated his oath of office. At a minimum there should be some sort of inquiry into this.
Everything is justified in the global war on TERRA.... When the President can call the Constitution "just a goddamned piece of paper" this kind of stuff should not surprise anyone. Its a brave new world full of chickenshit people.
A new study released by ID Analytics says that only about 1 out of every 1000 stolen identities are actually used, due to the amount of time it takes to use the identity, limiting a single thief to 250 identities a year.
Major flaw in thinking here...
If this is true, then said computer criminal could just sell his/her stolen info in batches of 250 to multiple criminals. I can see all kinds of possible "value" add ins for the data thief as well. Items such as:
Data mining for likely high income identities. Data mining for identies which match the buyers profile (e.g. white male mid 30's)
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
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.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Go re-read your constitution, and the federalist papers. The constitution does not grant rights, rights are inherent. They only listed a few important ones within the constitution, but because these are natural rights you have them and a host of others even if they are not listed in the constitution....
Even if you ignore the ninth and tenth amendments, what about the first? E.G. "the right of the people peaceably to assemble"? obviously we the people cannot assemble without traveling to said assembly. So yeah, I'd say that alone says we DO have the right of travel.
As for the right to track you,
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
This is to my mind clearly a case of unreasonable search and seizure. The right of the people to be secure in their persons surely means secure from tracking my whereabouts.
People like you scare me. It is a sad testament to what america and its educational system have become.
"Nearly 71 percent of the 2003 murders involved use of a firearm, with 13 percent involving knives or other cutting instruments. Blunt objects, hands and feet also were used."
there were 42,642 auto fatalities in 2002, 17,013 of which were alcohol related.
according to wiki there were on 2986 deaths on 9/11.
This means that every year roughly 5.5 times the number are murdered (most by guns). Care to give up your second amendment rights?
Roughly 14 times the number of people die in auto accidents per year, (alot of them related to alcohol). Care to outlaw drinking? What about cars?
I am not willing to give up the second amendment, nor do I think alcohol or driving should be outlawed. Neither am I willing to let the government have carte blanche in trampling the 4th, 5th and 6th amendments because of terrorists.
Right-thinking americans (who are, of course, in the majority) raly to our cause. The washington kleptocracy is o'erthrown. A new constitutional convention is held
majority? That I doubt. When the last revolution was fought, the loyalists were still the majority here.
Now, do you seriously believe that this convention results in the _absence_ of a federal government?
I never said I wanted an absence of a federal government. I want a minimalist one which sticks to its limited role as described within the constitution. E.G. national defense, weights& measures, minting and thats about it.
Here's a better question. The last five years have seen corporate malfeasance undreamt of since the era of the trusts. Why aren't you calling for the abolition of the corporation as a legal entity? Believe me the corps are a big part of the problem. Back when the country was founded there were very strict limits on corporations. I.E. a corp could only do business in its state of incorporation, AND could only do the business for which it was originally incorporated for. Thus no mega conglomerates in 25 different fields. I think the grant of corporate "personhood" to the railroads was one of the worst things ever to happen to this country.
Yeah, let's have a puny central bank, like russia. They're doing real well without inflation controls.
Im not sure you're getting my point here. We do not have inflation controls, we have GUARANTEED inflation "controls" for example, look here. the first and third graphs are interesting. Or this link
from the link above: "Whatever other problems there were with the gold standard, persistent inflation was not one of them. Between 1880 and 1914, the period when the United States was on the "classical gold standard," inflation averaged only 0.1 percent per year."
So how does 0.1 percent strike you versus the FED standard of 4.0 percent for inflationary controls? I'd say pretty damn good. It meant that if you were poor you could save your money and count on it being worth the same amount year to year. Try a compound comparison of $100.00 for 20 years. With the fed, in 20 years your 100.00 is worth $46.00 without, $98.00.
Amtrak sucks
Did you miss my caveat about good management, or just ignore it?
Nope, but can you tell me was there ever a period after it was nationalized that amtrak did not suck? For as long as I can remember Amtrak has lost money. Do you really think such a systemic problem can be blamed on bad mangagement, or upon the system (government owned and operated) itself?
The crucial difference between our points of view is that while we both think that a single entity is responsible or the world being a tiolet (you - the government, me - corporations) you call for abolition while I call for reform.
I say they are both responsible. But let me ask you a question....
Would you agree that power corrupts individuals?
If so, why is your answer to that problem the greater concentration of power in fewer hands?
Put another way, sure my local official may be corrupt, but I have a better chance of seeing that corruption on a daily basis, and a greater chance of voting him out, versus corruption in the back rooms of washington. This IMO is why like 55% of the populace does not vote. They feel powerless to change the crap that matters.
Let's see. The interstate highway system, the TVA, the Air Traffic Control system, the Federal Reserve, and (assuming, as I mentioned, decent management, which we are unlikely to see anytime soon) the railway system and space research. I could go on. As I mentioned, the above examples perform more or less well proportinally to the intelligence of management.
I believe the interstate can be justified as constitutional for the defense of the country. I might even agree with Air Traffic, (although there are a number of contracted companies running atc towers). I am amused about your example of the federal reserve. That to me is the very WORST of the federal abuse of power, and unconstitutional to boot. Institutionalized inflation (which is what we have) hurts the poor worst of all. The wealthy can invest as a hedge against inflation, while the poor typically "invest" in a bank account if they can manage to save at all. With the current environment they will at best break even with purchasing power by doing so. This is why I believe both the democrats and the republicans clearly do no give a shit about the poor, as the system is currently set up to penalize those that are frugal and try to save.
Amtrak sucks, and has been running in the red for years. Spaceship one showed that private enterprise can reach space cheaply.
I hate to be rude, but I'm afraid that this is the piece of libertarian dogma I find most repugnant. I was born in Russia. I know what a _real_ unaccountable central authority looks like. Please get a clue.
Well, you may get to see one again, right here. Lets check how much of our constitution is still valid:
Artile III, section II
The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed
AND
Amendment VI - Right to speedy trial, confrontation of witnesses. Ratified 12/15/1791.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
The above is no longer true if the penalty for EACH charge you face carries less than 6 months per charge. So important they put that in there twice. Funny how ALL doesn't mean ALL dont you think?
right to a speedy and public trial,and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor
Yeah tell that to the guys in gitmo (whoever they may be??) for going on 4 years now.
Amendment VIII - Cruel and Unusual punishment. Ratified 12/15/1791.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. Hmmm sounds like that should cover the torture question don't ya think?
Amendment IV - Search and seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I say this clearly violates that whole probable cause thing.
Amendment II - Right to bear arms. Ratified 12/15/1791
Sometimes public enterprise does a better job of things than private enterprise.
Really? What examples do you have exactly?
I cite the pre-civil war South as the iconic example of local government abuse that would have continued unchecked without the feds putting their foot down.
I cite the fact that there were roughly 20 slave holding societies which made slavery illegal without resorting to violence, vs the ONE that did. I suggest you do a bit of checking into the causes for the civil war as well. It was not slavery but taxation which was the root cause of the civil war. I suggest this book. It sheds alot of light on what was going on at the time.
Some choice facts: the south paid roughly 90% of the federal taxes at the time, while most federal spending was in the north. The Republicans came to power on a platform of protectionism, (including an increase in tariffs). Congress increased tariffs from 20% to 50% on imported goods shortly upon the start of the new session. Since Southern states exported their unfinished goods and took payment in finished goods they were the ones who had the most to lose.
Federal government at least has to answer to every state for abuses. When was the last time the federal government had to "answer" for anything? Funny how the Fed makes pollution laws which we have to obey, but they are exempt from.
If a local government's victims stay local and powerless, they're fucked. There's no lower level of government to appeal to. Really? Who are we to appeal to when the national government is unjust? The local ones? When the power comes from above it is next to impossible to check.
ALL government has a price, and that price matters. Yes, which is why I'd rather have budwieser, etc have to buy off 10,000 local governments than send "campaign" contributions to 100 senators.
Reality of the UN aside, may I ask, what is exactly so problematic with the so-called "one world mentality"?
I view government as a necessary EVIL. The best government is the least government you can get away with.
Just a general distrust of organizations?
I have no problem with voluntary organizations, but I have a big problem with involuntary ones.
IMO once the U.N. has some sort of tax authority that authority will continue to grow. Take a look at the history of the US. We went from an excise tax to an income tax (only on the "rich") to an income tax on everyone. Along the way the politicians have become more and more irresponsible with the budget.
The best Government is one which keeps the majority of power at the local level. E.G. Bottom-up instead of top-down.
While I detest bush, I detest the "one world" mentality just as much. The U.N. was founded solely as a place where nations could talk about their disagreements, NOT as a world governing body, which they are trying to become.
I have enough problems with the bloated and bureaucratic U.S. government. I do not want an even larger and more insulated layer deciding what I can and can't do.
Slashdot Mirror
If this story is true, and I mean IF, then the president has violated his OATH OF OFFICE. Are you so loyal to a political party that you would be willing to overlook such a thing?
Let me put it another way,
Can you HONESTLY tell me if Clinton was reported to have said this you would be so indifferent to it?
If we have gotten to a point where the president can call the Constitution a goddamned piece of paper in front of witnesses, and get away with it, we have IMO a much bigger problem than terrorism. It is the death knell of the Republic.
Simple solution if it is fantasy
Have Bush answer under oath whether or not he called the Constitution
"just a goddamned piece of paper"
If he did nothing wrong, he has nothing to hide.
Oh the irony
It would be nice, for a change, to hear of some specific examples of how the government has used its powers beyond the reasonable scope of national security.
How about this
"Some NSA officials were so concerned about the legality of the program that they refused to participate, the Times said. Questions about the legality of the program led the administration to temporarily suspend it last year and impose new restrictions."
When even people inside the NSA question its legality I'd say it's pretty clear it has crossed the line.
It is absolutely not real. It was from an editorial piece written by Doug Thompson.
From the article :
"I've talked to three people present for the meeting that day and they all confirm that the President of the United States called the Constitution "a goddamned piece of paper." "
from the followup
"When a GOP operative first emailed me about the White House meeting where Bush called the Constitution "just a goddamned piece of paper," I put it aside as one of many reports I get about the President's temper tantrums."
"We get tips about Bush's temper and his comments all the time. Most of the tips don't get used because we don't go with information from just one source. The tip about "the goddamned piece of paper" seemed destined for the byte bin until a second aide, in casual conversation, mentioned the comment.
So I called a third source who has confirmed information in the past. At first he was defensive.
"Who told you about that?" I told him I'd picked it up from two other sources.
"Look, you know how the President is," he said. "He gets agitated when people challenge him."
All I wanted to know was did the President of the United States call the Constitution a "goddamned piece of paper."
"Yeah. He did." "
It was not an imaginary converstation
We were the first news outlet to identify the names of women who claimed sexual abuse by Bill Clinton when he was attorney general and later governor of Arkansas. We were the first news outlet to report on the ethical problems of many members of Congress in our series: America's Criminal Class: The Congress of the United States. And we were the first to report on the abuse of underage girls on teen model web sites. Links to all of these award-winning stories can be found on our home page.
That doesn't mean you should take everything we print as gospel. Never do that with us or any other news source. Do your own research and reach your own conclusions. And consider the record of the sources you use for news and information. We've published more than 25,000 stories since going online on October 1, 1994, and we've had to retract two of them. That's a record I'm willing to stand on.
My bio can be found on this link. I put my name on everything I write. And I stand behind what I write. I'm an arrogant, stubborn, driven bastard who takes no prisoners and backs down from no one. When I'm wrong, I admit it. Thankfully, I haven't had to do that very often. When I'm right I don't give a damn who doesn't like it or what they say about it.
An editor who taught me a lot once said: "If you piss off both sides you're doing your job."
That's good enough for me.
Ah, a lefty mouthpiece reports it... So it must be true, right? The libs are letting their hatred for Bush blur the line between reality and fantasy. These kooks are the GOPs best friends.
If he did nothing wrong, he has nothing to hide.
Just have him answer whether he said it UNDER OATH.
(sound familiar???)
here is his bio
Interesting part :
"Thompson took a sabbatical from newspapers in 1981 and moved to Washington to work on Capitol Hill. He served as press secretary for two Congressmen and then Chief of Staff for another before joining the House Committee on Science & Technology. "
Did he really say that?
I'd love to see him answer that question under oath.
At least one former liuetenant colonel believes it:
Karen Kwiatkowski, Ph.D. [send her mail], a retired USAF lieutenant colonel who spent her final four and a half years in uniform working at the Pentagon's Near East/South Asia bureau. She lives with her freedom-loving family in the Shenandoah Valley, and among other things, has written on defense issues with a libertarian perspective for militaryweek.com, hosts the call-in radio show American Forum on Saturday nights, and blogs occasionally for Huffingtonpost.com. To receive automatic announcements of new articles and upcoming guests on her American Forum radio
I'm against Bush as much as anyone else.. but CHB simply is not a reputable source.
Hmmm lets see. If my choice is between
A) a guy who worked for three congressmen on capitol hill, who reported
the NSA story AND the Pentagon database story a year ago.
versus
B) a corporate newspaper who held a story about constitutional abuse
of power for over a YEAR
guess which one I'm going with???
Bush followed all the applicable laws, and members of congress knew about it. I don't see what the problem is.
Bullshit.
From the article :
"Some NSA officials were so concerned about the legality of the program that they refused to participate, the Times said. Questions about the legality of the program led the administration to temporarily suspend it last year and impose new restrictions."
When people inside the NSA have a problem with its constitutionality,
I think thats a pretty clear indication of just how legal it is.
When Bush can say the constitution is "just a goddamned piece of paper"
how is anyone surprised?
BTW, for those who didnt notice, the times held the story for a YEAR.
And this guy broke the story.
Where does it say in the constitution that you have a right to know when the FBI has been in your house snooping around? I don't think that comes up in an ammenment.
Umm at least two places.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The 4th says they need a warrant, which THEY MUST SERVE to the person whose effects they are searching.
The ninth says I retain rights NOT listed within the constitution, one of which I would say is the right to know when the secure status of my personal effects has been violated.
Now can you tell me exactly where in the constitution the government has the power to CREATE an FBI? Or where in the constitution they gain the power to
snoop in my house without informing me?
It is a relatively modern Idea that Freedom is equal to Privacy.
If by relatively modern you mean the 1700's then yes.
But just recently the right of privacy seems to be implicit to your freedom of speech. am not saying you shouldn't fight to keep your privacy, but it is not taking away a right, it is taking away a luxury, that we enjoy.
Umm no.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Obviously, for my papers and effects to be secure, I must be able to lock them away from prying eyes. Privacy is a RIGHT. (at least when it comes to monitoring by the government).
I have a real problem with people who assume we have no rights except those clearly delineated by the constitution. Remember this?
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
In theory, the government has only the power listed within the constitution, that power given to it by us. We the people however have and always will have inherent natural rights. As shocking as it may seem to you, we even have rights NOT LISTED within the constitution.
" Marxist Hacker 42 "
"A third good way would be to *require* intelligent, statefull inspection firewalls for any fiber optic line leaving the United States, as well as for any satellite link up."
Umm slow down there buddy.
First, your handle is Marxist hacker, so why are you pissed
at the chinese?
Second, requiring chokepoints essentially sets up government monitoring and
thus control (ala "patriot" act). Thanks but no thanks.
P.S. perhaps you should change your handle to "National Socialist Hacker" instead?
It's the fact that the western world in general is compromising its principles of liberty, for security. America and the EU are both falling all over themselves to limit and monitor their citizenry.
The alleged quote from Bush was in regards to the Constitutional concerns regarding the Patriot Act, hence the war on terror. The EU act amounts to parts of the Patriot act (surveillance) writ large.
Every time freedom is curtailed in the name of security, the terrorists have scored a victory. If we are willing to sacrifice liberty for security, how is western civilization any different from the thuggish regimes (e.g. china, syria, Iran) where the invidivual is subordinate to the state?
" How can a guy (Doug Thompon) whose website tagline reads "Because nobody's life, liberty or property are safe while Congress is in session or the White House is occupied" have THREE informants at a private presidential meeting? "
Did you read his BIO?
"Thompson took a sabbatical from newspapers in 1981 and moved to Washington to work on Capitol Hill. He served as press secretary for two Congressmen and then Chief of Staff for another before joining the House Committee on Science & Technology. "
This guy is not an outsider. You work that long in D.C. you make contacts.
If the story is false, fine, he should be sued for libel. If true we have a serious problem.
There have been a number of report about Bush having outbursts lately. Couple that with his extreme isolation and I think its probably true.
Funny how everyone wanted to investigate Clinton for sex in the oval office,
but not one peep from the mainstream media about a report that Bush
violated his oath of office. At a minimum there should be some sort of inquiry
into this.
For the record they are both asshats.
Everything is justified in the global war on TERRA....
When the President can call the Constitution "just a goddamned piece of paper" this kind of stuff should not surprise anyone. Its a brave new world full of chickenshit people.
A new study released by ID Analytics says that only about 1 out of every 1000 stolen identities are actually used, due to the amount of time it takes to use the identity, limiting a single thief to 250 identities a year.
Major flaw in thinking here...
If this is true, then said computer criminal could just sell his/her stolen
info in batches of 250 to multiple criminals. I can see all kinds of possible
"value" add ins for the data thief as well. Items such as:
Data mining for likely high income identities.
Data mining for identies which match the buyers profile (e.g. white male mid 30's)
There is no constitutional right to travel
WTF are you smoking?
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
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.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Go re-read your constitution, and the federalist papers. The constitution does not grant rights, rights are inherent. They only listed a few important ones within the constitution, but because these are natural rights you have them and a host of others even if they are not listed in the constitution....
Even if you ignore the ninth and tenth amendments, what about the first?
E.G. "the right of the people peaceably to assemble"? obviously we the people cannot assemble without traveling to said assembly. So yeah, I'd say that alone says we DO have the right of travel.
As for the right to track you,
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
This is to my mind clearly a case of unreasonable search and seizure. The right of the people to be secure in their persons surely means secure from tracking my whereabouts.
People like you scare me. It is a sad testament to what america and its educational system have become.
And your statement is complete BS.
Here is why:
there were 16,500 homicides in 2003
"Nearly 71 percent of the 2003 murders involved use of a firearm, with 13 percent involving knives or other cutting instruments. Blunt objects, hands and feet also were used."
there were 42,642 auto fatalities in 2002, 17,013 of which were alcohol related.
16,204 murders took place in 2002
according to wiki
there were on 2986 deaths on 9/11.
This means that every year roughly 5.5 times the number are murdered
(most by guns). Care to give up your second amendment rights?
Roughly 14 times the number of people die in auto accidents per year,
(alot of them related to alcohol). Care to outlaw drinking? What about
cars?
I am not willing to give up the second amendment, nor do I think alcohol
or driving should be outlawed. Neither am I willing to let the government
have carte blanche in trampling the 4th, 5th and 6th amendments because of
terrorists.
Right-thinking americans (who are, of course, in the majority) raly to our cause. The washington kleptocracy is o'erthrown. A new constitutional convention is held
majority? That I doubt. When the last revolution was fought, the loyalists were still the majority here.
Now, do you seriously believe that this convention results in the _absence_ of a federal government?
I never said I wanted an absence of a federal government. I want a minimalist one which sticks to its limited role as described within the constitution. E.G. national defense, weights& measures, minting and thats about it.
Here's a better question. The last five years have seen corporate malfeasance undreamt of since the era of the trusts. Why aren't you calling for the abolition of the corporation as a legal entity? Believe me the corps are a big part of the problem. Back when the country was founded there were very strict limits on corporations. I.E. a corp could only do business in its state of incorporation, AND could only do the business for which it was originally incorporated for. Thus no mega conglomerates in 25 different fields. I think the grant of corporate "personhood" to the railroads was one of the worst things ever to happen to this country.
Yeah, let's have a puny central bank, like russia. They're doing real well without inflation controls.
Im not sure you're getting my point here. We do not have inflation controls, we have GUARANTEED inflation "controls" for example, look here. the first and third graphs are interesting. Or this link
from the link above: "Whatever other problems there were with the gold standard, persistent inflation was not one of them. Between 1880 and 1914, the period when the United States was on the "classical gold standard," inflation averaged only 0.1 percent per year."
So how does 0.1 percent strike you versus the FED standard of 4.0 percent for inflationary controls? I'd say pretty damn good. It meant that if you were poor you could save your money and count on it being worth the same amount year to year. Try a compound comparison of $100.00 for 20 years. With the fed, in 20 years your 100.00 is worth $46.00 without, $98.00.
Amtrak sucks
Did you miss my caveat about good management, or just ignore it?
Nope, but can you tell me was there ever a period after it was nationalized that amtrak did not suck? For as long as I can remember Amtrak has lost money. Do you really think such a systemic problem can be blamed on bad mangagement, or upon the system (government owned and operated) itself?
The crucial difference between our points of view is that while we both think that a single entity is responsible or the world being a tiolet (you - the government, me - corporations) you call for abolition while I call for reform.
I say they are both responsible. But let me ask you a question....
Would you agree that power corrupts individuals?
If so, why is your answer to that problem the greater concentration of power in fewer hands?
Put another way, sure my local official may be corrupt, but I have a better chance of seeing that corruption on a daily basis, and a greater chance of voting him out, versus corruption in the back rooms of washington. This IMO is why like 55% of the populace does not vote. They feel powerless to change the crap that matters.
Really? What examples do you have exactly?
:
Let's see. The interstate highway system, the TVA, the Air Traffic Control system, the Federal Reserve, and (assuming, as I mentioned, decent management, which we are unlikely to see anytime soon) the railway system and space research. I could go on. As I mentioned, the above examples perform more or less well proportinally to the intelligence of management.
I believe the interstate can be justified as constitutional for the defense of the country. I might even agree with Air Traffic, (although there are a number of contracted companies running atc towers). I am amused about your example of the federal reserve. That to me is the very WORST of the federal abuse of power, and unconstitutional to boot. Institutionalized inflation (which is what we have) hurts the poor worst of all. The wealthy can invest as a hedge against inflation, while the poor typically "invest" in a bank account if they can manage to save at all. With the current environment they will at best break even with purchasing power by doing so. This is why I believe both the democrats and the republicans clearly do no give a shit about the poor, as the system is currently set up to penalize those that are frugal and try to save.
Amtrak sucks, and has been running in the red for years. Spaceship one showed that private enterprise can reach space cheaply.
I hate to be rude, but I'm afraid that this is the piece of libertarian dogma I find most repugnant. I was born in Russia. I know what a _real_ unaccountable central authority looks like. Please get a clue.
Well, you may get to see one again, right here. Lets check how much of our constitution is still valid
Artile III, section II
The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed
AND
Amendment VI - Right to speedy trial, confrontation of witnesses. Ratified 12/15/1791.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
The above is no longer true if the penalty for EACH charge you face carries less than 6 months per charge. So important they put that in there twice. Funny how ALL doesn't mean ALL dont you think?
right to a speedy and public trial,and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor
Yeah tell that to the guys in gitmo (whoever they may be??) for going on 4 years now.
Amendment VIII - Cruel and Unusual punishment. Ratified 12/15/1791.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. Hmmm sounds like that should cover the torture question don't ya think?
Amendment IV - Search and seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I say this clearly violates that whole probable cause thing.
Amendment II - Right to bear arms. Ratified 12/15/1791
Sometimes public enterprise does a better job of things than private enterprise.
Really? What examples do you have exactly?
I cite the pre-civil war South as the iconic example of local government abuse that would have continued unchecked without the feds putting their foot down.
I cite the fact that there were roughly 20 slave holding societies which made slavery illegal without resorting to violence, vs the ONE that did. I suggest you do a bit of checking into the causes for the civil war as well. It was not slavery but taxation which was the root cause of the civil war. I suggest this book. It sheds alot of light on what was going on at the time.
Some choice facts: the south paid roughly 90% of the federal taxes at the time, while most federal spending was in the north. The Republicans came to power on a platform of protectionism, (including an increase in tariffs). Congress increased tariffs from 20% to 50% on imported goods shortly upon the start of the new session. Since Southern states exported their unfinished goods and took payment in finished goods they were the ones who had the most to lose.
Federal government at least has to answer to every state for abuses.
When was the last time the federal government had to "answer" for anything? Funny how the Fed makes pollution laws which we have to obey, but they are exempt from.
If a local government's victims stay local and powerless, they're fucked. There's no lower level of government to appeal to. Really? Who are we to appeal to when the national government is unjust? The local ones? When the power comes from above it is next to impossible to check.
ALL government has a price, and that price matters. Yes, which is why I'd rather have budwieser, etc have to buy off 10,000 local governments than send
"campaign" contributions to 100 senators.
Reality of the UN aside, may I ask, what is exactly so problematic with the so-called "one world mentality"?
I view government as a necessary EVIL. The best government is the least government you can get away with.
Just a general distrust of organizations?
I have no problem with voluntary organizations, but I have a big problem with involuntary ones.
IMO once the U.N. has some sort of tax authority that authority will continue to grow. Take a look at the history of the US. We went from an excise tax to an income tax (only on the "rich") to an income tax on everyone. Along the way the politicians have become more and more irresponsible with the budget.
The best Government is one which keeps the majority of power at the local level. E.G. Bottom-up instead of top-down.
I call bullshit.
The U.N. may not be a world government YET but many are pushing it that way.
the relevant part : "without explicit authorization for U.N. taxes on currency exchange, fossil fuels and a host of other tax targets. "
And this
or this
or this
While I detest bush, I detest the "one world" mentality just as much. The U.N. was founded solely as a place where nations could talk about their disagreements, NOT as a world governing body, which they are trying to become.
I have enough problems with the bloated and bureaucratic U.S. government.
I do not want an even larger and more insulated layer deciding what I can and can't do.