...when you can copy. If Google is going to make the data freely available, why pay people to start another scanning program when pay people to wait for Google to finish, have them go to the Google page and simply press CTRL-A, CTRL-C and then CTRL-V into their own page? Scan complete!
But it sounds to me like you want the FISA law changed, and I am totally open to a discussion on that. However, what bothers me is that Bush apparently does not like that law either, but rather than make a case to change it, he just chooses to ignore it.
I would like to see the law made much more broad. For example: Allow warrants to track any call made to or from a particular target area, like the Tora Bora region or North Korea (anyone with a phone in N. Korea is a person of interest IMHO). Not require warrants if the call is not being tapped by a human. A computer tapping the call would not require a warrant. A human reading the transcript or listening to the recording would. Of course, warrants issued in the two examples above would bet set to expire after a preset time limit, where they would have to be reviewed and possibly renewed.
This is more of a question rather than comment. Is it legal for them to read snail mail at the post office? Its stored there until you get it delivered. If no, then this lawsuit has a point.
I think the question is more like: If the Feds get a warrant to search a home, and in that home they found a snail mail letter from you, do they have the right to read it?
While we all agree that letters can not be opened at the post office (unless it's leaking white powder or something), does YOUR privacy carry over to the letter that is in SOMEONE ELSE'S hands, someone who can legitimately be searched?
My response for Copid goes for you as well. Copying and pasting, however, would get me modded redundant (mods don't like me much)
I will only add that yes, everyone probably would be happy if all the warrants were submitted, if not for approval at least for record.
I don't agree with this part however. People like you, Copid and me would be happy, but there are too many shrill voices that do not agree with wiretapping at all, under any circumstance. I feel that these people (ACLU) would use this as a political tool to forward their own agendas. I could see the headlines now, "President has 98% of FISA warrants denied, but continues to spy on citizens and turn in warrants to be denied." And in the want adds, "FISA court hiring to fill 10,000 seats".
The only other problem I see is programs like ECHELON. If a machine is monitoring all traffic for keywords or whatever, does the gov't need a warrant for everyone, even if no human beings are listening, or should the gov't only be required to seek a warrant in cases where ECHELON has flagged a transmission that may be of interest? Another related problem I see is this. Since ECHELON is a joint US/UK operation, and since US courts have no jurisdiction over the UK and vice versa, why not just have the US spy on the UK and have the UK spy on the US (nudge-nudge wink-wink)? Of course, this assumes that this is not what they are doing now.
In the IT industry, we call them logfiles. Logfiles become public record when they enter the court system. And trust me, the ACLU would love to make these log files public.
Thanx for the explanation. It is so rare to get coherent civil comments here on/. that it's almost shocking when someone like you replies. Well put.
I must also add that you've changed my view on this. The only arguments I've heard before have done nothing but call names and try to convince me that the gov't should do absolutely nothing to fight terrorism or try to secure us from it. "More people die on the highways than from terrorist attacks" is a favorite that gets thrown at me to try to prove that there is not really a problem (see Michael Moore).
What if the warrant is denied? Would everyone be happy if the Bush admin suddenly submitted all the taps it has done since 2000 to a FISA court? Granted, I'm sure the court would be overwhelmed for a time, but will charges be brought for all those that are not approved? What's the point on oversight as hindsight?
They have NEVER needed FISA warrants before listening. In the event that they need to tap in an emergency (where waiting for a FISA warrant could lose the chance at intelligence), they can just start doing so. However, they do need to apply for a warrant within 72 hours of starting the tap. How could any reasonable person have a problem with this? All they are saying is that you cannot wiretap without ever telling anyone about it.
The issue I have with this is, again, the disposable phone. Habib Mohamed buys a disposable phone to call his mum, Bosama InLaden in Pakistan. The Feds freak and immediately start listening in, only to find out that Mr. Mohamed really is calling his mum and stop listening and remove Mr. Mohamed from any further surveillance. The problem is, they would not have known this if they had not listened. And they really can't go to the FISA court now to get a warrant for tapping Mr. Mohamed's calls to his Mum. It seems the only answer would be to make the Feds get a warrant on calls that produce something, but that kinda defeats the purpose as well.
(Warning, responding to this may get you modded as off-topic because to some, this has nothing to with privacy)
-->What is OK for governments to use to fight terrorism that won't get privacy advocacy groups in a tizzy
Hopefully, nothing.
You are the second person I've heard say this. In a Utopian society, that would work very well. Unfortunately, such a society is a myth, or is at least an illusion put on by governments that are doing all the bad things we are talking about here. For example, a crime-free society would be Utopian, but the security controls and lack of liberty would not be worth it.
Still, back on "nothing". I respect the honesty, but I doubt I'll see a bunch of people screaming, "The government should do nothing at all!" the next time there is a debate on security vs. privacy caused by some sort of security measure. I don't think that argument would have gone far at all on 9-12-2001. As a matter of fact, I heard many people screaming that the gov't didn't do enough. Most are the same people now screaming that gov't does to much. (and by gov't, I mean GWB, of course). The most radical are screaming both at the same time! How many "truthers" out there are upset because they think GWB knew about 9-11 are the same ones upset because of measures designed to prevent the next one? We need a happy medium that is somewhere between Gestapo and anarchy. Of course, that would piss everyone off. Come to think of it, maybe we are there now.
An old quote that can't be brought up too often: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" Ben Franklin
Yes, it can. I see your Franklin and raise you two Hamiltons and a pair of Franklins
Constitutions should consist only of general provisions; the reason is that they must necessarily be permanent, and that they cannot calculate for the possible change of things. Alexander Hamilton
Even to observe neutrality you must have a strong government. Alexander Hamilton
Distrust and caution are the parents of security. Benjamin Franklin
Even peace may be purchased at too high a price. Benjamin Franklin
I eat bananas on a regular basis and have noticed that this keeps rogue alligators away from me. The victims of rogue alligator attacks never have bananas on their person. I strongly advise those who are worried about rogue attack from alligators to eat bananas.
Seeing my wife eat a banana makes me happy. So what she eats can affect my health?!!?
I don't understand how an ID thief is going to use this, especially since most of the pictures are plainly labeled. "Like, here is me and Brittney at the NSync concert. It was so, like, OMG!"
My main question is this: What is OK for governments to use to fight terrorism that won't get privacy advocacy groups in a tizzy, that will actually work and not easily circumvented? For example, don't say require FISA warrants before listening, because it is quicker to buy another disposable cell phone than it is to obtain a FISA warrant.
I'm not being a troll, but it seems like every energy resource we come up with runs afowl (pun intended) with environmentalist and every security measure runs afoul of privacy groups. Since we are not talking about energy here, ignore that part.
We obviously need some sort of security. What is OK?
Yeah, like, have a singer express her honest opinion of the leader of the good ol' free world. I presume you are taking about Natalie Maines? Have we cut her tongue out yet?
Sometimes it seems people welcome the mob to control their thoughts and lives... Like here on/.?
Iraq, however, isn't the only issue. You've also got the problem that government spending has grown out of control, while the government is taking in less money than it otherwise would because it's cut taxes for the wealthiest few in the country, the people who are least in need of a helping hand. Overall, what it comes down to is that we're going to be very deep in debt for a long time to come, and that makes it extremely unlikely that any large-scale manned mission will survive the rounds of budget cuts that will inevitably come.
Is this supposed to be funny? The gov't is taking in MORE money since lowering taxes. Granted, there is a limit to this, but it appears we are still on the right hand side of the Laffer curve. What the NY Times calls a "Surprising Jump in Tax Revenues Is Curbing Deficit", is really not a surprise to anyone old enough to remember Reagan.
Another factor is that gov't spending improves the economy. It took WWII to get us out of "The Great Depression" because government spending put people to work. These people made money (which was taxed) and bought stuff (which was taxed), which led to more people getting jobs, making money (taxed) and buying more stuff (more taxes), which means more people get jobs... and it goes on and on. Now don't get me wrong, I'm against gov't spending in order to improve the economy. That leads to hand-outs, but spending on something productive, even paying for a moon base and the technology that comes from that endeavor, may pay for itself in the long run simply with the jobs it creates.
Finally, another way to create jobs is to cut taxes on employers. Yes, this means the rich. Cutting taxes gives the rich more money. Rich people don't stuff this money in a mattress, they invest it. The more they have, the more they invest. This creates jobs (see previous paragraph). In addition to these jobs helping to feed the government, they give those of us that are not rich the opportunity to feed our families, and even the chance to invest a little coin ourselves so that one day, we might be rich ourselves.
(BTW, previous post was not off topic. Commenting on how to fund such a grand endeavor and its benefits are certainly worth discussing)
Why is it that companies feel they need to conquer every aspect of every market? MS should have left portable music alone.
Several reasons.
MS needs to expand beyond the OS market. OS's have gotten too big and complicated for a single company to handle. Many are saying that Vista will be the last MS mass market, general purpose OS. It has taken them how many years and how much money to
complete? What advantages does Vista have over XP? Couldn't those advantages have been added to XP without re-inventing the wheel and rewriting everything from scratch? Also, the Linux community has already added many of the features Vista touts, such as a 3D accelerated desktop at a virtual cost 0 dollars.
Software is a lucrative business, but without an OS, MS loses it's edge. How well is Office for Mac doing? How about IE for Mac? I still can't get Office for Linux to work yet as I can't find it. OpenOffice works quite well, however on both my Linux and Windows systems. What other software does MS produce that really dominates? Does MS make anything that dominates on OS's other than Windows?
Console market is competitive. I assume they are making $$ on the first X-box by now. I'm certain they will make $$ on the 360 as well. But this is not a sure thing. Wii is strong and the PS3 has taken much of the spotlight. Granted, there are no PS3's on the shelves, but that really means they are selling well. I'm sure MS would be quite happy stores couldn't give PS3's away. What will the competition be like when all three systems are readily available?
Other hardware markets MS has invested in have done well. MS mice and joysticks are quality parts and do well, but they won't support MS or the Gates Foundation.
Money made by Apple from their iPods will support the Mac R&D. MS would rather lose money on MP3 players than see it go to Apple or any other competitor. (See Netscape)
Music sales. MS would love to become a big player with online music sales.
Who knows. Maybe the Zune will take off and MS will make a fortune taking over yet another market.
There are more that I can think of, but this list is probably longer than most/.'ers are willing to read already!
I suppose you advocate our invading Russia, and all of its ex-USSR satellites? After all, there are many known WMD over there from backpack and artillery shell sized to real "crowd-pleasers." And China... don't forget China. So why are we not invading them? According to your reasoning, the mere presence plus a little rumor mongering is sufficient justification.
Well, it doesn't hurt that Iraq did not have a nuclear arsenal with delivery capability as well as our own, or a billion troops with local nuclear delivery capability. I'm kinda glad we didn't wait for Iraq to get to that point. Still.. If Russia or any of her ex-USSR satellites, China, N Korea, or even France, Great Britain or Mexico: Fired on US soldiers performing a UN mandated mission Fired on US allies' soldiers while performing the same mission Aggressively threatened allies of the US Attempted to kill a former US head of state Openly supported enemies of the US Somehow gave intel, by mistake or intentionally leaked, that they were going to attack the US...
Yes, I'd say attack. Owning WMD's is no reason to attack, but when mixed in with all the other goodies like the half a million children who died (according to UNICEF, not me), the wholesale slaughter of the Kurds, and Hussein's tendency to invade his neighbors (all of them I think... maybe not Syria), yeah, I wouldn't sit around and wait for this guy to do something (else) stupid. It's like when you neighbor has shot at your dogs and now you see him cleaning his knife eying you kids, I hope you wouldn't wait around for him to cut an ear off before you act.
Then again, maybe you would.
It's been nice typing with you. You make some good points, I just don't agree with any of them. I'm not going to be so arrogant as to call you wrong, just with a different view.
I'm sure you are doing well in life and I wish you the best.
Sonny, in the rare event you actually ever decide to begin reading (reading is, after all, fundamental) I would recommend the 21st Century Reading List below. (But I'm guessing reading - or any pursuit of the truth - ain't your thing....)
Blood Money by T. Christian Miller, Hostile Takeover by David Sirota, The Bush Agenda by Antonia Juhasz, Armed Madhouse by Greg Palast, Jacked and also Other People's Money by Nomi Prins, Confessions of an Economic Hitman by John Perkins, No Place To Hide by Robert O'Harrow, What Every American Should Know About Who's Really Running the World by Melissa L. Rossi, Perpetual War For Perpetual Peace by Gore Vidal, War Is A Racket by General Smedley Butler, USMC
Sure. But the one of the names I recognized from the list is Gore Vidal. Yeah, there is a non-biased source. From Wiki:
Besides his politician grandfather, Vidal has other connections to the Democratic Party: his mother Nina married Hugh D. Auchincloss, Jr., who later was stepfather of Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy. Gore Vidal is a fifth cousin of Jimmy Carter, and is also a distant cousin of Al Gore.... Vidal has stirred controversy with his relations with Timothy McVeigh. The two began corresponding while McVeigh was imprisoned; Vidal believes McVeigh either had accomplices or was framed for the Oklahoma City terrorist attack. Vidal also has suggested that the attack may have been carried out by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in order to promote legislation of stronger anti-terrorist laws. In another interview, he said Timothy McVeigh had bombed the federal building as retribution for the FBI's role in "spying on and murdering Americans."... Vidal is a member of the advisory board of the World Can't Wait organization, which demands the impeachment of George W. Bush, and the charging of his administration with crimes against humanity.
I'm sure Vidal will take a pure, open minded approach to the President. However something about Vidal did catch my eye.
He claims that for several years, this group and their associates have aimed to control the oil of central Asia (after, in his view, gaining effective control of the oil of the Persian Gulf in 1991). Specifically regarding the September 11, 2001 attacks, Vidal writes how such an attack, which he claims American intelligence warned was coming, politically justified the plans that the administration already had in August 2001 for invading Afghanistan the following October.
The factors Vidal cites in support of his theory include NORAD's delay in mobilizing fighter airplanes to intercept the hijacked airliners, compared with the time one might expect after a hijacking report. If these failures resulted from incompetence, he says, they would deserve "a number of courts martial with an impeachment or two thrown in." Instead, there is to be only a limited inquiry into how the "potential breakdowns among federal agencies . . . could have allowed the terrorist attacks to occur."
Vidal concluded that it was possible that the administration let the attacks happen. He said that doing so would capitalize on a high-profile disaster that would enable the administration to achieve controversial policy goals under the rubric of a War on Terror.
So, Bush should be impeached because he had intel that said the 9-11 attacks were going to happen, and he did nothing to stop them. Well, would Vidal support the Iraq war if the Prez got intel that said Iraq was going to attack the US?
From the right-wing source in Nazi run Britain, the BBC:
Speaking on a visit to Kazakhstan, Mr Putin said Russia had warned the US on several occasions that Iraq was planning "terrorist attacks" on its soil.
"After the events of 11 September 2001, and before the start of the military operation in Iraq, Russian special services sev
Because they lied. How thick are you, archer? LIED!
How convenient that you ignored the rest of that paragraph. So everyone lied? Chirac, Clinton, Kennedy, Kerry, Edwards, Annan, Putin all lied? Why are you only blaming Bush? What if Bush got intel from someone against us going to war in Iraq? What if he read a headline from the BBC that looked something like this one:
Speaking on a visit to Kazakhstan, Mr Putin said Russia had warned the US on several occasions that Iraq was planning "terrorist attacks" on its soil.
"After the events of 11 September 2001, and before the start of the military operation in Iraq, Russian special services several times received such information and passed it on to their American colleagues," he told reporters.
Don't you think that it would have been irresponsible NOT to go into Iraq, especially after the Prez was getting so much heat from people like you saying that Bush knew, or should have known about 9-11? Maybe Russia suckered us. Who knows. Would you have taken the chance?
* Attacking a sovereign country for no reason, and lying about it With UN and Congressional approval. BTW, the leaders of congress, the former president and the leader of the UN all "lied" bout the WMD's also. In other words, they were wrong, not dishonest. You know this too! No one lied but the people like you who keep screaming that Bush lied. Why is no one screaming "Annan Lied!" or "Chirac Lied!"? Funny, Bush was hammered for not acting before 9-11. Then he was hammered for acting on Iraq. What would you be saying if an Iraqi sarin grenade went off on a NY subway? Now he's hammered even harder for trying to the things that may have prevented 9-11, and might prevent the next one. I'm starting to think he's being hammered just for having an R after his name.
* Violating the wiretapping (telecommunications) laws Nope, congress past the Patriot act and Patriot act II. Also, most phone companies volunteered the data when asked. If a cop comes to your door and you let him in, a warrant is not required. Those that refused were not forced to give up anything.
* Violating the FISA laws See above.
* Torture of enemy combatants in violation of everything we stand for Torture is such a vague term. You mean like feeding the three meals a day? How about telling them which way Mecca is so they can practice their religion? None of this was offered in their home countries by the way. These "tortured" prisoners you speak of were actually cared for better in prison than when they were free. Well, except for those that were denied the right to kill civilians in a giant ball of fire. To them, yeah that was torture. (Yeah, I know... Waterboarding, right? That's making them uncomfortable, not torture. Tortures is splints up finger nails, beatings, drownings, seeing your family raped, that sorta thing. If what these guys went through was torture, then my school system and job tortured me for years!)
* Gangsterism as manifested in the Haliburton monopolies Is there another company that can do what Haliburton does? Nope, that's why it's a monopoly. Can you show me an example of where Haliburton has ripped the Gov't off?
* Subversion of the constitution he was sworn to defend: Habeas Corpus Example, please.
* Holding US citizens without trial or access to a lawyer Name one. Jose Padia? He got a lawyer.
* Misusing the "findings" system to enable gangsterism Example please...or is all that just "doing his job poorly" to you?
Nope. The Dow is at a record high. No embassies have been bombed since GWB took office. Unemployment is low. One terrorist attack since GWB took office (granted, it was a doozie, but that was in the works long before GWB got there, and it was over grievances that predated 2000), Saddam Hussein is not leading Iraq, Afghan women voting.
He's doing his job poorly because we are not drilling in ANWR, the borders are a porous joke, and rather than leading, he has been a rubber stamp for congress, not the other way around. (0 vetoes)
Slashdot Mirror
Why did the states take the settlement? There is no way that Sony could have won this. TX and CA should have rode it out!
...when you can copy. If Google is going to make the data freely available, why pay people to start another scanning program when pay people to wait for Google to finish, have them go to the Google page and simply press CTRL-A, CTRL-C and then CTRL-V into their own page? Scan complete!
I thought this was obvious given that Good Moods Prevent Colds
But it sounds to me like you want the FISA law changed, and I am totally open to a discussion on that. However, what bothers me is that Bush apparently does not like that law either, but rather than make a case to change it, he just chooses to ignore it.
I would like to see the law made much more broad. For example:
Allow warrants to track any call made to or from a particular target area, like the Tora Bora region or North Korea (anyone with a phone in N. Korea is a person of interest IMHO).
Not require warrants if the call is not being tapped by a human. A computer tapping the call would not require a warrant. A human reading the transcript or listening to the recording would.
Of course, warrants issued in the two examples above would bet set to expire after a preset time limit, where they would have to be reviewed and possibly renewed.
This is more of a question rather than comment. Is it legal for them to read snail mail at the post office? Its stored there until you get it delivered. If no, then this lawsuit has a point.
I think the question is more like:
If the Feds get a warrant to search a home, and in that home they found a snail mail letter from you, do they have the right to read it?
While we all agree that letters can not be opened at the post office (unless it's leaking white powder or something), does YOUR privacy carry over to the letter that is in SOMEONE ELSE'S hands, someone who can legitimately be searched?
--> Any message sent across it unencrypted is just as much fair game for prosecutuion as taking a picture of you mooning other cars on the freeway.
You mean they can get me for that??
Only if they run the image through their new ass-recognition software.
My response for Copid goes for you as well. Copying and pasting, however, would get me modded redundant (mods don't like me much)
I will only add that yes, everyone probably would be happy if all the warrants were submitted, if not for approval at least for record.
I don't agree with this part however. People like you, Copid and me would be happy, but there are too many shrill voices that do not agree with wiretapping at all, under any circumstance. I feel that these people (ACLU) would use this as a political tool to forward their own agendas. I could see the headlines now, "President has 98% of FISA warrants denied, but continues to spy on citizens and turn in warrants to be denied." And in the want adds, "FISA court hiring to fill 10,000 seats".
The only other problem I see is programs like ECHELON. If a machine is monitoring all traffic for keywords or whatever, does the gov't need a warrant for everyone, even if no human beings are listening, or should the gov't only be required to seek a warrant in cases where ECHELON has flagged a transmission that may be of interest? Another related problem I see is this. Since ECHELON is a joint US/UK operation, and since US courts have no jurisdiction over the UK and vice versa, why not just have the US spy on the UK and have the UK spy on the US (nudge-nudge wink-wink)? Of course, this assumes that this is not what they are doing now.
In the IT industry, we call them logfiles.
Logfiles become public record when they enter the court system. And trust me, the ACLU would love to make these log files public.
Thanx for the explanation. It is so rare to get coherent civil comments here on /. that it's almost shocking when someone like you replies. Well put.
I must also add that you've changed my view on this. The only arguments I've heard before have done nothing but call names and try to convince me that the gov't should do absolutely nothing to fight terrorism or try to secure us from it. "More people die on the highways than from terrorist attacks" is a favorite that gets thrown at me to try to prove that there is not really a problem (see Michael Moore).
What if the warrant is denied? Would everyone be happy if the Bush admin suddenly submitted all the taps it has done since 2000 to a FISA court? Granted, I'm sure the court would be overwhelmed for a time, but will charges be brought for all those that are not approved? What's the point on oversight as hindsight?
I like your post. Well, all but one part:
They have NEVER needed FISA warrants before listening. In the event that they need to tap in an emergency (where waiting for a FISA warrant could lose the chance at intelligence), they can just start doing so. However, they do need to apply for a warrant within 72 hours of starting the tap. How could any reasonable person have a problem with this? All they are saying is that you cannot wiretap without ever telling anyone about it.
The issue I have with this is, again, the disposable phone. Habib Mohamed buys a disposable phone to call his mum, Bosama InLaden in Pakistan. The Feds freak and immediately start listening in, only to find out that Mr. Mohamed really is calling his mum and stop listening and remove Mr. Mohamed from any further surveillance. The problem is, they would not have known this if they had not listened. And they really can't go to the FISA court now to get a warrant for tapping Mr. Mohamed's calls to his Mum. It seems the only answer would be to make the Feds get a warrant on calls that produce something, but that kinda defeats the purpose as well.
(Warning, responding to this may get you modded as off-topic because to some, this has nothing to with privacy)
-->What is OK for governments to use to fight terrorism that won't get privacy advocacy groups in a tizzy
Hopefully, nothing.
You are the second person I've heard say this. In a Utopian society, that would work very well. Unfortunately, such a society is a myth, or is at least an illusion put on by governments that are doing all the bad things we are talking about here. For example, a crime-free society would be Utopian, but the security controls and lack of liberty would not be worth it.
Still, back on "nothing". I respect the honesty, but I doubt I'll see a bunch of people screaming, "The government should do nothing at all!" the next time there is a debate on security vs. privacy caused by some sort of security measure. I don't think that argument would have gone far at all on 9-12-2001. As a matter of fact, I heard many people screaming that the gov't didn't do enough. Most are the same people now screaming that gov't does to much. (and by gov't, I mean GWB, of course). The most radical are screaming both at the same time! How many "truthers" out there are upset because they think GWB knew about 9-11 are the same ones upset because of measures designed to prevent the next one? We need a happy medium that is somewhere between Gestapo and anarchy. Of course, that would piss everyone off. Come to think of it, maybe we are there now.
An old quote that can't be brought up too often: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" Ben Franklin
Yes, it can. I see your Franklin and raise you two Hamiltons and a pair of Franklins
Constitutions should consist only of general provisions; the reason is that they must necessarily be permanent, and that they cannot calculate for the possible change of things.
Alexander Hamilton
Even to observe neutrality you must have a strong government.
Alexander Hamilton
Distrust and caution are the parents of security.
Benjamin Franklin
Even peace may be purchased at too high a price.
Benjamin Franklin
I eat bananas on a regular basis and have noticed that this keeps rogue alligators away from me. The victims of rogue alligator attacks never have bananas on their person. I strongly advise those who are worried about rogue attack from alligators to eat bananas.
Seeing my wife eat a banana makes me happy. So what she eats can affect my health?!!?
I don't understand how an ID thief is going to use this, especially since most of the pictures are plainly labeled. "Like, here is me and Brittney at the NSync concert. It was so, like, OMG!"
My main question is this:
What is OK for governments to use to fight terrorism that won't get privacy advocacy groups in a tizzy, that will actually work and not easily circumvented? For example, don't say require FISA warrants before listening, because it is quicker to buy another disposable cell phone than it is to obtain a FISA warrant.
I'm not being a troll, but it seems like every energy resource we come up with runs afowl (pun intended) with environmentalist and every security measure runs afoul of privacy groups. Since we are not talking about energy here, ignore that part.
We obviously need some sort of security. What is OK?
Do you fear for you life because of that comment?
No? Then your comment is proven incorrect.
Yeah, like, have a singer express her honest opinion of the leader of the good ol' free world.
/.?
I presume you are taking about Natalie Maines? Have we cut her tongue out yet?
Sometimes it seems people welcome the mob to control their thoughts and lives...
Like here on
View my previous posts as a fine example! Still prefer that to having my typing fingers cut off though!
(Granted, some of my posts may qualify as troll, but most do not by far!)
Iraq, however, isn't the only issue. You've also got the problem that government spending has grown out of control, while the government is taking in less money than it otherwise would because it's cut taxes for the wealthiest few in the country, the people who are least in need of a helping hand. Overall, what it comes down to is that we're going to be very deep in debt for a long time to come, and that makes it extremely unlikely that any large-scale manned mission will survive the rounds of budget cuts that will inevitably come.
Is this supposed to be funny? The gov't is taking in MORE money since lowering taxes. Granted, there is a limit to this, but it appears we are still on the right hand side of the Laffer curve. What the NY Times calls a "Surprising Jump in Tax Revenues Is Curbing Deficit", is really not a surprise to anyone old enough to remember Reagan.
Another factor is that gov't spending improves the economy. It took WWII to get us out of "The Great Depression" because government spending put people to work. These people made money (which was taxed) and bought stuff (which was taxed), which led to more people getting jobs, making money (taxed) and buying more stuff (more taxes), which means more people get jobs... and it goes on and on. Now don't get me wrong, I'm against gov't spending in order to improve the economy. That leads to hand-outs, but spending on something productive, even paying for a moon base and the technology that comes from that endeavor, may pay for itself in the long run simply with the jobs it creates.
Finally, another way to create jobs is to cut taxes on employers. Yes, this means the rich. Cutting taxes gives the rich more money. Rich people don't stuff this money in a mattress, they invest it. The more they have, the more they invest. This creates jobs (see previous paragraph). In addition to these jobs helping to feed the government, they give those of us that are not rich the opportunity to feed our families, and even the chance to invest a little coin ourselves so that one day, we might be rich ourselves.
(BTW, previous post was not off topic. Commenting on how to fund such a grand endeavor and its benefits are certainly worth discussing)
Several reasons.
There are more that I can think of, but this list is probably longer than most
I suppose you advocate our invading Russia, and all of its ex-USSR satellites? After all, there are many known WMD over there from backpack and artillery shell sized to real "crowd-pleasers." And China... don't forget China. So why are we not invading them? According to your reasoning, the mere presence plus a little rumor mongering is sufficient justification.
Well, it doesn't hurt that Iraq did not have a nuclear arsenal with delivery capability as well as our own, or a billion troops with local nuclear delivery capability. I'm kinda glad we didn't wait for Iraq to get to that point.
Still..
If Russia or any of her ex-USSR satellites, China, N Korea, or even France, Great Britain or Mexico:
Fired on US soldiers performing a UN mandated mission
Fired on US allies' soldiers while performing the same mission
Aggressively threatened allies of the US
Attempted to kill a former US head of state
Openly supported enemies of the US
Somehow gave intel, by mistake or intentionally leaked, that they were going to attack the US...
Yes, I'd say attack. Owning WMD's is no reason to attack, but when mixed in with all the other goodies like the half a million children who died (according to UNICEF, not me), the wholesale slaughter of the Kurds, and Hussein's tendency to invade his neighbors (all of them I think... maybe not Syria), yeah, I wouldn't sit around and wait for this guy to do something (else) stupid.
It's like when you neighbor has shot at your dogs and now you see him cleaning his knife eying you kids, I hope you wouldn't wait around for him to cut an ear off before you act.
Then again, maybe you would.
It's been nice typing with you. You make some good points, I just don't agree with any of them. I'm not going to be so arrogant as to call you wrong, just with a different view.
I'm sure you are doing well in life and I wish you the best.
Blood Money by T. Christian Miller, Hostile Takeover by David Sirota, The Bush Agenda by Antonia Juhasz, Armed Madhouse by Greg Palast, Jacked and also Other People's Money by Nomi Prins, Confessions of an Economic Hitman by John Perkins, No Place To Hide by Robert O'Harrow, What Every American Should Know About Who's Really Running the World by Melissa L. Rossi, Perpetual War For Perpetual Peace by Gore Vidal, War Is A Racket by General Smedley Butler, USMC
Sure. But the one of the names I recognized from the list is Gore Vidal. Yeah, there is a non-biased source. From Wiki:
I'm sure Vidal will take a pure, open minded approach to the President. However something about Vidal did catch my eye.
So, Bush should be impeached because he had intel that said the 9-11 attacks were going to happen, and he did nothing to stop them. Well, would Vidal support the Iraq war if the Prez got intel that said Iraq was going to attack the US?
From the right-wing source in Nazi run Britain, the BBC:
Because they lied. How thick are you, archer? LIED!
How convenient that you ignored the rest of that paragraph. So everyone lied? Chirac, Clinton, Kennedy, Kerry, Edwards, Annan, Putin all lied? Why are you only blaming Bush? What if Bush got intel from someone against us going to war in Iraq? What if he read a headline from the BBC that looked something like this one:
Don't you think that it would have been irresponsible NOT to go into Iraq, especially after the Prez was getting so much heat from people like you saying that Bush knew, or should have known about 9-11? Maybe Russia suckered us. Who knows. Would you have taken the chance?
Why is it so high? The impression the media here gives us is that Putin is a ruthless dictator and enemy of the people. (Media bias, anyone?)
Why does that sound familiar to me, only the other way around?
I wonder if this new nano-population will be debating ID on nano-dot in a billion years.
How about...
...or is all that just "doing his job poorly" to you?
* Attacking a sovereign country for no reason, and lying about it
With UN and Congressional approval. BTW, the leaders of congress, the former president and the leader of the UN all "lied" bout the WMD's also. In other words, they were wrong, not dishonest. You know this too! No one lied but the people like you who keep screaming that Bush lied. Why is no one screaming "Annan Lied!" or "Chirac Lied!"? Funny, Bush was hammered for not acting before 9-11. Then he was hammered for acting on Iraq. What would you be saying if an Iraqi sarin grenade went off on a NY subway? Now he's hammered even harder for trying to the things that may have prevented 9-11, and might prevent the next one. I'm starting to think he's being hammered just for having an R after his name.
* Violating the wiretapping (telecommunications) laws
Nope, congress past the Patriot act and Patriot act II. Also, most phone companies volunteered the data when asked. If a cop comes to your door and you let him in, a warrant is not required. Those that refused were not forced to give up anything.
* Violating the FISA laws
See above.
* Torture of enemy combatants in violation of everything we stand for
Torture is such a vague term. You mean like feeding the three meals a day? How about telling them which way Mecca is so they can practice their religion? None of this was offered in their home countries by the way. These "tortured" prisoners you speak of were actually cared for better in prison than when they were free. Well, except for those that were denied the right to kill civilians in a giant ball of fire. To them, yeah that was torture. (Yeah, I know... Waterboarding, right? That's making them uncomfortable, not torture. Tortures is splints up finger nails, beatings, drownings, seeing your family raped, that sorta thing. If what these guys went through was torture, then my school system and job tortured me for years!)
* Gangsterism as manifested in the Haliburton monopolies
Is there another company that can do what Haliburton does? Nope, that's why it's a monopoly. Can you show me an example of where Haliburton has ripped the Gov't off?
* Subversion of the constitution he was sworn to defend: Habeas Corpus
Example, please.
* Holding US citizens without trial or access to a lawyer
Name one. Jose Padia? He got a lawyer.
* Misusing the "findings" system to enable gangsterism
Example please
Nope. The Dow is at a record high. No embassies have been bombed since GWB took office. Unemployment is low. One terrorist attack since GWB took office (granted, it was a doozie, but that was in the works long before GWB got there, and it was over grievances that predated 2000), Saddam Hussein is not leading Iraq, Afghan women voting.
He's doing his job poorly because we are not drilling in ANWR, the borders are a porous joke, and rather than leading, he has been a rubber stamp for congress, not the other way around. (0 vetoes)
breaching the public trust by deliberatly misleading the American public and circumventing the Constitution are high crimes and misdemeanors.
Really? What law(s) would they be breaking? Do you have any sources or is it just what you've heard?