"back in the day when right-wingers just wanted to keep their slaves and feudal tenants from escaping to more liberal (i.e. equal and progressive) societies?"
Dood, check your facts, The republicans freed the slaves in the 1800's (Lincoln)
And in the 1960's who was for segregation in the south!?! You guessed it, Democrats...
"In the post-Civil War South, Democrats used the race issue to solidify their hold on Southern politics, playing on white resentment of black political power. Democrats were the agents in passing segregation laws, as well as laws disenfranchising blacks (and sometimes poor whites) politically. In 1913, President Woodrow Wilson ordered the segregation of the federal Civil Service[3]. White and black people would sometimes be required to eat separately and use separate schools, public toilets, park benches, train and restaurant seating, etc. In some locales, in addition to segregated seating, it could be forbidden for stores or restaurants to serve different races under the same roof."
Is it time to tune out World News Tonight and tune into The Daily Show? Professor Fox doesn't think so, saying that "we should probably be concerned about both of those sources, because neither one is particularly substantive. It's a bottom-line industry and ratings-driven. We live in an 'infotainment' society, and there certainly are a number of other sources available."
...It also demonstrates that the mainstream media may not be so mainstream anymore, and that people looking for in-depth treatments of newsworthy topics are often best served by looking in places other than the evening news or The Daily Show, no matter how funny the latter is.
IMHO, Like the mainstream press, and the Daily Show and sadly I think slashdot.org; We see the same old non-substantive dripple, churned out and gobbled up hook, line and sinker by the feeble minded youth and adults of our modern society...
NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, "et al" in the drive-by-media are all a by-product of an ill-informed, public school brainwashed populus...
I cannot believe so many/.ers watch this shite and 2 be honest it saddens me more folks aren't tuning out of garbage and tuning into a truly exemplary media outlet for the truly informed, CSPAN1, 2, 3 & cspan.org
Is it time to tune out World News Tonight and tune into The Daily Show? Professor Fox doesn't think so, saying that "we should probably be concerned about both of those sources, because neither one is particularly substantive. It's a bottom-line industry and ratings-driven. We live in an 'infotainment' society, and there certainly are a number of other sources available."
...It also demonstrates that the mainstream media may not be so mainstream anymore, and that people looking for in-depth treatments of newsworthy topics are often best served by looking in places other than the evening news or The Daily Show, no matter how funny the latter is.
IMHO, Like the mainstream press, and the Daily Show and sadly I think slashdot.org; We see the same old non-substantive dripple, churned out and gobbled up hook, line and sinker by the feeble minded youth and adults of our modern society...
NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, "et al" in the drive-by-media are all a by-product of an ill-informed, public school brainwashed populus...
I cannot believe so many/.ers watch this shite and 2 be honest it saddens me more folks aren't tuning out of garbage and tuning into a truly exemplary media outlet for the truly informed, CSPAN1, 2, 3 & cspan.org
Is it time to tune out World News Tonight and tune into The Daily Show? Professor Fox doesn't think so, saying that "we should probably be concerned about both of those sources, because neither one is particularly substantive. It's a bottom-line industry and ratings-driven. We live in an 'infotainment' society, and there certainly are a number of other sources available."
...It also demonstrates that the mainstream media may not be so mainstream anymore, and that people looking for in-depth treatments of newsworthy topics are often best served by looking in places other than the evening news or The Daily Show, no matter how funny the latter is.
IMHO, Like the mainstream press, and the Daily Show and sadly I think slashdot.org; We see the same old non-substantive dripple, churned out and gobbled up hook, line and sinker by the feeble minded youth and adults of our modern society...
NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, "et al" in the drive-by-media are all a by-product of an ill-informed, public school brainwashed populus...
I cannot believe so many/.ers watch this shite and 2 be honest it saddens me more folks aren't tuning out of garbage and tuning into a truly exemplary media outlet for the truly informed, CSPAN1, 2, 3 & cspan.org
Is it time to tune out World News Tonight and tune into The Daily Show? Professor Fox doesn't think so, saying that "we should probably be concerned about both of those sources, because neither one is particularly substantive. It's a bottom-line industry and ratings-driven. We live in an 'infotainment' society, and there certainly are a number of other sources available."
...It also demonstrates that the mainstream media may not be so mainstream anymore, and that people looking for in-depth treatments of newsworthy topics are often best served by looking in places other than the evening news or The Daily Show, no matter how funny the latter is.
IMHO, Like the mainstream press, and the Daily Show and sadly I think slashdot.org; We see the same old non-substantive dripple, churned out and gobbled up hook, line and sinker by the feeble minded youth and adults of our modern society...
NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, "et al" in the drive-by-media are all a by-product of an ill-informed, public school brainwashed populus...
I cannot believe so many/.ers watch this shite and 2 be honest it saddens me more folks aren't tuning out of garbage and tuning into a truly exemplary media outlet for the truly informed, CSPAN1, 2, 3 & http:www.cspan.org
Wow, first off I must commend you, thats some intelligent way to answer my question. I find it very telling when someone chooses to call someone a name like "kool-aid drinker" and not even address the validity of my concern...
Does anyone else find it odd that Robert Kennedy, a democrat, with a democrat opinion show on Air America keeps writing articles about how the 00' and 04' elections were rigged. Would Robert be protesting if Democrats had won?
Second off, did I even state what my political beliefs are? Why don't you honestly answer whether you think democrats would be complaining if Gore & Kerry had won?
Sounds to me like someone here is blindly believing whatever they are told and drinking "kool-aid", but I assure you its not me...
Does anyone else find it odd that Robert Kennedy, a democrat, with a democrat opinion show on Air America keeps writing articles about how the 00' and 04' elections were rigged. Would Robert be protesting if Democrats had won?
I'm glad/. has turned into moveon.org, thanks... News for liberal ners, stuff that matters...
I'm German: My grandparents do remember the time when the news would daily report on the great progress we made in the war on all fronts; how we went from victory to victory with no setback at all.
What war are you talking about here?
I mean please, all of you are talking about elections and polling etc.... Not even reading the PDF...
first off, if you read it, which i just finished, It clearly states that there is OVERSIGHT, it also clearly states a WARRANT IS needed unless it is in communications with FOREIGN power, then clearly points to the part of the FISA law from 78' which outlines what a FOREIGN power is. I know it doesnt explain what a terrorist is, well frankly, it doesnt need to since it is talking about FOREIGN powers, not terrorists... Can we start talkign about the BILL please, and not polling politics or elections or how much dems ROXOR.... STICK TO THE TOPIC... also the original wording of this post is extremely biased and not telling the truth when it states no oversight....
I mean please, all of you are talking about elections and polling etc.... Not even reading the PDF...
first off, if you read it, which i just finished, It clearly states that there is OVERSIGHT, it also clearly states a WARRANT IS needed unless it is in communications with FOREIGN power, then clearly points to the part of the FISA law from 78' which outlines what a FOREIGN power is. I know it doesnt explain what a terrorist is, well frankly, it doesnt need to since it is talking about FOREIGN powers, not terrorists... Can we start talkign about the BILL please, and not polling politics or elections or how much dems ROXOR.... STICK TO THE TOPIC... also the original wording of this post is extremely biased and not telling the truth when it states no oversight....
I mean please, all of you are talking about elections and polling etc.... Not even reading the PDF...
first off, if you read it, which i just finished, It clearly states that there is OVERSIGHT, it also clearly states a WARRANT IS needed unless it is in communications with FOREIGN power, then clearly points to the part of the FISA law from 78' which outlines what a FOREIGN power is. I know it doesnt explain what a terrorist is, well frankly, it doesnt need to since it is talking about FOREIGN powers, not terrorists... Can we start talkign about the BILL please, and not polling politics or elections or how much dems ROXOR.... STICK TO THE TOPIC... also the original wording of this post is extremely biased and not telling the truth when it states no oversight....
I mean please, all of you are talking about elections and polling etc.... Not even reading the PDF...
first off, if you read it, which i just finished, It clearly states that there is OVERSIGHT, it also clearly states a WARRANT IS needed unless it is in communications with FOREIGN power, then clearly points to the part of the FISA law from 78' which outlines what a FOREIGN power is. I know it doesnt explain what a terrorist is, well frankly, it doesnt need to since it is talking about FOREIGN powers, not terrorists... Can we start talkign about the BILL please, and not polling politics or elections or how much dems ROXOR.... STICK TO THE TOPIC... also the original wording of this post is extremely biased and not telling the truth when it states no oversight....
I mean please, all of you are talking abotu elections and polling etc....
Not even reading the PDF... first off, if you read it, which i just finished, It clearly states that there is OVERSIGHT, it also clearly states a WARRANT IS needed unless it is in communications with FOREIGN power, then clearly points to the part of the FISA law from 78 which outlines what a FOREIGN power is. I know it doesnt explain what a terrorist is, well frankly, it doesnt need to since it is talkign about FOREIGN powers, not terrorists... Can we start talkign about the BILL please, and not polling politics or elections.... STICK TO THE TOPIC... also the original wording of this post is extremely biased and not tellign the truth when it states no oversight....
whew, good thing slashdotters don't vote... there seems to be a popular misconception on/. that democrats = better than republican... Lets please not forget both parties suck and Democrats have the honor of having the only Elected President EVER to be impeached... go 3rd parties!
Pearl harbor = unprovoked?
I would assume the japanese at the time would not think so,
Peace Negogiations prior to pearl harbor had fell apart 30 minutes before the attack...
DO SOME RESEARCH B4 U LOOK DUM!!
Your correct though, Pearl Harbo and 9/11 are different, More died on 9/11...
Well in 1981, surely Nixon was not in office, and if you had read the PRECEDENT set by the 1980 ruling, if the communication is for FOREIGN intelligence gathering a Warrant is not needed...
I AGREE it woudl be great if this precedent was not in place, but it is, and I cannot pretend it is not and scream BUSH IS WRONG!! when clearly, he did soemthing which i may consider wrong, but the law does not, We will see what happens to the Governments appeal on Sept 7th
1980 A 4th Circuit decision, U.S. v. Truong Dinh Hung, applying pre-FISA standards, holds that "the executive branch should be excused from securing a warrant only when the surveillance is conducted 'primarily' for foreign intelligence reasons" (629 F.2d 908, 439 U.S. 1326, 667 F.2d 1105 (4th Cir. 1981)).
Wow, apparently you didnt read it then, here is one...
Note the:"excused from securing a warrant only when the surveillance is conducted 'primarily' for foreign intelligence reasons"
1980
A 4th Circuit decision, U.S. v. Truong Dinh Hung, applying pre-FISA standards, holds that "the executive branch should be excused from securing a warrant only when the surveillance is conducted 'primarily' for foreign intelligence reasons" (629 F.2d 908, 439 U.S. 1326, 667 F.2d 1105 (4th Cir. 1981)). The decision will influence interpretations of FISA language "the purpose" of surveillance is to collect foreign intelligence information as meaning "the primary purpose".
Slashdot Mirror
"back in the day when right-wingers just wanted to keep their slaves and feudal tenants from escaping to more liberal (i.e. equal and progressive) societies?"
n ited_States
Dood, check your facts, The republicans freed the slaves in the 1800's (Lincoln) And in the 1960's who was for segregation in the south!?! You guessed it, Democrats...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_segregation#U
"In the post-Civil War South, Democrats used the race issue to solidify their hold on Southern politics, playing on white resentment of black political power. Democrats were the agents in passing segregation laws, as well as laws disenfranchising blacks (and sometimes poor whites) politically. In 1913, President Woodrow Wilson ordered the segregation of the federal Civil Service[3]. White and black people would sometimes be required to eat separately and use separate schools, public toilets, park benches, train and restaurant seating, etc. In some locales, in addition to segregated seating, it could be forbidden for stores or restaurants to serve different races under the same roof."
Sir, you are an ass
You guys just couldn't wait to bury the "Forced to wonder" Comment
I thought it was a valid idea to consider...
The "Mudslinging" was refering to other instances in the article...
I cant believe you got modded up, just RTFA...
What is a Macaca anyways? never heard of it before...
"I am convinced a volunteer army would be an army of the poor and the black and the brown," -My Senator John Kerry '1972
FROM the article:
...It also demonstrates that the mainstream media may not be so mainstream anymore, and that people looking for in-depth treatments of newsworthy topics are often best served by looking in places other than the evening news or The Daily Show, no matter how funny the latter is.
/.ers watch this shite and 2 be honest it saddens me more folks aren't tuning out of garbage and tuning into a truly exemplary media outlet for the truly informed, CSPAN1, 2, 3 & cspan.org
Is it time to tune out World News Tonight and tune into The Daily Show? Professor Fox doesn't think so, saying that "we should probably be concerned about both of those sources, because neither one is particularly substantive. It's a bottom-line industry and ratings-driven. We live in an 'infotainment' society, and there certainly are a number of other sources available."
IMHO, Like the mainstream press, and the Daily Show and sadly I think slashdot.org; We see the same old non-substantive dripple, churned out and gobbled up hook, line and sinker by the feeble minded youth and adults of our modern society...
NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, "et al" in the drive-by-media are all a by-product of an ill-informed, public school brainwashed populus...
I cannot believe so many
FROM the article:
...It also demonstrates that the mainstream media may not be so mainstream anymore, and that people looking for in-depth treatments of newsworthy topics are often best served by looking in places other than the evening news or The Daily Show, no matter how funny the latter is.
/.ers watch this shite and 2 be honest it saddens me more folks aren't tuning out of garbage and tuning into a truly exemplary media outlet for the truly informed, CSPAN1, 2, 3 & cspan.org
Is it time to tune out World News Tonight and tune into The Daily Show? Professor Fox doesn't think so, saying that "we should probably be concerned about both of those sources, because neither one is particularly substantive. It's a bottom-line industry and ratings-driven. We live in an 'infotainment' society, and there certainly are a number of other sources available."
IMHO, Like the mainstream press, and the Daily Show and sadly I think slashdot.org; We see the same old non-substantive dripple, churned out and gobbled up hook, line and sinker by the feeble minded youth and adults of our modern society...
NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, "et al" in the drive-by-media are all a by-product of an ill-informed, public school brainwashed populus...
I cannot believe so many
FROM the article:
...It also demonstrates that the mainstream media may not be so mainstream anymore, and that people looking for in-depth treatments of newsworthy topics are often best served by looking in places other than the evening news or The Daily Show, no matter how funny the latter is.
/.ers watch this shite and 2 be honest it saddens me more folks aren't tuning out of garbage and tuning into a truly exemplary media outlet for the truly informed, CSPAN1, 2, 3 & cspan.org
Is it time to tune out World News Tonight and tune into The Daily Show? Professor Fox doesn't think so, saying that "we should probably be concerned about both of those sources, because neither one is particularly substantive. It's a bottom-line industry and ratings-driven. We live in an 'infotainment' society, and there certainly are a number of other sources available."
IMHO, Like the mainstream press, and the Daily Show and sadly I think slashdot.org; We see the same old non-substantive dripple, churned out and gobbled up hook, line and sinker by the feeble minded youth and adults of our modern society...
NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, "et al" in the drive-by-media are all a by-product of an ill-informed, public school brainwashed populus...
I cannot believe so many
FROM the article:
...It also demonstrates that the mainstream media may not be so mainstream anymore, and that people looking for in-depth treatments of newsworthy topics are often best served by looking in places other than the evening news or The Daily Show, no matter how funny the latter is.
/.ers watch this shite and 2 be honest it saddens me more folks aren't tuning out of garbage and tuning into a truly exemplary media outlet for the truly informed, CSPAN1, 2, 3 & http:www.cspan.org
Is it time to tune out World News Tonight and tune into The Daily Show? Professor Fox doesn't think so, saying that "we should probably be concerned about both of those sources, because neither one is particularly substantive. It's a bottom-line industry and ratings-driven. We live in an 'infotainment' society, and there certainly are a number of other sources available."
IMHO, Like the mainstream press, and the Daily Show and sadly I think slashdot.org; We see the same old non-substantive dripple, churned out and gobbled up hook, line and sinker by the feeble minded youth and adults of our modern society...
NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, "et al" in the drive-by-media are all a by-product of an ill-informed, public school brainwashed populus...
I cannot believe so many
Wow, first off I must commend you, thats some intelligent way to answer my question. I find it very telling when someone chooses to call someone a name like "kool-aid drinker" and not even address the validity of my concern...
Does anyone else find it odd that Robert Kennedy, a democrat, with a democrat opinion show on Air America keeps writing articles about how the 00' and 04' elections were rigged. Would Robert be protesting if Democrats had won?
Second off, did I even state what my political beliefs are? Why don't you honestly answer whether you think democrats would be complaining if Gore & Kerry had won?
Sounds to me like someone here is blindly believing whatever they are told and drinking "kool-aid", but I assure you its not me...
Don't worry, George is just putting more $$ into other things and Air America is alive and well...
Does anyone else find it odd that Robert Kennedy, a democrat, with a democrat opinion show on Air America keeps writing articles about how the 00' and 04' elections were rigged. Would Robert be protesting if Democrats had won?
/. has turned into moveon.org, thanks... News for liberal ners, stuff that matters...
I'm glad
Not flamebait... just my 2 cents...
I could not agree more...
I could not agree more, here here...
I'm German: My grandparents do remember the time when the news would daily report on the great progress we made in the war on all fronts; how we went from victory to victory with no setback at all. What war are you talking about here?
I mean please, all of you are talking about elections and polling etc.... Not even reading the PDF...
first off, if you read it, which i just finished, It clearly states that there is OVERSIGHT, it also clearly states a WARRANT IS needed unless it is in communications with FOREIGN power, then clearly points to the part of the FISA law from 78' which outlines what a FOREIGN power is. I know it doesnt explain what a terrorist is, well frankly, it doesnt need to since it is talking about FOREIGN powers, not terrorists... Can we start talkign about the BILL please, and not polling politics or elections or how much dems ROXOR.... STICK TO THE TOPIC... also the original wording of this post is extremely biased and not telling the truth when it states no oversight....
I mean please, all of you are talking about elections and polling etc.... Not even reading the PDF...
first off, if you read it, which i just finished, It clearly states that there is OVERSIGHT, it also clearly states a WARRANT IS needed unless it is in communications with FOREIGN power, then clearly points to the part of the FISA law from 78' which outlines what a FOREIGN power is. I know it doesnt explain what a terrorist is, well frankly, it doesnt need to since it is talking about FOREIGN powers, not terrorists... Can we start talkign about the BILL please, and not polling politics or elections or how much dems ROXOR.... STICK TO THE TOPIC... also the original wording of this post is extremely biased and not telling the truth when it states no oversight....
I mean please, all of you are talking about elections and polling etc.... Not even reading the PDF...
first off, if you read it, which i just finished, It clearly states that there is OVERSIGHT, it also clearly states a WARRANT IS needed unless it is in communications with FOREIGN power, then clearly points to the part of the FISA law from 78' which outlines what a FOREIGN power is. I know it doesnt explain what a terrorist is, well frankly, it doesnt need to since it is talking about FOREIGN powers, not terrorists... Can we start talkign about the BILL please, and not polling politics or elections or how much dems ROXOR.... STICK TO THE TOPIC... also the original wording of this post is extremely biased and not telling the truth when it states no oversight....
I mean please, all of you are talking about elections and polling etc.... Not even reading the PDF... first off, if you read it, which i just finished, It clearly states that there is OVERSIGHT, it also clearly states a WARRANT IS needed unless it is in communications with FOREIGN power, then clearly points to the part of the FISA law from 78' which outlines what a FOREIGN power is. I know it doesnt explain what a terrorist is, well frankly, it doesnt need to since it is talking about FOREIGN powers, not terrorists... Can we start talkign about the BILL please, and not polling politics or elections or how much dems ROXOR.... STICK TO THE TOPIC... also the original wording of this post is extremely biased and not telling the truth when it states no oversight....
I mean please, all of you are talking abotu elections and polling etc.... Not even reading the PDF...
first off, if you read it, which i just finished, It clearly states that there is OVERSIGHT, it also clearly states a WARRANT IS needed unless it is in communications with FOREIGN power, then clearly points to the part of the FISA law from 78 which outlines what a FOREIGN power is. I know it doesnt explain what a terrorist is, well frankly, it doesnt need to since it is talkign about FOREIGN powers, not terrorists... Can we start talkign about the BILL please, and not polling politics or elections.... STICK TO THE TOPIC... also the original wording of this post is extremely biased and not tellign the truth when it states no oversight....
whew, good thing slashdotters don't vote... /. that democrats = better than republican...
there seems to be a popular misconception on
Lets please not forget both parties suck and Democrats have the honor of having the only Elected President EVER to be impeached... go 3rd parties!
Terrorists = free market?
Is this a joke?
Pearl harbor = unprovoked?
I would assume the japanese at the time would not think so,
Peace Negogiations prior to pearl harbor had fell apart 30 minutes before the attack...
DO SOME RESEARCH B4 U LOOK DUM!!
Your correct though, Pearl Harbo and 9/11 are different, More died on 9/11...
Well in 1981, surely Nixon was not in office, and if you had read the PRECEDENT set by the 1980 ruling, if the communication is for FOREIGN intelligence gathering a Warrant is not needed... I AGREE it woudl be great if this precedent was not in place, but it is, and I cannot pretend it is not and scream BUSH IS WRONG!! when clearly, he did soemthing which i may consider wrong, but the law does not, We will see what happens to the Governments appeal on Sept 7th
1980 A 4th Circuit decision, U.S. v. Truong Dinh Hung, applying pre-FISA standards, holds that "the executive branch should be excused from securing a warrant only when the surveillance is conducted 'primarily' for foreign intelligence reasons" (629 F.2d 908, 439 U.S. 1326, 667 F.2d 1105 (4th Cir. 1981)).
Wow, apparently you didnt read it then, here is one... Note the :"excused from securing a warrant only when the surveillance is conducted 'primarily' for foreign intelligence reasons"
1980
A 4th Circuit decision, U.S. v. Truong Dinh Hung, applying pre-FISA standards, holds that "the executive branch should be excused from securing a warrant only when the surveillance is conducted 'primarily' for foreign intelligence reasons" (629 F.2d 908, 439 U.S. 1326, 667 F.2d 1105 (4th Cir. 1981)). The decision will influence interpretations of FISA language "the purpose" of surveillance is to collect foreign intelligence information as meaning "the primary purpose".
I hope everyone was this angry when all the previous presidents did the same thing, or when this FISA BS was passed.... http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Warrantless_Eavesdr opping_Timeline