Telcos Gunning For Surveillance Suit Immunity > Immunity

said by fAcEtIOUs:

Ever hear of 9/11? Never happened right? The Congress gave the authority to the President 98-0 and 100-0 after 9/11. So he is using it. Thank god he is. No attacks on US soil since then. I wonder why?

said by ackman:

Not to mention the 4000+ American military and mercenaries killed. So while you're singing the praises of not getting attacked, you might want to consider the costs.

said by jc100:

So one life is not important? I bet you wouldn't be saying that if it was your son, brother, father, or yours. 4000 or 400,000 isn't the point. It's the fact we've needlessly taken and played with human life like its a game. Human life isn't a game and nor should we be stripping people of theirs. Hence, maybe instead of typing first, think. The brain is a critical organ given to reason. Sometimes, sitting a few minutes and considering a point, is more valuable than reacting first. Obviously, I've seen your take on history and your rationale, so this doesn't surprise me though.

said by moonpuppy:

What about all those critical lives lost fighting Germany during WWII. A COUNTRY THAT NEVER ATTACKED US!!!!

said by ackman:

Indirectly, they did...they attacked our allies. The major difference in your argument is that EVERYTHING our government told us about Iraq was a lie, thereby rendering our invasion and occupation illegal, immoral, and invalid. Hitler was invading and occupying surrounding nations, not to mention committing atrocities against the Jews, which rendered our military involvement as moral and truthful. The reasons for going to war against Germany were well understood by the entire world community. Respectfully, your analogy does not hold up under the shallowest of scrutiny.

said by jc100:

Moon,

I've explained this to you already. We were slow to act. However, being slow to act, and not acting are two different things. Before Pearl Harbor, we were using sanctions. it wasn't until we got attacked and Germany Declared war did we enter. Why did we enter, well we had just been attacked and weren't going to risk a second such one that same week. Next, Germany made it official we were their enemy now, and they were messing with our allies. Hence, we came to their aid. Simple, yet over your head. We all know this. I keep proving you wrong over and over. I bet you'll love my links on the Baptists and Methodists Helping Hitler.

said by ackman:

Your only fault in this dialogue is that you are a "reader" and you clearly understand history. Oops, wait a minute, my bad...that is actually a "strength"! Unfortunately, too many Americans are as dim as the Miss Teen South Carolina when it comes to geography and history. I find it more and more difficult lately to deal with those who have such an ideological gap in their historical knowledge. I issue you a hearty "well done" for sharing your thoughts and trying to help educate some of these poor souls.

said by moonpuppy:

Reading history and understanding it are 2 different things.

As for Miss Teen South Carolina, you think that is an American thing? Talk about clueless. I have been to a few other countries and I can tell you, if you think that only this country has people who are clueless about geography, you are more narrow-minded that jc100.

Better slow down on the Kool Aid.

said by jc100:

Moon,

I've explained this to you already. We were slow to act. However, being slow to act, and not acting are two different things. Before Pearl Harbor, we were using sanctions. it wasn't until we got attacked and Germany Declared war did we enter. Why did we enter, well we had just been attacked and weren't going to risk a second such one that same week. Next, Germany made it official we were their enemy now, and they were messing with our allies. Hence, we came to their aid. Simple, yet over your head. We all know this. I keep proving you wrong over and over. I bet you'll love my links on the Baptists and Methodists Helping Hitler.

said by jc100:

Moon,

I have offered you COUNTLESS links and proven you wrong over and over. Quite frankly, I am done on this debate officially. You've been proven wrong about Christian Genocide being equally if not far worse than Muslims Genocide. You've been proven wrong about the Baptist and Methodists helping Hitler. Quite frankly, I ALREADY provided a timeline in a prior argument about the history of Germany and WW2. To be honest, anything I say just doesn't hit home. It must be empty space where your brain should be. THE REASON WE ACTED THEN, AND NOT BEFORE WAS DUE TO THE FACT WE WERE USING DIPLOMATIC OPTIONS.... I REPEAT... READ THIS SLOWLY..... NOW.

said by jc100:

AFTER JAPAN ATTACKED US and WE KNEW WW2 WAS AT OUR FRONT DOOR, WE TOOK GERMANY'S DECLARATION OF WAR WITH MORE THAN A GRAIN OF SALT....READ SLOWLY, WORD BY WORD YET AGAIN.

Last line... NOW SOUND IT OUT.... WE WERE ATTACKED ONCE ON OUR SOIL BY JAPAN. THAT SAME WEEK GERMANY DECLARES WAR ON US.... WHAT SANE PERSON IS GOING TO SEE IF GERMANY THEY CARRY OUT A SECONDS DEVASTATING ATTACK AFTER LOSING AND EQUIPMENT COUNTLESS LIVES IN PEARL HARBOR!

(Note: In BOTH OF THESE WARS, WE BLAMED THE CORRECT PEOPLE...UNLIKE IRAQ where Saddam had no connection to 9/11...but that's been argued to the ground between us too)

- No further replies will be given to moon.

said by jc100:

I said I wouldn't respond but I'm going to make this brief. The deaths by the Spanish Inquisition didn't factor in refugees as I pointed out. Obviously, you don't read carefully. Selective reading is a real problem for you, now isn't it. In any case where genocide takes place, millions flee and die. Hence, there are no accurate numbers on how many died directly in the Inquisition itself or as an indirect result of having to relocate. Point stands. You are looking at 10s to hundreds of thousands easily. Look at Sudan as a prime example of how many die while running away.

As for my facts, the Lutherans had nothing to do with my argument. I merely said the church support Hitler. Once again, you just DON'T READ PROPERLY OR USE YOUR BRAIN. I proved you WRONG and you just can't simply face it. Point stands, HITLER WAS SUPPORTED by the Methodist, Baptist, and Catholics.

As for Iraq, I'm not going to explain it again. A threat isn't any good unless they've done something to show propensity for acting. We were attacked a few days prior and Germany Declared War on us. With Germany Already making a mess with Europe and Japan showing up at our front door, we deemed this threat to be credible. Iraq on the other hand had nothing to do with 9/11 and their threats were the same as many, all talk. Do you advocate that we invade any country spewing threats against us without merit. On your basis, half the world would be occupied now.

Now this is the ABSOLUTELY FINAL REPLY TO YOU. Your SHEER IGNORANCE and UTTER LACK of comprehension make any further debate impossible. My links still prove you wrong, and they are credible. So go back to your undying support for Christian Terrorism. After all, your blind faith is no different than those suicide bombers of the small radical sect in Islam. Hence, you are one of a kind and paddling the same kind of boat at them.

DONE, DONE, and DONE.

To anyone who reads this, there is no point arguing with moon.....

said by ackman:

You know, JC, Mr. Bin Laden declared war on the United States, yet we broke off the real "war on terror" to create a new war on somebody who didn't attack us, nor have anything to do with 9/11, nor have anything to do with al qaeda. All Iraq was guilty of, as Alan Greenspan so aptly pointed out, was that he had a bunch of oil. So, instead of focusing our $1 trillion on making the United States less fossil-fuel dependent, we spend that to go seize the oil, just like a merry band of pirates. Next stop, Iran's oil fields...we Americans want middle east oil, and we're going to kill as many muslims as possible to get it. After all, we're all good Christians here, and that is our duty. As Jerry Falwell said, we need to kill as many of these evil muslims as possible. I am not of that camp, we need to understand them instead of trying to annihilate or control them.

said by moonpuppy:

Another Kool Aid drinker.

Tell me, what have you done personally to get rid of your dependence on fossil fuels?

And if you think Jerry Falwell spoke for all Christians in this country, then I can say Bin Laden speaks for all Muslims.

Listen to radical Islam teachings one day. They do not want to understand you nor even want to deal with you. Unless you are a "good" muslim, you are to be a slave or dead. Like the radical evangelicals in this country.

And if Iraq was a war for oil, where is my 50 cent/gallon gas?

Try again.

said by jc100:

Ackman,

From the war on terrorism where you hear people saying Muslims out to get you, to others saying Mexicans are stealing our jobs. Really? Well I've already covered the Muslim argument, and the only jobs Mexicans are taking are in the farm fields.

said by jc100:

First off, you are oblivious to facts. Like any good conservative you assume what happens in your area is representative of everywhere. Wrong. Like most conservatives, you hate reality and facts. Those two items don't mesh well when it comes to proving a point. Therefore, conservatives, such as yourself, love to take an isolated incident of someone they know, and spin it into a universal truth. Well YOU'RE Wrong. Illegals in my area are migrant workers in large numbers. So your assessment is once again false, and based off nothing more than hogwash. However, we're not amazed. Your versions of history are astoundingly inaccurate and so are your over generalizations. Nothing more needs to be said. At this point, no one takes you remotely seriously moon. After all, you said it best. They are "stealing" the jobs AMERICANS don't want. While they are going after jobs Americans do not fill, you might wish to look up the word stealing in a dictionary. Stealing means to take forcibly and obviously, they aren't since no one is going after them in the first place. Sigh, we have people in this world like you. 2008 is going to be interesting.

said by jc100:

Funniest thing ever is that Republicans YELL about Mexican labor, but it's those same companies hiring them in droves to cut costs.

said by jc100:

Norman,

You are wrong. Companies are politically affiliated. The owners or heads donate to parties. IE. We all know Fox news is heavily conservative.

Likewise, if you check the donations candidates have received, you'll find some big names behind them. Hence, companies are associated with a party. Usually, big business leans to the right. Therefore, I must stick to my assertion on that point.

said by jc100:

Norman,

I never said that bud. I said BIG BUSINESS usually leans to the right.

As for changing parties, that is true and not true. People do it all the time.

So to say that doesn't really hold much weight either. Obviously, enough people "changed" to Democrat to make the Congress what it is today.

Whether or not they are now "Democrats" come the next election is up in the air. They might feel a change is needed and vote it, but does that make them two faced?

However, if you look at most big businesses you will truly find they are more conservative than Democrat.

said by NormanS:

As if there are no conservative Democrats, or liberal Republicans? Like G.W. Bush, and our (California's) "Governator"? Bush is no Reaganite; and his one-world attitude gets lost in his war stance.
You may assert what you will, but it is just opinion. Companies tend to lean with the political winds.

said by jc100:

Norman,

You are wrong. Companies are politically affiliated. The owners or heads donate to parties. IE. We all know Fox news is heavily conservative. Likewise, if you check the donations candidates have received, you'll find some big names behind them. Hence, companies are associated with a party. Usually, big business leans to the right. Therefore, I must stick to my assertion on that point.

said by moonpuppy:

Maybe you should talk to Hillary about her $750,000 in contributions from a felon on the run. Norman Hsu ring a bell? But it's o.k. since she is a Democrat.

said by NormanS:

Companies are neither Republican, nor Democrat; and most contribute to both parties. Sort of like covering all bets, I guess.

What I would like to see (but never will see): Only registered voters can make political contributions, and only up to one percent of their Gross Adjusted Income on their U.S. Income Tax returns. You don't vote (corporations can't vote, last I checked) you don't contribute.

said by jc100:

First off, you are oblivious to facts. Like any good conservative you assume what happens in your area is representative of everywhere. Wrong. Like most conservatives, you hate reality and facts. Those two items don't mesh well when it comes to proving a point. Therefore, conservatives, such as yourself, love to take an isolated incident of someone they know, and spin it into a universal truth. Well YOU'RE Wrong. Illegals in my area are migrant workers in large numbers. So your assessment is once again false, and based off nothing more than hogwash. However, we're not amazed. Your versions of history are astoundingly inaccurate and so are your over generalizations. Nothing more needs to be said. At this point, no one takes you remotely seriously moon. After all, you said it best. They are "stealing" the jobs AMERICANS don't want. While they are going after jobs Americans do not fill, you might wish to look up the word stealing in a dictionary. Stealing means to take forcibly and obviously, they aren't since no one is going after them in the first place. Sigh, we have people in this world like you. 2008 is going to be interesting.