[POLL] Immunity or not; what say you? in http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r19994922 en Tue, 08 Dec 2009 17:37:07 EDT Tue, 08 Dec 2009 17:37:07 EDT Re: [POLL] Immunity or not; what say you? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20010587 fiberguy : You're too smug for your own good... and it will ultimately hurt not only you, but others that think the same way you do.

Were you around for the Ford Presidency? .. you know why the man pardoned Nixon, right?

If you know the answer to that question, then you will know why Bush has not been impeached at this time.

It's no secret that we have a retard in charge of this country (unless one's head is up his rear) but there are actually good reasons why he hasn't been impeached at this time.

Even many of the Bush followers regretted voting for him in the second term - that was clear just a very short time after his re-election.

Right now, for the good of the country, the man stays. The people spoke in the 2006 election that it was time to throttle the government - and did.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20010587 Sun, 17 Feb 2008 05:52:41 EDT Re: [POLL] Immunity or not; what say you? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20010413 JakCrow : The republicans in congress are more interested in covering for the team than to actual stand for the rule of law.

And the telcos didn't follow the president in "good faith". They new the law specifically requires FISA warrants. Bush's wink and smile are not good enough.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20010413 Sun, 17 Feb 2008 01:57:37 EDT Re: [POLL] Immunity or not; what say you? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20006342 amigo_boy :
said by fiberguy See Profile :

Are you kidding? Just because Bush "said so" or as you say, his directive, doesn't mean it's right.
Then impeach the President. That's the normal course of action if you feel he abused his power. Not those who followed the President in good faith. Even the laws that have existed at the time support that. See »Re: [POLL] Immunity or not; what say you?

Mark]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20006342 Sat, 16 Feb 2008 10:53:14 EDT Re: [POLL] Immunity or not; what say you? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20006335 amigo_boy :
said by JakCrow See Profile :

Oh yes. Those pesky polls that don't support your opinion. They don't mean anything.
It's not just issues I disagree with. Polls make me uncomfortable even when I agree. You could take a poll "should the government do something to stop hurricanes?" and a majority would say "yes." In the early 90s polls were used to fuel the anti-gun craze. "A majority believe gun-related crime is on the rise" (when it had been falling for 5 years).

said by JakCrow See Profile :

Section 408 of the "Protect America Act" under the heading "Liability Defense": .. Why are you trying obfuscate a fact that is pretty clearly spelled out?
But, what do you do with 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(a)(ii)(B) and U.S.C. 2702(a)(3) & (c)? It's obvious those laws already granted immunity for *years*, with such weak conditions that it's unimaginable the telcos couldn't qualify. The latter was even made easier to obtain in 2006 (not just "reasonable belief" of "imminent" danger, but "good faith belief" (however unreasonable) of danager (regardless of how imminent).

So, you have to ask what the proposed immunity deal accomplishes. You're arguing that without it the telcos would have no immunity. It's absurd to believe the above two laws wouldn't apply. Therefore, what's the other alternative? To prevent the telcos from disclosing that Gonzalez certified a warrant wasn't necessary? Or, disclosing what the government told the telcos to give them "a reasonable belief" of "danger?"

Other opponents of this deal have said they believe this is the intended goal. There may be reasons to oppose it. But, it's incorrect to call it "immunity" as if immunity isn't codified in our law with such low hurdles that it can apply anytime the government wants.

IMO self-styled freedom fighters don't want to talk about it in those terms. It's so much more powerful to whip the masses into a frenzy by depicting it as immunity/no immunity. "Immunity? How dare them let people off for what was illegal" (while saying nothing about how the law already provided for immunity).

Mark ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20006335 Sat, 16 Feb 2008 10:50:26 EDT Re: [POLL] Immunity or not; what say you? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20005448 fiberguy : Are you kidding?

Just because Bush "said so" or as you say, his directive, doesn't mean it's right. Bush EASILY could have gotten a warrant and done it legally.

You know what you are talking about? ... a dictator. President Bush just got done invading Iraq and removing one.

I'm sorry, but it's clear you have no idea about our laws in this country or what the constitution means. :uhh:

Rule #1 - no one is above the law. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20005448 Sat, 16 Feb 2008 05:04:34 EDT Re: [POLL] Immunity or not; what say you? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20005207 JakCrow :
said by amigo_boy See Profile :

said by JakCrow See Profile :

The majority of Americans are against telco immunity.
IMO polls don't mean a great deal. There was a time when a majority of Americans believed all guns should be banned. Didn't matter if it was practical or Constitutional.
Oh yes. Those pesky polls that don't support your opinion. They don't mean anything.

quote:
I wonder if the majority of Americans have a clue what this immunity is about? 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(a)(ii)(B) grants immunity merely if the AG certifies that a warrant isn't necessary. U.S.C. 2702(a)(3) & (c) was amended in 2006 to reduce "reasonable belief" of "imminent danger" to merely "good faith belief" of "danger" (not imminent).

It seems to me like the proposed immunity is just to short-circuit the process under which already codified immunities would be upheld, challenged in courts of appeals, etc., for years.

If the public understood this, I suspect they could care less. It doesn't sound the same in that context compared to "immunity" (as if they don't already have it).


Section 408 of the "Protect America Act" under the heading "Liability Defense":


Notwithstanding any other law, and in addition to the immunities, privileges, and defenses provided by any other source of law, no action shall lie or be maintained in any court, and no penalty, sanction, or other form of remedy or relief shall be imposed by any court or any other body, against any person for the alleged provision to an element of the intelligence community of any information (including records or other information pertaining to a customer), facilities, or any other form of assistance, during the period of time beginning on September 11, 2001, and ending on the date that is the effective date of this Act, in connection with any alleged classified communications intelligence activity that the Attorney General or a designee of the Attorney General certifies, in a manner consistent with the protection of State secrets, is, was, would be, or would have been intended to protect the United States from a terrorist attack.


Why are you trying obfuscate a fact that is pretty clearly spelled out?

quote:
I think the only thing this is about is avoiding the telcos divulging the details of what they were told in order to form "good faith belief" of "danger". And, to avoid the years of litigation as the lawsuits are sent to appeals, etc.



Sorry. Not good enough for what they've done, which was eagerly allow the government to wiretapp U.S. phone lines without the required, and easily obtained, FISA warrants. That is, once again, illegal.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20005207 Sat, 16 Feb 2008 02:44:49 EDT Re: [POLL] Immunity or not; what say you? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20002976 PCDEC : It won't let me vote in the poll...

But I support our rights as citizens and do not think immunity should be offered. They broke the law and violated our privacy rights so they should be held accountable.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20002976 Fri, 15 Feb 2008 17:55:41 EDT Re: [POLL] Immunity or not; what say you? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20002290 amigo_boy :
said by Surfinusa See Profile :

You don't have to agree with the news it reports but BBR doesn't make up news it recieves it from outside sources.

If you think the sources are bias that's your opinion.
I don't think the sources are biased. I do think the introductions are biased, and therefore perhaps the source selection is biased.

I just think the way the introductions are so obviously biased (like a link to EFF to send a pre-concluded comment to your representatives) takes away from DSLR/BBR. It calls into question the site's integrity to providing news rather than perhaps a personal viewpoint.

Otherwise I like DSLR/BBR. The debates are friendly. People don't seem to take things personally even when comments are intended to be taken so. Nobody seems to harbor grudges (except, perhaps JC :)).

Mark]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20002290 Fri, 15 Feb 2008 15:49:40 EDT Re: [POLL] Immunity or not; what say you? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20002130 amigo_boy :
said by Jeremy in Denver :

This entire post boils down to 'Sit down, shut up, and let me have my way.'
Not at all. I'm happy people are animated rather than watching DVDs and playing video games ("bread and circus", search wikipedia to see what I mean). But, the constant theme (whine, IMO) among self-styled freedom fighters is that the system doesn't deserve respect, and thus justifies perversions such as using civil court to accomplish what they can't through the natural channels the system provides for. They can't accept that they lost. It *has* to be the perversion of the system. Therefore, any perverted response is acceptable to them.

On the one hand, that's ok. Be up front about it. Let everyone know that this isn't just about immunity, it's about contempt for the system entirely. And, stop quoting Founders and speaking like *you're* the ones who care about the health of the system, and everyone else is an enemy to the system.

said by Jeremy in Denver :

You're advocating not letting that info be drug into the light.
That's actually a very accurate statement. Despite the headlines and ravings, it's not about "immunity." The law provides for immunity with *very* simple conditions: 1) The AG certifies no warrant is necessary. 2) The telco had a "good faith belief" of "danger" (a lower threshold than the pre-96 "reasonable belief" of "imminent danger").

The proposed immunity is just to be immune from proving that immunity applies. It's to avoid the telcos showing Gonzalez's certification. Or, what classified information was revealed to them to form the basis of "reasonable belief."

That sounds a lot different than "immunity from breaking the law."

Mark]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20002130 Fri, 15 Feb 2008 15:28:43 EDT Re: [POLL] Immunity or not; what say you? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19998869 anon :
said by amigo_boy See Profile :

It means the Constitutional system didn't find the matters in question to rise to the level of crime that self-styled freedom fighters insist it did. Picking and choosing which parts of the Constitution you like? Which due process? Which checks and balances?

See »Re: Benny said it all

I don't think I'm seeing demons by simply pointing out how the system *worked*. It seems like those who insist it didn't work, and who ignore all the due process (and checks and balances) to this point, just because it wasn't in their favor, and who now run to *civil court* as the institution of choice are the ones who've gone over the edge.

I'd go so far as saying that publishing editorials referring readers to biased activist organizations, to send representatives prepared statements goes one more step toward describing who's unbalanced. ;)

Mark
This entire post boils down to 'Sit down, shut up, and let me have my way.'

Must be a new Right-wing Republican talking point, trying to vilify civil court. A tangent to the idea that courts are filled with 'left wing activist librul judges'?

Hmm.

You are entitled to your belief that the system worked. You and CEO Stephenson of AT&T and Seidenberg of Verison all think it worked. I personally don't think it worked -- AT&T violated _my_ personal freedoms, possibly before 9/11 even happened. I want to get to the bottom of it, and I'd love to see AT&T's upper management fry for it, but first, information has to be wrested from their clutches.

You're advocating not letting that info be drug into the light. I say p*** off.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19998869 Fri, 15 Feb 2008 04:34:03 EDT Re: [POLL] Immunity or not; what say you? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19999251 MyDogHsFleas : Actually I agree pretty much with your thoughts. Although I'm a little confused by the "life and death decisions" thing.

The forums here seem to be really quite reasonable. And not a lot of "banning" drama. And there's a huge amount of good technical content here.

I'd prefer the news stories to be a bit more objective and balanced. But it's not my site. It is what it is. I'll quit complaining about the news stories. I've said my piece. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19999251 Fri, 15 Feb 2008 01:54:11 EDT Re: [POLL] Immunity or not; what say you? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19999150 Surfinusa :
said by MyDogHsFleas See Profile :

said by Karl Bode See Profile :

quote:
.


Oh man! Bitter much?

I guess my attempts to point out where you are reporting biased stories are falling on deaf ears. I guess I'll not bother. Looks like this site is not a place to go for actual news. Well, it's still great for technical stuff...
In all actuality BBR site allows people of all kinds to make a noise unlike news reports were you listen and others do the talking.

BBR is a very tolerant site.

The fact BBR has put up with my thoughts show it.

And no not everyone agrees with each other but over all you can respond and defend whom ever you want and talk about what ever you want.

BBR gives users the ability to share there thoughts.

And there is proof because this is a heated topic no moderation has taken place. Yet those that are opposed to liability for actions taken and decisions made by the Bells in favor of the Government seem to have special terms for those who believe the Bells and Government should be held accountable for breaking laws in this case and the Government for not following there own set of laws they created.

Out of fairness let us say BBR is a fair site.

You don't have to agree with the news it reports but BBR doesn't make up news it recieves it from outside sources.

If you think the sources are bias that's your opinion.

Its like a NOSE everyone has one.

You don't have to get up in everyone's face with your nose and point it out but you can exercise your right to.

If that makes any sense.

Being around here since 2001 I feel this is a nice sight like people you meet in person not everyone is nice but you get over it not everyone agrees with you but that's the fact of life.

No one is wrong no one is right when it comes to an opinion.

When it comes down to life and death decisions this is not the place to discuss it. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19999150 Fri, 15 Feb 2008 01:14:03 EDT Re: [POLL] Immunity or not; what say you? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19998289 amigo_boy :
said by JakCrow See Profile :

The majority of Americans are against telco immunity.
IMO polls don't mean a great deal. There was a time when a majority of Americans believed all guns should be banned. Didn't matter if it was practical or Constitutional.

I wonder if the majority of Americans have a clue what this immunity is about? 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(a)(ii)(B) grants immunity merely if the AG certifies that a warrant isn't necessary. U.S.C. 2702(a)(3) & (c) was amended in 2006 to reduce "reasonable belief" of "imminent danger" to merely "good faith belief" of "danger" (not imminent).

It seems to me like the proposed immunity is just to short-circuit the process under which already codified immunities would be upheld, challenged in courts of appeals, etc., for years.

If the public understood this, I suspect they could care less. It doesn't sound the same in that context compared to "immunity" (as if they don't already have it).

I think the only thing this is about is avoiding the telcos divulging the details of what they were told in order to form "good faith belief" of "danger". And, to avoid the years of litigation as the lawsuits are sent to appeals, etc.

Mark]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19998289 Thu, 14 Feb 2008 22:10:41 EDT Re: [POLL] Immunity or not; what say you? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19998179 JakCrow :
said by TKJunkMail See Profile :

said by firephoto See Profile :

Oh look, the dslr community is a similar makeup to the people in the USA.
Not even close.
The majority of Americans are against telco immunity. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19998179 Thu, 14 Feb 2008 21:53:34 EDT Re: [POLL] Immunity or not; what say you? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19998042 amigo_boy :
said by fiberguy See Profile :

It's not about "agreeing" ...
Whoa. You're the one who said Bush isn't doing the right thing. Congress isn't, etc. Here's what you do: Get a lot of people who agree with you and change government. Elect new people. Change the campaign finance laws. Amend the Constitution. Call a Convention.

Making the telcos a whipping boy (in *civil* court) when all they did was follow the President's directive is as much a charade of justice as you accuse Bush & Co.

Mark]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19998042 Thu, 14 Feb 2008 21:28:59 EDT Re: [POLL] Immunity or not; what say you? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19998015 fiberguy : It's not about "agreeing".. it's about applying the law correctly.

If I get a parking ticket and it says "6:05pm", parking is only enforced until 6pm, and a judge tells me to pay the fine, I don't have to agree with him. I go above his head because there is clear mis-application of the law on his part. I don't care if he agrees or even if everyone in the city told me I was wrong. In the end, I will come out the winner because the law is on my side.

Bush, however, spent time stacking those offices, agencies, and courts with people that would pay him favors and be friendly to his choices - many who have ignored the law themselves doing so.

The problem is that the legal system is under attack by all politicians. You DO realize the courts are supposed to remain neutral from party affiliation, right? There is a reason.. and you are demonstrating it today.

When congress fails to do their job, one check is the judicial system - however, that system has been stacked and is corrupt at this time.

And, to answer your question, and unless you are totally blind, the majority of the nation disagrees with your views right now. Democrats are energized 2 to 1 over the republicans at this point. The people are speaking loud and clear.

Bush made a promise that he would unite this country. I have to say, he didn't lie.. we just assumed he'd unite the country as policy in his administration.. rather, he pissed the nation (world) off so much that the county HAS united.. and they all agree.. the liar needs to go.. and so do all of his friends.

Take a really good look at his past.. the people he appointed and where they come from.. you may be enlightened.

While you are right in getting many people to change the people in the system - that's happening.. what you are 10000% wrong on is that saying things are "right" as long as people agree.. people have been siding with Bush for years, while doing so, they overlooked their true duty.. to uphold the Constitution of the United States.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19998015 Thu, 14 Feb 2008 21:25:25 EDT Re: [POLL] Immunity or not; what say you? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19997978 amigo_boy :
said by fiberguy See Profile :

I think you're seeing life with Rose Colored glasses there.
Could be. But, the solution to fix all the corruption which you say exists is to get a lot of people to agree with you, change government, the laws, the Constitution. Even call a convention to rewrite the Constitution. Making telcos the whipping boy is just more of the same thing you complain about.

Of course, the other alternative is that the system isn't as broken as you suggest. It could just be that those who don't get what they want, when they want, blame it on "broken government" instead of just the reality of a system that's always been imperfect, and always will be. In other words, sour grapes.

The notion of immunity isn't far fetched. 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(a)(ii)(B) grants immunity simply if the Attorney General tells the requestee that no warrant is required.

Mark]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19997978 Thu, 14 Feb 2008 21:18:07 EDT Re: [POLL] Immunity or not; what say you? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19997974 fiberguy : I hate to embarrass you,.. actually I don't, but even people on your own side who used to have Bush sitting centered on their shoulders (figure that one out) even agree that Bush has been dis-honoring the office.

Laws are CLEARLY broken.. scholars that know FAR more than you disagree with you and state the system is clearly not working at this time and change is needed.

You are entitled to your opinion all you want.. and we are entitled to point out how wrong you are.

Popular belief doesn't make something "right"... the law does. I'll follow people that spend their entire life devoted to the study of our foundation over someone like you any day.

The sad thing is that it doesn't take long to figure out all the things that this administration has done in violation of the law. The only time, however, you will see what was wrong is when ... well, you won't. Never mind.

While others are self what-ever freedom fighters, I guess that makes your type an apologist or excuse machine?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19997974 Thu, 14 Feb 2008 21:17:37 EDT Re: [POLL] Immunity or not; what say you? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19997926 fiberguy :
said by amigo_boy See Profile :

said by Karl Bode See Profile :

Again I think you confuse a broken and corrupt system of Justice with vindication and/or moral authority. Get back to us in a decade or so once the bright lamp of history has a chance to burn off the rhetoric of fear.
They've already demonstrated the ends justify the means.
At first we went to war in Afganistan because that's where the Taliban was holding out.

Next, we wake up in Iraq becuase "Sadaam is a threat to America"..

Next, he has weapons of mass destruction.

Next, he's harboring the Taliban.

Next, he's busted and knowingly ignored information that should have changed his mind..

Finally, we went to Iraq to be seen as liberators and rebuild a democracy.

I can certainly see how the self-styled freedom fighters have already demonstrated that they see the ends justifying the means.

By the way.. what exactly is the "self-styled freedom fighter?" Would that be the person that goes against the current administrations popular belief, not going along with what the majority of popular believe?

In that case, when the democrats take over office this election season, would that turn the tables and make the republicans the new self-styled freedom fighters?

This line of thinking is annoying, to say the least. If someone is on the other side, let's throw some nasty label on them. Just like the Republicans have the "conservative movement" while the gays have "an agenda" and somehow "agenda" is supposed to be 1) different, 2) bad? Just like when former President Clinton speaks, the Republicans will say "why doesn't he just go away, he's not even in office any more" yet those very Republicans will spend all day long listening to people like Newt Gingrich or when not listening to him, they're practically trying to contact Regan from beyond the grave.

Please.. spare us all the negative "other side" name throwing. It's nothing but political BS.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19997926 Thu, 14 Feb 2008 21:11:26 EDT Re: [POLL] Immunity or not; what say you? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19997860 fiberguy : Mark,

Check and balance systems are only as strong as the integrity of the people in control of the system. Why don't you look at all the chess moves that Bush played when he took office. Why don't you look at all the people who are providing the checks and balances, see who they are as people, how they got there, and where their loyalty is.

Next, come back and tell us why the cleaning lady was going to be a Supreme Court Justice.

VZ is a democracy, right? However, the idiot in charge was stacking the deck to give him all he wanted.. only, he was point blank about what he was doing. Bush is taking efforts to blow smoke up his followers butt's telling them to wave the American Flag, putting those cute patriotic names on things like "homeland" security, "Patriot" act, the "Protect America" act.. meanwhile, he's leading people to follow him down a dangerous path, misleading people at every turn. (Sound liek the anti-christ yet?)

The check and balance system is all but present at this time in this country. Too many people in government are benefiting from the trough of the public which is one of the signs of the fall of a society.

Just because they "didn't find cause" for impeachment or even a non-binding resolution doesn't mean a thing. You think that the pubs are going to act on their own leader they hold so dearly? You think that the Democrats who just took office were going to make waves? Both parties are fractured at the moment and what you witnessed in the making of political maneuvering in order to save face for themselves at the expense of not only the American people, but the American legal system.

Kind of a funny example, but if you had ever saw the movie Legally Blond 2, there was one very good saying in there.. While Congresswoman Rudd was making moves because of a political supporter, she killed her own sponsored bill. The congresswoman said "what good am I if I am not in office".. the reply was "what good are you doing if you're not being honest and standing up for what YOU believe in"..?

The people in congress do what ever it takes to stay in congress. They feel they need to stay in congress to get their job done.. but all they do is spend time staying in congress while never actually doing their job.

This entire puppet show they put on over impeachment was a joke. The man is guilty as sin and yet people are protecting him.. and at this point, it's for the good of the country. (Think President Ford)

I think you're seeing life with Rose Colored glasses there. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19997860 Thu, 14 Feb 2008 21:01:21 EDT Re: [POLL] Immunity or not; what say you? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19997317 MyDogHsFleas :
said by amungus See Profile :

...Bitter? Karl's politely trying to explain his stance in a calm and logical manner, and granted, there's some sarcasm, but get over yourself.
All of you people who have an ax to grind must have some very dull blades...
Oh come on. Did I ever use anything like the words "disastrously flawed", "whoring out", "crushing"... ??? And he's calm and logical, and I have an axe to grind?

Reporting biased stories... you could indeed say that the story is extremely biased towards reality. If you'd prefer bias towards complete and utter fantasy, with thick layers of greased idiocy, you're free to indulge in such misinformation ;)
There's a difference between facts and arguments. Objectively, this debate has two sides. For proof, simply look at the vote in the Senate. It was not 100-0. In fact the side you and Karl oppose actually won the vote. So, any reporting that could remotely be called "non-biased" would at least include a summary of the position of the "other side", and their rationale, even if the reporter has to hold his nose while typing it.

That is why I concluded this site is not the place to go for non-biased reporting, and that my attempts to point out to Karl where he could be a reporter and not a water-carrier for one side are not useful.

Hey, I am not the bitter one. I've figured out what's happening here, and I'm OK with it. It's not my site, after all, I don't get to say how it works. Karl's apparently the bitter one that people like me take advantage of the "comments" feature and have differing opinions. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19997317 Thu, 14 Feb 2008 19:34:38 EDT Re: [POLL] Immunity or not; what say you? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19997215 amigo_boy :
said by Karl Bode See Profile :

Yeah, well I'd troll technology forums with disastrously flawed reason in defense of the crushing of privacy and the wholesale whoring out of the government to the interests of multinational corporations, but people appear to have that wrapped up....
Karl, I appreciate your passion. It's definitely better than the vast majority of Americans who are content with their DVDs and latest video games.

Keep up the good work.

Mark]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19997215 Thu, 14 Feb 2008 19:15:26 EDT Re: [POLL] Immunity or not; what say you? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19996958 TKJunkMail :
said by Karl Bode See Profile :

You win. There would be three.
His point was that this site's denizens statistically reflects US opinion. My point was that it doesn't. I proved my point. This site is nowhere near the US statistical norm on any subject.
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19996958 Thu, 14 Feb 2008 18:26:13 EDT Re: [POLL] Immunity or not; what say you? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19996906 amungus : ...Bitter? Karl's politely trying to explain his stance in a calm and logical manner, and granted, there's some sarcasm, but get over yourself.
All of you people who have an ax to grind must have some very dull blades...

Reporting biased stories... you could indeed say that the story is extremely biased towards reality. If you'd prefer bias towards complete and utter fantasy, with thick layers of greased idiocy, you're free to indulge in such misinformation ;) ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19996906 Thu, 14 Feb 2008 18:17:23 EDT Re: [POLL] Immunity or not; what say you? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19996818 MyDogHsFleas :
said by Karl Bode See Profile :

quote:
I'd go so far as saying that publishing editorials referring readers to biased activist organizations, to send representatives prepared statements goes one more step toward describing who's unbalanced.

Yeah, well I'd troll technology forums with disastrously flawed reason in defense of the crushing of privacy and the wholesale whoring out of the government to the interests of multinational corporations, but people appear to have that wrapped up....
Oh man! Bitter much?

I guess my attempts to point out where you are reporting biased stories are falling on deaf ears. I guess I'll not bother. Looks like this site is not a place to go for actual news. Well, it's still great for technical stuff... ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19996818 Thu, 14 Feb 2008 17:57:49 EDT Re: [POLL] Immunity or not; what say you? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19996716 Karl Bode :
quote:
I'd go so far as saying that publishing editorials referring readers to biased activist organizations, to send representatives prepared statements goes one more step toward describing who's unbalanced.
Yeah, well I'd troll technology forums with disastrously flawed reason in defense of the crushing of privacy and the wholesale whoring out of the government to the interests of multinational corporations, but people appear to have that wrapped up....]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19996716 Thu, 14 Feb 2008 17:42:22 EDT Re: [POLL] Immunity or not; what say you? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19996477 firephoto :
said by TKJunkMail See Profile :

You CONVENIENTLY left out the part that I replied to:
said by morbo:

you're right. there would only be 1 vote in the YES category if this was truly representative of the USA.
Right because it has nothing to do with only 35% wanting immunity. Majority rules.

Nice try at the spin.

"Look no spying here, nothing to see, move along.. but PLEASE DON'T LET THEM SUE US!"]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19996477 Thu, 14 Feb 2008 17:07:30 EDT Re: [POLL] Immunity or not; what say you? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19996468 Karl Bode : You win. There would be three.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19996468 Thu, 14 Feb 2008 17:05:51 EDT Re: [POLL] Immunity or not; what say you? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19996454 TKJunkMail :
said by firephoto See Profile :

said by TKJunkMail See Profile :

Sorry Charlie!! But 33 to 35% are all for immunity.
Last I checked the part of the pie with 70%+ was the bigger piece. Majority rules in the land of the free when votes aren't bought. Those patriotic dems that voted for immunity have family members in the telco industry so they don't have to be bought like some on the other side.
You CONVENIENTLY left out the part that I replied to:
said by morbo:

you're right. there would only be 1 vote in the YES category if this was truly representative of the USA.

--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19996454 Thu, 14 Feb 2008 17:03:24 EDT Re: [POLL] Immunity or not; what say you? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19996440 firephoto :
said by TKJunkMail See Profile :

Sorry Charlie!! But 33 to 35% are all for immunity.
Last I checked the part of the pie with 70%+ was the bigger piece. Majority rules in the land of the free when votes aren't bought. Those patriotic dems that voted for immunity have family members in the telco industry so they don't have to be bought like some on the other side.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19996440 Thu, 14 Feb 2008 17:01:00 EDT Re: [POLL] Immunity or not; what say you? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19996434 Karl Bode :
quote:
That's circular isn't it? Anyone could support the most ridiculous and illegitimate actions this way just because their view didn't win the day. And, it would be proven legitimate because they didn't win the day? If they won the day, they wouldn't have taken the ridiculous action, therefore the system is broken and the ridiculous action proves it?
Say what?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19996434 Thu, 14 Feb 2008 17:00:40 EDT Re: [POLL] Immunity or not; what say you? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19996424 amigo_boy :
said by nasadude See Profile :

the legislative process in the U.S. is broken, that's why we're even discussing this issue. If the process was working there is no way the telcos would get immunity.
That's circular isn't it? Anyone could support the most ridiculous and illegitimate actions this way just because their view didn't win the day. And, it would be proven legitimate because they didn't win the day? If they won the day, they wouldn't have taken the ridiculous action, therefore the system is broken and the ridiculous action proves it?

Mark]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19996424 Thu, 14 Feb 2008 16:58:15 EDT Re: [POLL] Immunity or not; what say you? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19996042 amigo_boy :
said by Ebolla See Profile :

Is it really needed to refer to this in EVERY post you make? You accuse everyone who opposes your view as "self-styled freedom fighters", why?
Because they're the ones who claim to support the Constitution, liberty and freedom, unlike those who disagree with them? Quoting the founders as if to set a baseline they adhere to, unlike those who disagree with them?

It seems like they would cherish the appellation if they are proud of their actions, and if they really are distinguished from those who don't share their mania.

But, I constantly get the impression they're not proud.

Mark]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19996042 Thu, 14 Feb 2008 16:08:11 EDT Re: [POLL] Immunity or not; what say you? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19996041 MyDogHsFleas :
said by nasadude See Profile :

the legislative process in the U.S. is broken, that's why we're even discussing this issue. If the process was working there is no way the telcos would get immunity.
If by "broken" you mean "not doing what you think they should do" I guess you're right.

Only the absolute dictatorship of nasadude would convince you that it's not "broken", I fear. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19996041 Thu, 14 Feb 2008 16:08:00 EDT Re: [POLL] Immunity or not; what say you? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19996009 nasadude : the legislative process in the U.S. is broken, that's why we're even discussing this issue. If the process was working there is no way the telcos would get immunity.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19996009 Thu, 14 Feb 2008 16:03:57 EDT Re: [POLL] Immunity or not; what say you? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19996005 amigo_boy :
said by Karl Bode See Profile :

The suggestion that because Bush wasn't impeached and nobody has been arrested yet means this is all perfectly justified and moral is just kind of cute....
It means the Constitutional system didn't find the matters in question to rise to the level of crime that self-styled freedom fighters insist it did. Picking and choosing which parts of the Constitution you like? Which due process? Which checks and balances?

said by Karl Bode See Profile :

But suggesting Franklin ....
See »Re: Benny said it all

said by Karl Bode See Profile :

The fact you see demons....
I don't think I'm seeing demons by simply pointing out how the system *worked*. It seems like those who insist it didn't work, and who ignore all the due process (and checks and balances) to this point, just because it wasn't in their favor, and who now run to *civil court* as the institution of choice are the ones who've gone over the edge.

I'd go so far as saying that publishing editorials referring readers to biased activist organizations, to send representatives prepared statements goes one more step toward describing who's unbalanced. ;)

Mark]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19996005 Thu, 14 Feb 2008 16:03:51 EDT Re: [POLL] Immunity or not; what say you? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19995921 Ebolla :
said by amigo_boy See Profile :

self-styled freedom fighters
Is it really needed to refer to this in EVERY post you make? You accuse everyone who opposes your view as "self-styled freedom fighters", why? I am pretty sure that pointless and repetitive behavior is a sign of OCD or insanity.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19995921 Thu, 14 Feb 2008 15:53:46 EDT Re: [POLL] Immunity or not; what say you? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19995705 anon : You don't have to support impeachment against Bush to oppose immunity. Not sure why you are linking the two. Bush is out in less than a year, so impeachment is a waste of time.

Why are you so opposed to letting a jury decide if the telcos were in the right or the wrong?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19995705 Thu, 14 Feb 2008 15:21:04 EDT Re: [POLL] Immunity or not; what say you? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19995715 Karl Bode :
quote:
You're just not happy that the system didn't work the way you want it to. And thus, the telcos become the whipping boy of last resort.


Nonsense and prattle. The only concern here by the powers that be is the protection of telecom revenue, a motivation that comes solely from vast and powerful lobbying efforts. The entire terrorism discussion and the multiple layers of rhetoric piled on top is little more than a giant, stinking red herring in a lovely dress.

The fact you see demons in those trying to re-instill accountability in government isn't really my problem.

But suggesting Franklin would have approved of AT&T shoveling the entire data streams of multiple carriers directly to the government without functional judicial oversight...and with full legal immunity from prosecution for privacy invasion strikes me as an epic stretch and a re-write of both history and morality...

The suggestion that because Bush wasn't impeached and nobody has been arrested yet means this is all perfectly justified and moral is just kind of cute....]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19995715 Thu, 14 Feb 2008 15:20:29 EDT Re: [POLL] Immunity or not; what say you? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19995647 amigo_boy :
said by Karl Bode See Profile :

Again I think you confuse a broken and corrupt system of Justice with vindication and/or moral authority. Get back to us in a decade or so once the bright lamp of history has a chance to burn off the rhetoric of fear.
This is precisely why telcos should be protected. If you believe the system is broken, your natural Constitutional recourse is to impeach the President, replace representatives, change laws, amend the Constitution, etc. Run for office yourself.

You're just not happy that the system didn't work the way you want it to. And thus, the telcos become the whipping boy of last resort.

That might be a legal, valid political recourse. But, it's hardly the high road that we expect from those professing to be saving us from things destroying the constitutional system.

That's why I again maintain that it wouldn't surprise me to see self-styled freedom fighters stacking a poll. They've already demonstrated the ends justify the means.

It's not something I could be proud of. That's 90% of why I support immunity. Telcos should be protected from this mindset.

Mark]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19995647 Thu, 14 Feb 2008 15:09:32 EDT Re: [POLL] Immunity or not; what say you? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19995618 amigo_boy :
said by Surfinusa See Profile :

Misquoting founders? Explain a little more what you mean?
The Franklin quote which usually omits the qualifiers "essential" and "temporary." Or, just quoting the founders on matters of rights and limited government while ignoring that the founders rejected the most minimal government (Articles of Confederation) after just *eleven* year in favor of a relatively gigantic government, with exceptions like "reasonable" searches, etc.

The founding generation embraced vastly more intrusion of government (relatively speaking) than any other generation since. Why? Because they were pragmatic. Just like modern society. But, you'd never get that from the way self-styled freedom fighters depict those events in absolute terms.

said by Surfinusa See Profile :

No form of Government operates perfectly. Would you agree with that?
I agree completely. That's why I'm not too worked up about what happened. Nothing's been perfect. We've survived. The system worked this time. It's the ones who can't accept this which the telcos should be protected from. (IMO).

Mark]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19995618 Thu, 14 Feb 2008 15:04:23 EDT Re: [POLL] Immunity or not; what say you? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19995601 Karl Bode :
quote:
The legislative process is a check and balance. It didn't find cause for impeachment. Not even censure. Not even a non-binding resolution! Not even hearings and possible indictments against telco officers (unlike Big Tobacco, et. al). And, it resulted in amended surveillance laws.
Again I think you confuse a broken and corrupt system of Justice with vindication and/or moral authority. Get back to us in a decade or so once the bright lamp of history has a chance to burn off the rhetoric of fear.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19995601 Thu, 14 Feb 2008 15:00:51 EDT Re: [POLL] Immunity or not; what say you? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19995536 TKJunkMail :
said by morbo See Profile :

you're right. there would only be 1 vote in the YES category if this was truly representative of the USA.
Sorry Charlie!! But 33 to 35% are all for immunity. And that is according to an ACLU poll where the question was clearly slanted to give their anti-immunity POV the advantage.
»www.aclu.org/pdfs/safefree/mellm···2008.pdf
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19995536 Thu, 14 Feb 2008 14:51:32 EDT Re: [POLL] Immunity or not; what say you? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19995535 Surfinusa :
said by amigo_boy See Profile :

said by Surfinusa See Profile :

it might be a little dramatic to say those opposed to immunity could be called frantic.
Misquoting founders.

It looks much more frantic to me than those who support immunity.

Mark
Misquoting founders?

Explain a little more what you mean?

I understand your concern though. EFF can be zealous about what they do but the check and balance doesn't always balance. Sometimes the scale gets tipped in all democracies.

No form of Government operates perfectly.

Would you agree with that?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19995535 Thu, 14 Feb 2008 14:51:28 EDT Re: [POLL] Immunity or not; what say you? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19995517 amigo_boy :
said by Surfinusa See Profile :

it might be a little dramatic to say those opposed to immunity could be called frantic.
Read the subject lines. "Immunity: No!" Or, the obviously biased editorialism directing people to an activist org. Misquoting founders.

It looks much more frantic to me than those who support immunity.

Mark]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19995517 Thu, 14 Feb 2008 14:47:03 EDT Re: [POLL] Immunity or not; what say you? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19995503 Surfinusa :
said by amigo_boy See Profile :

said by Karl Bode See Profile :

I can almost hear TK trying to figure out proxies so he can tinker with the votes
Actually, I got the impression this would be a tactic of those opposed to immunity. They seem to be the most frantic about this topic.

Mark
Mark instead of saying Frantic I would use the word concerned.

Proper supervision insures your rights are protected.

Everyone has the right to feel as they do but it might be a little dramatic to say those opposed to immunity could be called frantic.

I think each person has there view and it must be considered and not dismissed because all have valid concerns and it is only fair to hear all voices without labeling those who feel different then we do.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19995503 Thu, 14 Feb 2008 14:43:58 EDT Re: [POLL] Immunity or not; what say you? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19995498 amigo_boy :
said by Karl Bode See Profile :

Yeah, people who think checks and balances are being trampled sure are FUSSY.
The legislative process is a check and balance. It didn't find cause for impeachment. Not even censure. Not even a non-binding resolution! Not even hearings and possible indictments against telco officers (unlike Big Tobacco, et. al). And, it resulted in amended surveillance laws.

Do you think *that* check and balance is being "trampled?"

If opponents to immunity are so balanced and calm about how they're doing the right thing, why refer people to an activist web site to contact their representatives using a pre-filled reply? (instead of merely to the contact information?).

I maintain that I'd expect self-styled freedom fighters to be the ones to do whatever they can to alter the outcome of a poll.

Mark]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19995498 Thu, 14 Feb 2008 14:43:31 EDT Re: [POLL] Immunity or not; what say you? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19995402 Karl Bode : Yeah, people who think checks and balances are being trampled sure are FUSSY.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19995402 Thu, 14 Feb 2008 14:28:03 EDT Re: [POLL] Immunity or not; what say you? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19995345 amigo_boy :
said by Karl Bode See Profile :

I can almost hear TK trying to figure out proxies so he can tinker with the votes
Actually, I got the impression this would be a tactic of those opposed to immunity. They seem to be the most frantic about this topic.

Mark]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19995345 Thu, 14 Feb 2008 14:17:57 EDT Re: [POLL] Immunity or not; what say you? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19995225 Karl Bode : I can almost hear TK trying to figure out proxies so he can tinker with the votes as part of his never ending quest to change the world as Ronald Reagan would have wanted it from the confines of retirement and the DSLReports.com comment section. :)

If you put just the telecom immunity idea up to a general American public vote, it wouldn't even be close.

Not even remotely.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19995225 Thu, 14 Feb 2008 13:54:10 EDT Re: [POLL] Immunity or not; what say you? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19995170 morbo :
said by TKJunkMail See Profile :

said by firephoto See Profile :

Oh look, the dslr community is a similar makeup to the people in the USA.
Not even close.
you're right. there would only be 1 vote in the YES category if this was truly representative of the USA. your poll is being stuffed by telco public relation department employees. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19995170 Thu, 14 Feb 2008 13:45:02 EDT Re: [POLL] Immunity or not; what say you? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19995112 TKJunkMail :
said by firephoto See Profile :

Oh look, the dslr community is a similar makeup to the people in the USA.
Not even close.
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19995112 Thu, 14 Feb 2008 13:34:47 EDT Re: [POLL] Immunity or not; what say you? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19995100 firephoto : Oh look, the dslr community is a similar makeup to the people in the USA. The majority does not support telco immunity.

It's good to see the will of the people get ignored so a multi billion dollar company doesn't have to make their full time on staff lawyers earn their money. Oh, the people aren't suppose to know this, they are suppose to think that any lawsuit actually costs the telco money because they have to hire lawyers. Either way they raise your bills... because they can. The price of jet fuel to the tropics goes up just like it does for your grocery getter so we wouldn't want them to suffer.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19995100 Thu, 14 Feb 2008 13:33:14 EDT [POLL] Immunity or not; what say you? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19994922 TKJunkMail : [poll]Do you support immunity for telcos, YES, NO, Maybe, I do not care[/poll]]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19994922 Thu, 14 Feb 2008 13:07:40 EDT