 morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 | reply to fAcEtIOUs
Re: [POLL] Immunity or not; what say you? said by fAcEtIOUs:said by firephoto: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. |
|
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
3 edits | 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. |
|
|
|
Reviews:
 ·magicjack.com
| said by Karl Bode: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 |
|
| Yeah, people who think checks and balances are being trampled sure are FUSSY. |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by Karl Bode: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 |
|
| reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy:said by Karl Bode: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. |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by Surfinusa: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 |
|
| said by amigo_boy:said by Surfinusa: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? |
|
| reply to morbo
said by morbo: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 |
|
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| reply to amigo_boy
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. |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| reply to Surfinusa
said by Surfinusa: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: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 |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| reply to Karl Bode
said by Karl Bode: 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 |
|
| reply to amigo_boy
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? |
|
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
3 edits | reply to amigo_boy
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.... |
|
 Ebolla
join:2005-09-28
Dracut, MA | reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy: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. |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| reply to Karl Bode
said by Karl Bode: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:But suggesting Franklin .... See »Re: Benny said it all
said by Karl Bode: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 |
|
| reply to amigo_boy
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. |
|
Reviews:
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| said by 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. 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. |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| reply to Ebolla
said by Ebolla: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 |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| reply to nasadude
said by 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. 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 |
|
