Reviews:
 ·magicjack.com
| reply to Karl Bode
Re: [POLL] Immunity or not; what say you? 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 |
|
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
3 edits | 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 |
|
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 |
|
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| reply to amigo_boy
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.... |
|
Reviews:
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| said by 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.... 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... |
|
amungusPremium
join:2004-11-26
America Reviews:
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| ...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 |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| reply to Karl Bode
said by Karl Bode: 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 |
|
Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to amungus
said by 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... 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
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. |
|
fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy: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. 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. |
|
| reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy: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 allI 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. |
|
| reply to MyDogHsFleas
said by MyDogHsFleas: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. |
|
Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
| 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. |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
1 edit | reply to Jeremy in Denver
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 |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| reply to Surfinusa
said by Surfinusa: 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 |
|
