Spyguy2
@lightpath.net
 from:
TKJunkMail 
| Go 4 It
I dont have a problem with it. If you aint talking or emailing Hamas or Iran you wont have a problem. I hope it passes.
What a bunch of Liberal whiners. |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
 ·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
1 edit | said by Spyguy2 :
I dont have a problem with it. If you aint talking or emailing Hamas or Iran you wont have a problem. I hope it passes.
What a bunch of Liberal whiners.
/cough Lame /cough
Actually, you'll do fine if all you do is sell weapons to Iran and Hamas, apparently.
Unless Israeli agents kill you.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) |
|
MenckenGHST
join:2008-06-19
| reply to Spyguy2
What's wrong with calling Iran?
Further, this isn't a Liberal issue. I'm a Republican and these telcos need to be held accountable for breaking the law and Bush/Cheney and friends need to be doing the perp-walk in orange jumpsuits along with 99% of the other criminals occupying DC. |
|
HotRodFoto
Premium
join:2003-04-19
Denver, CO
1 edit | reply to Spyguy2
said by Spyguy2 :
I dont have a problem with it. If you aint talking or emailing Hamas or Iran you wont have a problem. I hope it passes.
What a bunch of Liberal whiners.
A lotta us really don't feel like watching our rights being taken away by Bush-ism.
--
Capturing the images of Colorado
»jdebordphoto.com |
|
TechieZero
Tools Are Using Me
Premium
join:2002-01-25
Wesley Chapel, FL
| reply to MenckenGHST
I would think that you are pretty much a jackass if you are dealing with any of these listed countries in any way, »www.travel.state.gov/travel/cis_···764.html
Oh look...Iran is one of them... 
Its not like we are in a war or anything, proxy or otherwise. |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
 ·magicjack.com
| reply to KrK
said by KrK :said by Spyguy2 :
I dont have a problem with it. If you aint talking or emailing Hamas or Iran you wont have a problem. I hope it passes.
What a bunch of Liberal whiners.
/cough Lame /cough I don't know. That's the same logic used by self-styled freedom fighters who argue telcos must be guilty or they wouldn't seek immunity.
Pot, kettle, black.
Mark |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| said by amigo_boy :I don't know. That's the same logic used by self-styled freedom fighters who argue telcos must be guilty or they wouldn't seek immunity. Right. Because people who are innocent always seek immunity. Just in case.
Er, yeah.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) |
|
MenckenGHST
join:2008-06-19
1 edit | reply to TechieZero
Not that I'm too concerned with what you think, but contacting a friend in Iran is not "dealing with" the government of Iran.
"We're at war"
Oh yeah, I remember that declaration.
I also remember the US via the CIA overthrowing the democratically elected Iranian government in the 1950's and installing the Shah which implemented the SAVAK and a reign of terror upon the Iranian people. We then provided Iran with their first nuclear reactor. USA!! USA!!
So, yeah. We should defintely be obedient to our completely inhumane, hypocritical, and criminal government. |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| reply to KrK
said by KrK :people who are innocent always seek immunity. Just in case. I would. Anything to stay out of a lengthy and costly trial. Your reasoning leads to "innocent people never seek settlements." As if, settling implies "guilt." That's just dumb.
BTW: Civil court has nothing to do with "innocence." It's about liability. Guilt is prosecuted. Damages are claimed by a plaintiff.
Mark |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | Right.
So, why aren't they being prosecuted in criminal court? |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
1 edit | said by KrK :Right. So, why aren't they being prosecuted in criminal court? Because they didn't break a law? I think your real (trolling) question is "why isn't the current administration being prosecuted in criminal court for abusing the law?"
Politics? That's not the telcos' fault.
Mark |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| said by amigo_boy :Because they didn't break a law? Wrong. Whether the administration asked them to or not, it was still illegal. You claim the logic that seeking immunity implies guilt is faulty; but then you suggest "They aren't being prosecuted in criminal court, so they must be innocent."
Not so. Why this is happening is simple.
Only the Government can file criminal charges. Since they are equally guilty, and actually initiated the lawbreaking, it's unlikely the Justice Department would bring charges. So, the only recourse citizens have is to file a CIVIL case. As a citizen, you cannot file a criminal case. Only government can.
So because the cases are civil doesn't diminish or prove the charges are un-deserved. The only way the evidence or information about the wiretapping program and it's scope will ever come out is if the lawsuits proceed.
Thus, the administration wants them killed, thus effectively covering it up nicely.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| said by KrK :but then you suggest "They aren't being prosecuted in criminal court, so they must be innocent." I'm not the one using terms "guilt" and "innocence." The law only shields telcos from claims of damages (not prosecution). Self-styled freedom fighters love to blur these distinctions. Dismiss the law. Claim the telcos had a legal responsibility to know the government was breaking the law, and thus the telcos broke the law (as co-conspirators). The law doesn't cover criminality. It's about liability. And it simply says they aren't liable if the AG certified it.
The only credible argument came from Jaminus, who said the telcos abandoned their immunity when they continued to participate during the one-year period Ashcroft didn't certify, and was replaced by Gonzalez (who we know certified it based on his lengthy presentation of why a warrant isn't necessary).
We could talk about that. But, you're just gaga.
Mark |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | It wasn't legal, period. You can defend it if you wish, be it based on your politics or ideology, it really doesn't matter. It doesn't make it right, just, or legal... |
|
TechieZero
Tools Are Using Me
Premium
join:2002-01-25
Wesley Chapel, FL
| reply to MenckenGHST
Who cares? We are at war now and they are enemies. Don't talk to them.
BTW if the President or the Telcos did anything illegal, they would have been impeached/prosecuted by now. Surely the Democrats can't be as ineffective as that. I don't know what else they have done in the last few years...but you would think they could have accomplished the "obvious"...well maybe not or maybe no one is guilty eh?
So if that's the case, let's not soak the Telcos with dumbass lawsuits from morons looking for windmills to tilt. |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ | reply to Spyguy2
House passes Fisa
»House passes the Fisa renewal bill 293-129 |
|
