how-to block ads
|
woody7
Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA
 ·EarthLink
·DSL EXTREME
| reply to TKJunkMail
Re: Conyers is my hero
Why don' t you "telecom" fanboyz ever answer why it is ok to snoop on americans in this country without the proper subpoenas, other than your tired old "lawyers are pond sucking scum bottom feeders and they just want to bleed the corporations dry" routine? Gee Didn't Trent lott's brother in law just get nailed for bribery? Isn't he a bottom feeder, and you don't hear the repubs even mentioning him. You keep post your support for Bushes wiretap immunity, but you can't give a good reason why it is ok, other than your tired old statements. Which I might say is right to do so, because someone somewhere fought for it, now you want to give it away for monetary reasons, why don't you answer my question incite fully, or just move on.
--
BlooMe | |
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
| said by woody7  :Why don' t you "telecom" fanboyz ever answer why it is ok to snoop on americans in this country without the proper subpoenas, other than your tired old "lawyers are pond sucking scum bottom feeders and they just want to bleed the corporations dry" routine? Gee Didn't Trent lott's brother in law just get nailed for bribery? Isn't he a bottom feeder, and you don't hear the repubs even mentioning him. You keep post your support for Bushes wiretap immunity, but you can't give a good reason why it is ok, other than your tired old statements. Which I might say is right to do so, because someone somewhere fought for it, now you want to give it away for monetary reasons, why don't you answer my question incite fully, or just move on. I'll say this once to save you from future useless demands for answers. I answer whatever I feel like answering and when someone DEMANDS answers I am even less likely to feel the need to reply. Don't like that, then ignore me. And I am not going anywhere.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page | |
jc100
join:2002-04-10
1 edit | Which is basically rhetoric for there is no justifying the inexcusable so I'll play the "deaf, dumb, and blind" card to avoid having to concoct a pseudo answer that won't explain it anyway. | |
Noah Vail
Premium
join:2004-12-10
Lorton, VA
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to TKJunkMail
said by TKJunkMail :I'll say this once to save you from future useless demands for answers. I answer whatever I feel like answering and when someone DEMANDS answers I am even less likely to feel the need to reply. Don't like that, then ignore me. And I am not going anywhere. Even when you're posting, you're not going anywhere. You bring up a debatable position, but will only debate it up to and not past the first stage.
If your position has real substance, why wouldn't you want to teach it? If your belief would benefit society, don't you have a civic duty to get it out there?
I come here to have my frame of mind challenged. I am actively conservative, but a few issues have come up that have me arguing against the Republicans. You have the opposing view and appear to be convicted yourself.
However, when you are challenged (which is the method we use to draw out others beliefs in detail) you clam up and provide no substance past the quote of the day. Are you not able to enunciate your convictions in detail? If so, how are you able to construct your initial posts as well as you do?
Talking points without depth are just rhetoric. We're supposed to use them as bait to bring others to a place where we can present our core beliefs in detail to them. You throw out the hook, and then give nothing. That's a betrayal of expectations.
As a conservative, don't you believe in advancing conservatism? Something led you to your beliefs, and if you don't want to share what that is, you might want to stop hinting about it, via one-liners.
Frankly, you've become a bit of a tease and it's starting to piss people off.
I really don't think you're an empty suit. but you are giving the appearance of one. Sometimes you have to bear your soul and then have the courage to take whatever comes of it.
NV
--
Abortion: A Republican Plot to Thin the Liberal Herd. | |
tc1uscg
join:2005-03-09
Saint Clair Shores, MI
1 edit | reply to woody7
said by woody7 :Why don' t you "telecom" fanboyz ever answer why it is ok to snoop on americans in this country without the proper subpoenas, other than your tired old "lawyers are pond sucking scum bottom feeders and they just want to bleed the corporations dry" routine? Gee Didn't Trent lott's brother in law just get nailed for bribery? Isn't he a bottom feeder, and you don't hear the repubs even mentioning him. You keep post your support for Bushes wiretap immunity, but you can't give a good reason why it is ok, other than your tired old statements. Which I might say is right to do so, because someone somewhere fought for it, now you want to give it away for monetary reasons, why don't you answer my question incite fully, or just move on. It's one thing for TELCO's to be involved with warrant less wire taping but when TELCO's install equipment to ALLOW our govt to monitor ANYTHING they wish WITHOUT getting permission is wrong. Why should verizon, at&t or sprint install these little "boxes" at their central offices just so the govt can have free reign? Let them sit outside, tap into fiber and/or cable and monitor away. If telco's have no knowledge of what's going on, they can't be held liable. Problem solved. So, if I was these telco's, I would be ripping out all those orange little gigavue boxes installed for the NSA then play dumb.  | |
woody7
Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA
·EarthLink
·DSL EXTREME
| reply to Noah Vail
I'm not a liberal or a conservative, when I posed the question, I was trying figure out the point of view, but I couldn't get past the rhetoric. As this is a pretty open place to discuss issues, and it is your right to feel as you do, and say or not say what you will, and that should never be taken away, maybe you "TK Junk Mail" just throw stuff out and try to evoke a certain reaction. Some of us would really like to understand the rational,just not the "blind obedience" that some seem to follow. Peace
--
BlooMe | |
supergirl
join:2007-03-20
Pensacola, FL
 ·Cox VOIP
·Skype
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southeast
·magicjack.com
| reply to woody7
said by woody7 :Why don' t you "telecom" fanboyz ever answer why it is ok to snoop on americans in this country without the proper subpoenas, other than your tired old "lawyers are pond sucking scum bottom feeders and they just want to bleed the corporations dry" routine? Gee Didn't Trent lott's brother in law just get nailed for bribery? Isn't he a bottom feeder, and you don't hear the repubs even mentioning him. You keep post your support for Bushes wiretap immunity, but you can't give a good reason why it is ok, other than your tired old statements. Which I might say is right to do so, because someone somewhere fought for it, now you want to give it away for monetary reasons, why don't you answer my question incite fully, or just move on. In this, they (the NSA, DIA, CIA, FBI) are looking for patterns of code words. I doubt you talking about the latest movie is a pattern of code. Once they, probably computers, find patterns of code, humans listen in on those people.
I don't get the big issue of all this. Maybe change the FISA court to conform with the new threat. Judges there should be able to see what they are doing as well.
Exactly what law-abiding American has been affected? NONE.
Give the Telecoms immunity if only the gov't is doing the spying not their employees.
--
Saving the world keeps me busy. However, I find Earth very primitive from my home planet of Krypton.
-Supergirl | |
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| reply to woody7
said by woody7 :why it is ok to snoop on americans in this country without the proper subpoenas It may not be ok. But, 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(a)(ii)(B) & 2702(a)(3) & (c) don't require a warrant.
BTW: 18 USC 2511 (2)(a)(ii) holds telco employees to the same penalty you're holding the government to. Why aren't self-styled freedom fighters pressing for Klein to be sued?
Mark | |
joako
Premium
join:2000-09-07
/dev/null
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| reply to TKJunkMail
said by TKJunkMail :I'll say this once to save you from future useless demands for answers. I answer whatever I feel like answering and when someone DEMANDS answers I am even less likely to feel the need to reply. Don't like that, then ignore me. And I am not going anywhere. You my friend are 100% correct. We have no right to demand anything. We are lucky to even be alive. With all the terrorism threats everyone should be monitored 24/7/365 even when they use the bathroom. We have no right other than to actually be alive. If anyone disagrees they should be sent to internment camps as they are infidenls and without a doubt terrorists. Times have changed. The bill of rights was written hundreds of years ago and no longer applies to modern times.
--
09:F9:11:02:9D:74:E3:5B:D8:41:56:C5:63:56:88:C0 | |
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| said by joako :The bill of rights was written hundreds of years ago and no longer applies to modern times. That's really closer to the truth than you're probably willing to admit. The BoR wasn't a bar against State and private infringement. Only Congressional infringement. In 1866 it was extended by the 14th Amendment (in a *huge* shift of power from State sovereignty). But, it wasn't until the 1920s that the Supreme Court recognized this intent.
Over the following 50 years the SC "incorporated" various clauses of the BoR against State and private infringement. Even going so far as recognizing a right of privacy which hadn't been recognized before.
The moral of the story is: When the BoR was expanding far beyond what the Founders envisioned it was ok for them to "no longer apply to modern times." But, if they need to contract, all we hear about is how the BoR is being "erased." (No mention of how they've expanded, and perhaps it's just a balancing act.).
Mark | |
Noah Vail
Premium
join:2004-12-10
Lorton, VA
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to amigo_boy
If I can get a law into the US code mandating your castration, will you support it?
Laws that permit evil, are wrong. Emerson prescribed civil disobedience. It's worth a look.
NV
--
Abortion: A Republican Plot to Thin the Liberal Herd. | |
guitarzan
Premium
join:2004-05-04
Skytop, PA
·epix
1 edit | reply to supergirl
After the statement made below, how can anyone trust this liar?
Know how he is lying? His lips are moving.
F.B.I. Head Admits Mistakes in Use of Security Act
»www.nytimes.com/2007/03/10/washi···f=slogin
quote:
WASHINGTON, March 9 — Bipartisan outrage erupted on Friday on Capitol Hill as Robert S. Mueller III, the F.B.I. director, conceded that the bureau had improperly used the USA Patriot Act to obtain information about people and businesses.
said by supergirl :I don't get the big issue of all this. Maybe change the FISA court to conform with the new threat. Exactly what law-abiding American has been affected? NONE. Try more than NONE there honey, Bottom line. I doubt the F.B.I and NSA know how many people has been affected themselves.
You know the difference between corrupt politicians, F.B.I, NSA, CIA, in addition to other alphabet soup agencies and criminals in jail? The criminals got caught and are behind behind bars. Most do not wear a badge, yet there are a few who do.
The azzhats breaking laws now are more guilty than the convicts serving time, because they are getting away Scott free and laughing all the way to the bank. All they have to whisper is national security and that blanket hushes up and covers everything, legal or criminal.
Report: FBI abuse of investigative tool continued in 2006 quote:
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The FBI continued in 2006 to badly mishandle letters that it uses to obtain personal records without a court order, according to a Justice Department report released Thursday.
FBI Director Robert Mueller testifes about oversight before a Senate committee last week.
The new report cites "issuance of NSLs [national security letters] without proper authorization, improper requests and unauthorized collection of telephone or Internet e-mail records due to FBI errors or mistakes made by NSL recipients."
But a top department official said significant progress has been made in the past year toward correcting those errors.
Inspector General Glenn Fine said it's too soon to tell if the problems will be eliminated.
FBI Violations May Number 3,000, Official Says
»www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co···921.html
quote:
The Justice Department's inspector general told a committee of angry House members yesterday that the FBI may have violated the law or government policies as many as 3,000 times since 2003 as agents secretly collected the telephone, bank and credit card records of U.S. citizens and foreign nationals residing here.
Inspector General Glenn A. Fine said that according to the FBI's own estimate, as many as 600 of these violations could be "cases of serious misconduct" involving the improper use of "national security letters" to compel telephone companies, banks and credit institutions to produce records.
FBI again admits privacy abuses with National Security Letters
By Bill Freivogel
03/06/2008 3:30 pm quote:
The FBI has acknowledged again that it has abused its National Security Letter authority. This is the fourth straight year that FBI abuses of the letters have been uncovered.
National security letters are administrative subpoenas used by FBI agents to obtain personal records - bank records, credit card records, telephone records, internet traffic etc. - without the involvement of a judge. The number of national security letters issued has gone way up since passage of the Patriot Act. In recent years, the FBI has admitted underestimating how many letters were issued. Now FBI Director Robert Mueller has testified that the letters were used to collect far more private data that the FBI was entitled to receive. Details of the abuses will be in an upcoming report by the Justice Department’s Inspector General.
Mueller says that part of the problem was that private firms turned over more private information than the FBI requested. He also says the abuses occurred before reforms he initiated last year to fix the problem.
»ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gxSQ···8V7R6S01
More FBI Privacy Violations Confirmed
By LARA JAKES JORDAN – Mar 6, 2008
quote:
WASHINGTON (AP) — The FBI acknowledged it improperly accessed Americans' telephone records, credit reports and Internet traffic in 2006, the fourth straight year of privacy abuses resulting from investigations aimed at tracking terrorists and spies.
The breach occurred before the FBI enacted broad new reforms in March 2007 to prevent future lapses, FBI Director Robert Mueller said Wednesday. And it was caused, in part, by banks, telecommunication companies and other private businesses giving the FBI more personal client data than was requested.
Testifying at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Mueller raised the issue of the FBI's controversial use of so-called national security letters in reference to an upcoming report on the topic by the Justice Department's inspector general.
An audit by the inspector general last year found the FBI demanded personal records without official authorization or otherwise collected more data than allowed in dozens of cases between 2003 and 2005. Additionally, last year's audit found that the FBI had underreported to Congress how many national security letters were requested by more than 4,600.
Now it should be crystal clear what the big issue and threat is. People who can't see this is those who bury their head in the sand in deliberate ignorance or willingly follow the blind with wool pulled over their eyes as good little sheeple.
Gee guys, what was the final tally of the war on drugs?
How is the war on terrorism going? When our borders are still left wide open.
How long has the war in Iraq been dragging on? Still no body of bin laden to show for it?
The war in Iraq is nothing more than a ruse, so people do not pay attention to what is happening right here. How much is the good ole Yankee dollar worth nowadays?
Then Yen is worth more, so is the EU's money. Somebody farts across the street or a block down from Wall Street, stocks plummet. The last domino waiting to fall in order to implement the Amero $$ and the North American Union,
the (plan to merge USA, Canada and Mexico) is the collapse of the stock-market. (All Bush has to say on national TV is: This country is in hot water financially, the whole bottom will drop out in a heartbeat)
and by George they have done a wonderful of keeping it secret and this late in the game the outcome can't be reversed. The plan used to merge the EU, was followed and executed here, perfectly under the guise of national security.
Anyone hark-en back to the days following 9/11? When Congress passed the Patriot Act and the Homeland security Act, just days after 9/11?
When questioned what language those bills contained. The common response house and senate members gave was: "I didn't have time to read it"
So no one had the time to take to read what the bill contained. Yet they passed it.
Do you see what I'm getting at? So, if no one had the time to read it? Where the F**k in hell did they find the time to write it and not know what the bill contained. Yet they passed it. WHY didn't the Press pick up on this glaring front page screamer? THE MSM is in on it also, seeing as they only report or print what they are told. Things that make ya go hmmm.
I would like to say its nothing personal against anyone, however that is what got us into this mess, so yeah, it is personal now.
--
It's easier to manipulate non-religious people, Ever hear of Communism?
With out religion your are more suceptable to manipulation. Look at china, they banned religion. It's much easier to manipulate people who don't have any religious convictions. | |
woody7
Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA
·EarthLink
·DSL EXTREME
| reply to supergirl
"I don't get the big issue of all this. Maybe change the FISA court to conform with the new threat. Judges there should be able to see what they are doing as well.
Exactly what law-abiding American has been affected? NONE"
And you have what proof of that?
What part of it is illegal to spy on your own citizens without a warrant( even after the fact:FISA) don't you get?
"Times have changed. The bill of rights was written hundreds of years ago and no longer applies to modern times."
See that is what is great about the document, it still works. All the government had to do was get a warrant before or even after, they chose to not do so. I don't care what they do outside of this country, but inside I have a problem with it. FISA was set up for this very reason. Why is it so hard for people to understand? If I am not mistaken, only the FBI has a legal mandate to "spy" with a warrant on Americans inside of America. The Constitution and Bill of Rights have stood the test of time. This is all being done in secret, so no one has a clue what is actually going on. After all the revelations that are showing up in the news about misconduct by the FBI and probably illegal things, why would you trust this government to have any oversight of themselves?
"I don't get the big issue of all this. Maybe change the FISA court to conform with the new threat. Judges there should be able to see what they are doing as well.
That is what the law that congress just passed would do, minus the telecom part. Mind you contrary to what bush is saying the old law is still in effect. Which by the way he ignored most of the time anyway.
That is the problem,a lot of people, not just "crack pot" liberals care no matter how "insignificant" the violation is. This administration doesn't want anyone to get in their way period.to them us getting upset about losing our rights seems to make us some kind of anti american.If no one knows what is going on, how do you know that they stopped anything? And the few things that they claimed they spoiled turned out to be bogus at best.
Those old scraps of paper are what has separated us from most of the other countries for quite a few years.
--
BlooMe | |
jc100
join:2002-04-10
1 edit | reply to amigo_boy
Amigo boy tries and FAILS. First off, the Bill of Rights was setup to grant state rights and federal rights. States were suppose to maintain their sovereignty with the federal government only doing two things. 1) Defense 2) Print money. That was the original intent of the BOR. Short of that, it was suppose to be left up to EACH INDIVIDUAL state to enact their laws. Somewhere along the line, we accepted the federal government as the means to end all. In this respect, somehow states have unilaterally handed away their rights in favor of the federal government dictating. This is the main issue today in the U.S. While we need federal laws and a federal government, it SHOULD NOT BE FORCING STATES and ENTITIES WITHIN THEM to participate in illegal activities. Yes, these wiretaps and such were illegal. The House didn't grant immunity so now it's for a court to decide this for certain. Similar to this, the Bill of Rights was setup as a means for the people to have a voice, where they often did not. We fled England because of this exact issue. Taxation without representation. If our government wants to take our dollars, it needs to listen to what we have to say. Just because we've tolerated idiots getting into office and then forgetting about us, doesn't make it right. It just means the American people need to get off their ass and demand more of their elected officials. Basically, we dictate what's acceptable as a society, by either allowing or disallowing certain events. Trust me, enough people speaking up has the ability to change a lot. Just look at history. | |
ross
join:2000-08-16
·Digizip
2 edits | reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy :said by joako :The bill of rights was written hundreds of years ago and no longer applies to modern times. That's really closer to the truth than you're probably willing to admit. The BoR wasn't a bar against State and private infringement. Only Congressional infringement. In 1866 it was extended by the 14th Amendment (in a *huge* shift of power from State sovereignty). But, it wasn't until the 1920s that the Supreme Court recognized this intent. Over the following 50 years the SC "incorporated" various clauses of the BoR against State and private infringement. Even going so far as recognizing a right of privacy which hadn't been recognized before. The moral of the story is: When the BoR was expanding far beyond what the Founders envisioned it was ok for them to "no longer apply to modern times." But, if they need to contract, all we hear about is how the BoR is being "erased." (No mention of how they've expanded, and perhaps it's just a balancing act.). Mark Again with the bullshit pseudo history! Even you should know the U.S. Supreme Court doesn't make the law, it merely interprets the law. The USSC didn't create any rights, they merely elucidated the extent to which our unalienable, and enumerated Constitutional, rights control/limit/protect our relationships within our society, and with our government.
The right to privacy is implicit in the language of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, but was further codified in the Privacy Act of 1974 in response to transgressions against American citizens by then President Nixon.
Bottom line, the founding fathers never expected that any rights would need to "contract" as you put it. They wished to protect against that happening by clearly enunciating our most basic rights in the Constitution, as amended, while reserving all other non-enumerated rights for the people.
Over the years, many other amendments delineating rights and remedies have been added to the Constitution, but no amendments, other than the Eighteenth and Twentyfirst dealing with alcohol prohibition, have been struck from the document, nor have rights enumerated therein been forfeited. Furthermore, since Richard M. Nixon, no president, other than G.W. Bush, has had the audacity to create "exceptions" to the Privacy Act of 1974.
The only relevant balancing act is that of the rule of law offsetting the lust for power manifested by would-be tyrants like G.W. Bush lest it culminate in the total conversion of our hallowed institutions into peripatetic outhouses where our founding documents become merely the wadded media upon which Bush "inscribes" his loftiest "thoughts". | |
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| said by ross : Even you should know the U.S. Supreme Court doesn't make the law, it merely interprets the law. How naive is that attitude? Of course, the courts make law. You say all they do is interpret the law. But the courts throughout US history have gone way beyond interpreting the law. They have made up laws and rights out of whole cloth. Where do you think the term "judicial activism" has come from?
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page | |
jc100
join:2002-04-10
| And judicial activism is a two way street. You have liberal and right ring judges making their own laws. However, one hopes that on appeals, most of these laws are stricken down. A lot of times, this is the case. Not always. Then again, no system is perfect. Still, it's better we got a review process and appeals, than a one man show after all. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court which is often suppose to be non political, has seem to be all but that. You can nearly guess how they rule each and every time by the party they are affiliated with. Sandra Day O Connor said it best. The Court these days worries too much about politics and partisanism and too little about the issues. | |
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
1 edit | reply to ross
said by ross :The right to privacy is implicit in the language of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, Only implicit, and only "reasonable." But, the fact of the matter is that the Bill of Rights were never imagined to apply to State or Private infringement. Only Congressional. At the time the Constitution was ratified it was common for *States* to violate rights. The Founders were apparently ok with that. They just didn't want a *large* government doing it.
It's also important to remember that the Founders created the Federal government with all these limitations on rights (such as "reasonable" or "just compensation") because they didn't *like* the very limited government they had for 11 years after the revolution (The Articles of Confederation).
Therefore, it's perfectly true to say rights "contract." By creating the Federal government their rights contracted.
And, as far as expanding rights, it wasn't until 1866 that the Bill of Rights was applied to State and private infringement. It required an amendment to the constitution. That was an expansion (at the cost of shifting a *huge* amount of power from the states to the Federal government).
However, the Supreme Court refused to accept the intent of the 14th amendment for 60 years. You can say the SC doesn't "create law." But, when they refused to accept the intent of a law for 50 years, it's *a lot* like creating law.
It took another 60 years for the Supreme Court to selectively apply the 14th Amendment to the vast majority of the Bill of Rights. (110 years!). It still hasn't incorporated all of the BoR. For example, the 2nd Amendment which, more than any other right was discussed by the Framers as the reason for the 14th Amendment (to keep freed slaves armed against white violence).
said by ross :but was further codified in the Privacy Act of 1974 "Creating rights" through legislation (especially the name of the legislation) is different than enumerating them as primary rights. (What the government givith, the government taketh away). If creating a law makes it right, then everyone complaining about the Patriot Act must be pounding sand?
said by ross :Bottom line, the founding fathers never expected that any rights would need to "contract" as you put it. That's untrue. They accommodated (and exercised) the ability to call a Constitutional Convention (as a reset button) potentially contracting rights (as they did in 1789, compared to what they had under the Articles of Confederation.).
They accommodated the amendment process to the Constitution. For example, the right to choose a President for 3 terms has been lost. The right to have a deliberative legislative body (the Senate) was lost 90 years ago when Senators were subjected to popular vote.
I appreciate your passion. But, passion often gets in the way of truth.
Mark | |
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| reply to jc100
said by jc100 :the Bill of Rights was setup to grant state rights and federal rights. I'll let Ross handle this since he seems to be so picky about historic accuracy.
Mark | |
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| reply to jc100
said by jc100 :You have liberal and right ring judges making their own laws. Ross, would you like to handle this? I know how adamant you were with me that judges don't create laws. (Or, is it just me?).
Mark | |
|
