 
GlenQuagmire
Giggidy Giggidy Giggidy Goo
Premium
join:2004-02-16
Grand Rapids, MI | Baby Sitting Are ISP going to have to start baby sitting me? | |
|  | 
a
@qwest.net | Re: Baby Sitting just as long as we have access to what the doj is pointing & clicking on, i don't see a problem | |
| |
bushpatriotact
@verizon.n
| Re: Baby Sitting-Who-Big_Bush_Brother? Its all a big conspiracy.. in the 1950s it was the russians, now it the arabs, next it will be your momma!
People need to wake up and see where this is all going... to consolidate power in the hands of few and make democracy a real no-brainer, push the levers, it doesn't matter if its democrat or republican anymore.. sick politicians on both sides gunning for expansion of the piss on liberty act.... In 20 years, we're gonna have to change the definition of freedom in the dictionary, with all the lawyers caveats, but, except with a big paragraph of 9/11 buildings,memorials, how they used 3,000 people's deaths to re-write the word freedom and the removal of the words civil liberty from american society.
b-u-s-h-d-o-c-t-r-i-n-e, anyone who thinks they can vote democrat in a couple of years and wake up from this nightmere is mistaken, its both democrats and republicans hand-in-hand.
Well, I suppose these databases can be hacked and destroyed making the powers that be's spying ineffective 
--but I digress... | |
|
LeftOfSanity
@208.17.x.x
 from:
JPuppy 
| Here we go..... Of course.....Patriot Act was phase 1. Hope all who support it like what they get. | |
| | 
Ken Sohryu
Darkest Days
join:2001-01-07
Chicago, IL | Re: Here we go..... Hah. They'll be too busy eating their freedom fries to notice. | |
| 
footballdude
Premium
join:2002-08-13
Imperial, MO | already there ISPs are already monitoring you and keeping a log of your activities, just in case they get sued. Sounds like all this proposed law is doing is asking them not to delete the stuff.
To me, no big deal. There is no privacy on the net. | |
| |
Unregistered User
| Re: already there No, they're not. They usually only keep enough records so they can do billing at the end of each month. I don't think you understand what this entails, so I'll tell you. Under this scheme, ISPs would be required to keep:
The URL of every Web page you visit
The address of every e-mail you send
Every other TCP/IP connection your computer makes
This is a _massive_ amount of data, and it'll take a massive amount of storage. It'll allow anyone with it to reconstruct almost every activity you conducted in a given period of time.
What gets me in all this is the defeatist attitude I see in response to all this. Go over and read Slashdot to see what I mean. There are people willing to stand up and die for what they believe in in countries far more repressive than ours, yet most people here won't even lift a finger to stop something they don't agree with. In just over a year, we've seen governments in Georgia, Ukraine, Kyrryzstan, and Bolivia toppled by people hitting the streets, yet all we do is sit and moan. What's wrong with us? | |
| | | 
91439306
15,000 Watts of Bass Power
join:2002-10-16
New Milford, CT
| Re: already there said by Unregistered User:
What gets me in all this is the defeatist attitude I see in response to all this. Go over and read Slashdot to see what I mean. There are people willing to stand up and die for what they believe in in countries far more repressive than ours, yet most people here won't even lift a finger to stop something they don't agree with. In just over a year, we've seen governments in Georgia, Ukraine, Kyrryzstan, and Bolivia toppled by people hitting the streets, yet all we do is sit and moan. What's wrong with us?
Part of the problem is that the biggest government tax dollars can buy is too powerful to overthrow. All our government would have to do to quell any resistance is use a few tactical nukes and that'd be the end of the resistance.
--
Take care,
Mark & Mary Ann Weiss
Hear my Kurzweil Creations at: »www.dv-clips.com/theater.htm
'»www.mwcomms.com/auctions.htm
'»www.mwcomms.com
'»www.adventuresinanimemusic.com
| |
| | | |
Unregistered user
| Re: already there So, you're saying that if there were massive street protests on the Washington Mall (say 50,000 people), they'd drop a nuke? Do you realize the political implications of doing something so stupid? Sure, you can do it, but the country would quickly come apart at the seams. And what would the rest of the world do if the U.S. government started nuking its own cities?
I wasn't really speaking of armed revolt here, but organized political protest and/or civil disobediance, but as far as overthrowing the most powerful government in the world, it's been done before. It started in 1776. | |
| | | | |
91439306
15,000 Watts of Bass Power
join:2002-10-16
New Milford, CT
| Re: already there Not likely to happen. In 1776, the resistance had the same weapons and firepower as the British. Today, we have these puny pea-shooters and the government has tanks, nukes, crowd control devices--riot control is down to a science. The People don't have a chance.
Change has to come from philosophical movement. That's just not happening. And it looks like things are going to get much worse. A new Dark Age is probably in our future.
--
Take care,
Mark & Mary Ann Weiss
Hear my Kurzweil Creations at: »www.dv-clips.com/theater.htm
'»www.mwcomms.com/auctions.htm
'»www.mwcomms.com
'»www.adventuresinanimemusic.com
| |
| | | | | voyager6868
join:2003-01-29
Lynnwood, WA | said by Unregistered user:
And what would the rest of the world do if the U.S. government started nuking its own cities? hehe... I'm not sure you'd like the answer to that question. | |
| | | | | | SulSeeker5
join:2003-03-20
Eugene, OR | Re: already there www.johntitor.com | |
| | 
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
 ·Comcast
| said by footballdude :To me, no big deal. There is no privacy on the net. You're right. Doing illegal activity on the Internet and getting busted months after the fact due to log retention is no different than doing illegal activity in a public place and getting busted because a camera recorded the activity. There is no legal right to privacy when you are in a public place.
--
Hey Fast Eddie... you're next! | |
| | |
Unregistered User
| Re: already there Um, no. This would be something the government could trawl through if they suspect that you did something suspicious. Remember, they want to be able to see library records without a warrant, so there's no reason to think this is any different. Do you really want them to know what Web sites you've been looking at, who you've been e-mailing, etc.? Suppose they wanted to know the names of every person who visited Indymedia during a period of time. Easy. First, get Indymedia's Web logs. That gives a list of times and IP addresses. Next, check the logs of those ISPs at those times, and you have a complete list of subscribers who visited that site and the pages they viewed. And this can all be done more or less automatically by using search tools.
If this doesn't scare you, it should. | |
| | | | | | | | |
Unregisterd User
| Re: already there No, I don't think anyone necessarily wants to know what I do online. I think IT'S NONE OF THEIR DAMN BUSINESS WHAT I DO ONLINE! The government has no business whatsoever even asking that this data be collected, period. They also have no business being able to secretly trawl through library book and Internet records, but they can. That's what the House is trying to overturn in the last few days. Well, the book part, at least. The Internet snooping is apparently OK, so that activity wasn't barred in the House bill. Of course, Bush has threatened to veto it. I guess he feels that what you read at the library is the Feds' business. I mean, we need to know when someone reads something controversial. And no, you don't have to be under a criminal investigation of having committed a crime, you just have to be a suspected terrorist.
This isn't the kind of country I want to live in. It reminds me too much of the old USSR. | |
| | | | | |
footballdude
Premium
join:2002-08-13
Imperial, MO | Re: already there said by Unregisterd User:
This isn't the kind of country I want to live in. It reminds me too much of the old USSR. OMG, it's Dick Durbin! | |
| | | | |
ANon PSP owner
@rr.com
| Wrong! The Patriot Act allows them to get whatever info or snoop (bypassing Constitutional Rights) by bypassing the middle man, the Judge without a warrant any time they wish. Because all of the sheep and sleepers in this country that think you will keep your hard earned freedoms by sitting on your asses, this has now ready to become a permanent thing. Now they are trying to make it permanent and make it stronger. Sheep and cattle to slaughter.
"Those who have long enjoyed such privileges as we enjoy, forget in time that men have died to win them."
-Franklin D. Roosevelt | |
| | | | | | ricep5
Premium
join:2000-08-07
Jacksonville, FL
 ·AT&T Southeast
 ·AT&T CallVantage
·VoicePulse
·Comcast Formerly ..
| Re: already there said by ANon PSP owner:
Wrong! The Patriot Act allows them to get whatever info or snoop (bypassing Constitutional Rights) by bypassing the middle man, the Judge without a warrant any time they wish.
Please provide the link, I don't see that language in the revised bill. Not a news media report link, one that shows the actual bill under debate. | |
| | | | | voyager6868
join:2003-01-29
Lynnwood, WA
·Bell Sympatico
| Even if they did have to get permission from a judge, which they don't, the appointment process for judges in most areas of the US is so corrupt, that it really doesn't matter. The government just has to slip the judge a few bills and voila! there's your warrant.
You people should really consider moving north  We have a lot more freedoms up here. | |
| | | | | | 
guitarzan
Premium
join:2004-05-04
Skytop, PA
·epix
| Re: already there said by voyager6868 :You people should really consider moving north We have a lot more freedoms up here. How many handguns,What make,What model do you own?
How many rifles are in your home? Again I ask what make,What model? How many so called "assault weapons do you have and are aloud to purchase and keep? | |
| | | | | | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: already there said by guitarzan :said by voyager6868 :You people should really consider moving north We have a lot more freedoms up here. How many handguns,What make,What model do you own? How many rifles are in your home? Again I ask what make,What model? How many so called "assault weapons do you have and are aloud to purchase and keep? Gun laws? Is that all you can compare? That's hardly a come back to his post. Canada IS a free country, thus they are part of the free world. There are differences between what we have and what they have... However, I do believe that Canada is becoming more favorable to people as far as Civil Liberties are concerned. I can say one thing for sure, Canada is treating people more equal that the U.S. How long ago did black people here get their so-called rights? Are gay people still fighting for equality here? How about Canada? I would rather have the U.S. treat it's people equally first before I would concern myself with guns. I do enjoy owning guns myself, but freedoms come before hand guns.
The U.S. is quickly, and I mean in the last 5 years, steering into an era of church driven laws - and if anyone knows anything about the Church, they are FAR from diverse and FAR from free thinking.
This is why I never understood how we have survived so long with the so-called separation of church and state, better known as the establishment cluase, without having problems sooner. The U.S. stands for freedoms, and the church is not so free - with the church, it's usually one way or you go to hell. | |
| | | | | | | |
guitarzan
Premium
join:2004-05-04
Skytop, PA
·epix
| Re: already there said by fiberguy :said by guitarzan :said by voyager6868 :You people should really consider moving north We have a lot more freedoms up here. How many handguns,What make,What model do you own? How many rifles are in your home? Again I ask what make,What model? How many so called "assault weapons do you have and are aloud to purchase and keep? said by fiberguy Gun laws? Is that all you can compare? That's hardly a come back to his post. Canada IS a free country, thus they are part of the free world.[/BQUOTE: Hardly a come back.? Pretty much all I'm concerned about.Then answer my question.Gun laws.? Yes thats a major point.If it is so free.That has everything to do with freedom.When we declared our independence.It sure as hell was not done with words alone.Why do you think they are trying so desperately to outlaw guns in this country.? Once that right is taken away.All others will soon follow.As an example.Look what happened when Hitler came to power.That is the very first thing he outlawed.Thats right gun ownership banned. History proved to the world the outcome of that tragedy. said by fiberguy There are differences between what we have and what they have...[/BQUOTE: Sure there is a difference.Compare the healthcare systems between these countries.I am not slamming them for anything.However I prefer our system here. said by fiberguy :However, I do believe that Canada is becoming more favorable to people as far as Civil Liberties are concerned. What exactly do you mean.? Please explain further.Do
you mean they are trying to catch up.? Please explain.
said by fiberguy :I can say one thing for sure, Canada is treating people more equal that the U.S. How long ago did black people here get their so-called rights? I totally agree with,The mistreatment of black people.That's an unfortunate event that did happen.In The Past.However today is different.Were it not so, Clarence Thomas would not have been affirmed to a high seat on the bench.Look at our sports stars,our actors,members of congress.J.C Watts comes to mind off hand.I do not buy into your whole point of view on this issue.
said by fiberguy Are gay people still fighting for equality here?[/BQUOTE: WTF you mean??? Since you threw something like this into the mix,let me explain something.Because I see where you're headed with a statement like that.
ALL citizens of the U.S.Have a Constitution and a bill of rights.As such we can exercise our rights.What YOUR talking about is SPECIAL rights,for gay people.So that special rights can allow them to hold hands,kiss and make out in our public parks and places.As human beings they are afforded the same bill of rights.As we all are.
Equal to everyone regardless of sexual preference.NO NO special rights.Animals have right to you know.I love that statement.NO THEY don't have rights.It's an animal for crying out loud.They do not deserve neglect and abuse from the hands of its owner. said by fiberguy How about Canada?[/BQUOTE: I don't know I never lived there.The U.S. is home to me and as such.It's the only place I will ever call home.It's not my business to know the policies Canada has in place.The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence till you get there.
said by fiberguy I would rather have the U.S. treat it's people equally first before I would concern myself with guns.[/BQUOTE: I DO worry about my personal freedoms first.Without them I can't help anyone.You know that will never happen.Not in a million,billion years.Life has a way of dealing bad cards to everyone.Your welcome to believe in utopia though.
said by fiberguy : I do enjoy owning guns myself, but freedoms come before hand guns. I think you're confused on how that actually works.We would not have the freedom we do today,were it not for guns.A man with a gun is a citizen.A man without a gun is a slave.Our fore fathers did not shed blood with sticks to ensure equality in our Country.But with arms taken up to guarantee our freedom.said by fiberguy : The U.S. is quickly, and I mean in the last 5 years, steering into an era of church driven laws - and if anyone knows anything about the Church, they are FAR from diverse and FAR from free thinking. Yea right.I could have sworn Politicians were being bought off at a rapid pace by corporations.
Have you ever been to Church.?Don't sound like it.I doubt it.Its not about diversity or free thinking.Its basing your faith and religion on God.Now I know you proudly carry the liberal banner.
Church has nothing to do with limiting freedom.However one is free to worship as one see's fit.Today sadly it's greed.Who's odor is emmaniting directly from Politicians and corporate whores.Not from Church.
Lets set the record straight on the issue.Damn athesists.One may prove a lot of things wrong.One thing that man never can prove wrong is the Bible.Has not been done in the
past 2000 years,nor will it be done in the next 2000 years.
BTW: Bible means Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth.
said by fiberguy :This is why I never understood how we have survived so long with the so-called separation of church and state, better known as the establishment cluase, without having problems sooner Your grasping at straws now.That never caused any problems before.Why would it all of a sudden now.? What that really means is that the STATE can't tell you which religion to to worship.Get your facts straight.Not by your misgiuded beliefs.Russia didn't have seperation of Church and state.What happened.? Militant asthesism.Do you home work first.Instead of repeating nitwittery drivel pushed by liberals as truth.
said by fiberguy :The U.S. stands for freedoms, and the church is not so free - with the church, it's usually one way or you go to hell.
Wait a minute here pal.I want to see proof of what you claim against the Church.Where it limits freedoms.It's one way or you go to hell.No problem there.
No freedom is limited.Your free will has not been taken away.
Oh I see now.You want the Church to conform and bend its beliefs to yours.For example you may find it perfectly acceptable.To have sex with other men.
People want to do that go head.From a practice that was afraid to come out of the closet.Now it won't shut its damn mouth.
Thats the most absurd thing I ever heard.Just because it can be tolerated.Does not meant it is acceptable. | |
| | | | | | | | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: already there guitarzan,
You really need a hobby.
Additionally, if you read any of my posts, I have, many times, stated I am neither democrap, or a repuke-again. Believe it or not, there are more political affiliations in this country.
So I find it hard to see how since I don't believe in how organized religion twists the minds of people makes me a "liberal".. you should not confuse the lack of religion with a political party. I know Rove likes to hijack religion for the Repuke-again party, but not everyone follows his ways.
As to the rest of your post, you really make no sense for me to even attempt to respond.
Respond if you'd like, but I won't be reading it. | |
| | | | | | | | | |
guitarzan
Premium
join:2004-05-04
Skytop, PA
·epix
| Re: already there Well dude I do have a hobby.I'm a gun collector.Your political affiliation,Was not and is the issue.What the issue concerned was freedom.I believe I asked a legimate question
concerning the freedom of gun ownwrship.To Voyager6868
When Said by voyager6868
(You people should really consider moving north We have a lot more freedoms up here.)You jumped all over me.With (Gun laws? Is that all you can compare? That's hardly a come back to his post.)
YUP thats all I wanted to know.Then YOU turned political right off the bat.Decided to bring Civil Liberties,Racism that most likely neither you or I lived through in that era.Then without further hesitation.
You brought Religion into the debate to muddy the water even more with.An assertion. (The U.S. is quickly, and I mean in the last 5 years, steering into an era of church driven laws).
To further confuse you added.(I never understood how we have survived so long with the so-called separation of church and state).I explain that meaning again.What that means is the State CANNOT order anyone to any Religion.Especially won that would be State organized.Ok look I'm sorry i called you
a liberal.Will heathen athesist do.?  .You made a claim that where.(steering into an era of church driven laws).
I don't see that.What I do see is a corporate run police state taking affect slowly.As for not wanting to refute the rest of my post.? Why not? Here's your chance to point by point back up your claims with proof.On the issues you brought into this.Except for the animal have no rights that statement I made.
I do not expect an answer to this post from you.Nor do I expect you to have proof of your claims you posted.It's
nothing personal against you.However when one gets wrongly
blamed.In this case The Church I will stand up for it. | |
| | | | | | | voyager6868
join:2003-01-29
Lynnwood, WA
·Bell Sympatico
| said by guitarzan :said by voyager6868 :You people should really consider moving north We have a lot more freedoms up here. How many handguns,What make,What model do you own? How many rifles are in your home? Again I ask what make,What model? How many so called "assault weapons do you have and are aloud to purchase and keep? I don't own any guns and I have no desire to. Sometimes you have to trade one freedom for another. I'd much rather restrict freedoms on handguns and assault weapons (but still allow people to have hunting rifles, etc.) and then be able to enjoy more freedoms of peace of mind and security.
There are very few legitimate uses for assault weapons, so I don't think restricting them affects freedoms in any significant way. You have to draw the line somewhere. For example, I'm pretty sure the average American can't legally own nuclear weapons. | |
| | | | | | | |
guitarzan
Premium
join:2004-05-04
Skytop, PA
·epix
| Re: already there said by voyager6868 :said by guitarzan :said by voyager6868 :You people should really consider moving north We have a lot more freedoms up here. How many handguns,What make,What model do you own? How many rifles are in your home? Again I ask what make,What model? How many so called "assault weapons do you have and are aloud to purchase and keep? said by voyager6868 :I don't own any guns and I have no desire to. Sometimes you have to trade one freedom for another. That is your option not to own firearms.Or do you have that option at all.? Here's the thing.If we live in a society that is so free and democratic.Why would one be SOMETIMES REQUIRED to give up,a God given right for another.? That does not make much sense because it implies limited freedom.No I will not trade one for another.Fugg that bullsh*t seriously. said by voyager6868 :I'd much rather restrict freedoms on handguns and assault weapons (but still allow people to have hunting rifles, etc.) and then be able to enjoy more freedoms of peace of mind and security. Thats where you and I will have to agree to disagree.What freedoms of peace of mind and security will one have when confronted with an armed criminal intent on doing harm to you.?See only law abiding citizens would turn there guns in for that so-called freedom.That would have no effect whatsoever on criminals,except to make law abiding citizens easier prey.Criminals DO get them from the same place the get Illicit drugs,the black market.Since the disregard the law.How can it apply to them.?Do you understand what I'm saying? "Assault weapons"Before the term political correctness took over.Assault weapon actually had a different meaning.Such as one was hit with a hammer,a 2+4,apiece of lumber,tire iron.When a Police report was filed. The investagating Officer considered what was used to assault someone,as the "assault weapon". Does the following make sense to you.?(It is better to have a gun and not need it.Than to need a gun and not have it). said by voyager6868 : There are very few legitimate uses for assault weapons, so I don't think restricting them affects freedoms in any significant way. You have to draw the line somewhere. So you see no legitimate uses for assault weapons.I see two.The first.IS my unalienable God givin right to own them as reconigized by the bill of rights in the Constitution.Second.Politicians want people to believe that bullsh*t about guns for hunting.The right to keep and bear arms has absolutely nothing to do with hunting. Everytime I look,I see nothing mentioned anywhere in the Constitution about hunting.Gun ownership has absolutely nothing what so ever to do with hunting. That is a truth that needs repeating over and over in the in the face of lies and distortions told today said by voyager6868 :For example, I'm pretty sure the average American can't legally own nuclear weapons. Don't be silly like that of course they can't own something like that A comparision like that is so far out of whack it's not even funny.I can't believe you compared a pistol or rifle cartridge to a nuke. | |
| | | | | | | | | voyager6868
join:2003-01-29
Lynnwood, WA
·Bell Sympatico
1 edit | Re: already there said by voyager6868 :said by guitarzan :said by voyager6868 :You people should really consider moving north We have a lot more freedoms up here. How many handguns,What make,What model do you own? How many rifles are in your home? Again I ask what make,What model? How many so called "assault weapons do you have and are aloud to purchase and keep? said by voyager6868 :I don't own any guns and I have no desire to. Sometimes you have to trade one freedom for another. That is your option not to own firearms.Or do you have that option at all.? Here's the thing.If we live in a society that is so free and democratic.Why would one be SOMETIMES REQUIRED to give up,a God given right for another.? That does not make much sense because it implies limited freedom.No I will not trade one for another.Fugg that bullsh*t seriously. said by voyager6868 :I'd much rather restrict freedoms on handguns and assault weapons (but still allow people to have hunting rifles, etc.) and then be able to enjoy more freedoms of peace of mind and security. Thats where you and I will have to agree to disagree.What freedoms of peace of mind and security will one have when confronted with an armed criminal intent on doing harm to you.?See only law abiding citizens would turn there guns in for that so-called freedom.That would have no effect whatsoever on criminals,except to make law abiding citizens easier prey.Criminals DO get them from the same place the get Illicit drugs,the black market.Since the disregard the law.How can it apply to them.?Do you understand what I'm saying? "Assault weapons"Before the term political correctness took over.Assault weapon actually had a different meaning.Such as one was hit with a hammer,a 2+4,apiece of lumber,tire iron.When a Police report was filed. The investagating Officer considered what was used to assault someone,as the "assault weapon". Does the following make sense to you.?(It is better to have a gun and not need it.Than to need a gun and not have it). said by voyager6868 : There are very few legitimate uses for assault weapons, so I don't think restricting them affects freedoms in any significant way. You have to draw the line somewhere. So you see no legitimate uses for assault weapons.I see two.The first.IS my unalienable God givin right to own them as reconigized by the bill of rights in the Constitution.Second.Politicians want people to believe that bullsh*t about guns for hunting.The right to keep and bear arms has absolutely nothing to do with hunting. Everytime I look,I see nothing mentioned anywhere in the Constitution about hunting.Gun ownership has absolutely nothing what so ever to do with hunting. That is a truth that needs repeating over and over in the in the face of lies and distortions told today said by voyager6868 :For example, I'm pretty sure the average American can't legally own nuclear weapons. Don't be silly like that of course they can't own something like that A comparision like that is so far out of whack it's not even funny.I can't believe you compared a pistol or rifle cartridge to a nuke. Hmmm. You said you have two legitimate reasons. They are "because I have the right to" and because "it has nothing to do with hunting". Those are pretty good reasons, eh? About the lamest ones I've ever heard.
Nuclear weapons are considered "arms". Why can't I bear those too? Isn't it my right to? I can give exactly the same two reasons you gave buddy.
By the way, we don't have a constitution. And our equivalent mentions nothing about rights to bear arms. So your arguments have no meaning here. Honestly, what you want to do inside your own country is none of my concern. If everyone wants to arms themselves to the hilt and have nightly shootouts, more power to ya. | |
| | | | | | | | | |
guitarzan
Premium
join:2004-05-04
Skytop, PA
·epix
| Re: already there said by voyager6868 :said by voyager6868 :said by guitarzan :said by voyager6868 :You people should really consider moving north We have a lot more frhereeedoms up . How many handguns,What make,What model do you own? How many rifles are in your home? Again I ask what make,What model? How many so called "assault weapons do you have and are aloud to purchase and keep? said by voyager6868 :I don't own any guns and I have no desire to. Sometimes you have to trade one freedom for another. That is your option not to own firearms.Or do you have that option at all.? Here's the thing.If we live in a society that is so free and democratic.Why would one be SOMETIMES REQUIRED to give up,a God given right for another.? That does not make much sense because it implies limited freedom.No I will not trade one for another.Fugg that bullsh*t seriously. said by voyager6868 :I'd much rather restrict freedoms on handguns and assault weapons (but still allow people to have hunting rifles, etc.) and then be able to enjoy more freedoms of peace of mind and security. Thats where you and I will have to agree to disagree.What freedoms of peace of mind and security will one have when confronted with an armed criminal intent on doing harm to you.?See only law abiding citizens would turn there guns in for that so-called freedom.That would have no effect whatsoever on criminals,except to make law abiding citizens easier prey.Criminals DO get them from the same place the get Illicit drugs,the black market.Since the disregard the law.How can it apply to them.?Do you understand what I'm saying? "Assault weapons"Before the term political correctness took over.Assault weapon actually had a different meaning.Such as one was hit with a hammer,a 2+4,apiece of lumber,tire iron.When a Police report was filed. The investagating Officer considered what was used to assault someone,as the "assault weapon". Does the following make sense to you.?(It is better to have a gun and not need it.Than to need a gun and not have it). said by voyager6868 : There are very few legitimate uses for assault weapons, so I don't think restricting them affects freedoms in any significant way. You have to draw the line somewhere. So you see no legitimate uses for assault weapons.I see two.The first.IS my unalienable God givin right to own them as reconigized by the bill of rights in the Constitution.Second.Politicians want people to believe that bullsh*t about guns for hunting.The right to keep and bear arms has absolutely nothing to do with hunting. Everytime I look,I see nothing mentioned anywhere in the Constitution about hunting.Gun ownership has absolutely nothing what so ever to do with hunting. That is a truth that needs repeating over and over in the in the face of lies and distortions told today said by voyager6868 :For example, I'm pretty sure the average American can't legally own nuclear weapons. Don't be silly like that of course they can't own something like that A comparision like that is so far out of whack it's not even funny.I can't believe you compared a pistol or rifle cartridge to a nuke. said by voyager6868 :Hmmm. You said you have two legitimate reasons. They are "because I have the right to" and because "it has nothing to do with hunting". Those are pretty good reasons, eh? About the lamest ones I've ever heard. It's as simple as that buddy,yet nowhere near as lame as living in Canada.You being canadien it would be lame to you..I would not expect you to understand.Comparing ICBM's and nukes to pistol or rifle cartridges.That is lamer than lame to the point of being retarded. eh?hoser. Just like any canadien law would be absolutely positively lame to me.YOUR WORDS(we don't have a constitution.And our equivalent mentions nothing about rights to bear arms)What your really saying is your only allowed freedom as your government sees fit.I do not see how it's possible to make a false assertion as this then.YOUR EXACT WORDS(We have a lot more freedoms up here.). I ask a simple question to your^ claim and what do I get? Idiotic comparsion of balistic missles and nukes and (lamest ones I've ever heard.)What else would i expect from a Canouk?The Canadien policies are just swell and jim dandy for you and Canada.So your following statement (I'd much rather restrict freedoms on handguns and assault weapons).Are just fine for you and Canada.As long as they stay in Canada.However it makes your claim (You people should really consider moving north.We have a lot more freedoms up here)Lame to the point of laughable does't it? said by voyager6868 : Nuclear weapons are considered "arms". Why can't I bear those too? Isn't it my right to? I can give exactly the same two reasons you gave buddy. By the way, we don't have a constitution. And our equivalent mentions nothing about rights to bear arms. So your arguments have no meaning here. Honestly, what you want to do inside your own country is none of my concern. If everyone wants to arms themselves to the hilt and have nightly shootouts, more power to ya. | |
| | | | | | | | | | voyager6868
join:2003-01-29
Lynnwood, WA
·Bell Sympatico
| Re: already there You don't have a clue dude. We have a Charter of Rights & Freedoms. This stops the government from arbitrarily taking away any rights we have.
Your rights have been trampled all over in the good ol' US of A. Have you read the Patriot Act? What about the DMCA? How about all those state referendums which resulted in constitutional amendments in those states prohibiting same-sex marriage? How about being thrown in jail for possessing a couple grams of marijuana?
None of that would ever happen here. Yes, some more "extreme" weapons are illegal, but other than that, we have a hell of a lot more freedoms, especially for the average citizen. I don't know many people here who are upset that they can't own assault weapons. However, I know a ton of Americans that are upset about the things I've mentioned above. | |
| | | | | | | | | |
guitarzan
Premium
join:2004-05-04
Skytop, PA
·epix
| Re: already there said by voyager6868 :You don't have a clue dude. We have a Charter of Rights & Freedoms. This stops the government from arbitrarily taking away any rights we have. said by voyager6868 : Your rights have been trampled all over in the good ol' US of A. Have you read the Patriot Act? What about the DMCA? How about all those state referendums which resulted in constitutional amendments in those states prohibiting same-sex marriage? How about being thrown in jail for possessing a couple grams of marijuana? Don't you mean what little actually remain of them? Yes I have read the Patroit Act,You know what? It is scarier than any horror movie hollywood can ever produce. Voyager you are totally,totally correct.I don't use drugs myself,nor would I have much pity on the person that would get my kids,nephews,neices hooked on that garbage in the first place. As for same sex marriage,if thats your thing,I don't mean you personally,just go do what floats your boat,Why make an issue out of it.?There are more important pressing issues going on in the world as it is.(just my opinion) You know what? I'll tell you something Anybody who would try the "sneak and peak".Had best be prepared for what they will face on the other side of the door.I have the nicest pitbulls in the world.Were you to not know what the breed looks like.You would never guess the one licking you face is a pit.Woe to the unlucky person(s) that breaks in.They will not bark to alert you to their presence.They will attack silently and swiftly. There is no argueing with a dog,you cant out run it.It will not let go.Needless to say more than ones arms will be fucked up in a heartbeat.Let alone by six purebreds.They are not dog nor human aggressive,Only when commanded to protect The inside of my house.You my friend are looking down the barrel of a loaded gun called the DMCA.The same bullshit that I face.To be brutaly honest my reply to DMCA is fuck it,it no longer applies to me .It's possible it may taken off the table this year when Parilment adjurns this year.I'm sure it will be tabbled next session,to be reintroduced. said by voyager6868 : None of that would ever happen here. Yes, some more "extreme" weapons are illegal, but other than that, we have a hell of a lot more freedoms, especially for the average citizen. I don't know many people here who are upset that they can't own assault weapons. However, I know a ton of Americans that are upset about the things I've mentioned above. Voyager I appoligize to you for being coarse and harsh un-nescarially.We have enough enemies as it is already.I'm sorry for calling you any names.Reading daily what is happening here in the U.S. and abroad is frustrating. Seeing your original post,well became a target(no pun intended)to lash out at.I'm sorry for that I appoligize.I have no beef or quarrel with you or Canada.Although it sure looked that way.Besides,you have some of the best fishing spots in the world. | |
| | | | | | | |
guitarzan
Premium
join:2004-05-04
Skytop, PA
·epix
| said by voyager6868 :said by guitarzan :said by voyager6868 :You people should really consider moving north We have a lot more freedoms up here. How many handguns,What make,What model do you own? How many rifles are in your home? Again I ask what make,What model? How many so called "assault weapons do you have and are aloud to purchase and keep? I don't own any guns and I have no desire to. Sometimes you have to trade one freedom for another. I'd much rather restrict freedoms on handguns and assault weapons (but still allow people to have hunting rifles, etc.) and then be able to enjoy more freedoms of peace of mind and security. Can you please answer the question I asked.?
Is firearm ownership legal in Canada.? That is all I want to know.A simple yes or no answer would do. Which I have yet to recieve a straight answer to.Nevermind I can
google the answer.
I have nothing personal against you or Fiberguy.I appoligize if I offended either of you.This is a personal issue to me.That I feel strongly about,I'm pro gun and will remain that way.I will stand always stand up for my rights.That I WILL NOT compromise for any reason.My rights are my rights and not some off season baseball trading session.Again I appoligize,but not for what I believe in.
| |
| | | |
lyls
@tele.dk | its crazy stuff like this that makes me glad i dont live in the states =) | |
| | | baj475
join:2004-11-02
Chico, CA
·Future Nine Corpor..
| said by footballdude :There is no legal right to privacy when you are in a public place. Not entirely true. See Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) | |
|
cc_skavenger896
@172.0.x.x
| Watching me... Oh, great. So what, the ISPs are going to forward all my mail to themselves? What about all my paid porn passwords, are they going to get them to? So much for secure websites, pgp signatures, and any other online security tools. Don't they understand that this will make identity theft even easier?? | |
| | King75
King Of All And Nothing
Premium
join:2004-07-31
Stevensville, MD
clubs: | Re: Watching me... Your problem is you assume they care. Even though they will probably fight it to "protect consumer rights" or in plain English they don't want to pay to keep all that information for so long. | |
| | | 
sharkpedal
join:2005-05-04
PA
| Re: Watching me... "they don't want to pay to keep all that information for so long."
Does the DOJ realize how much information that would be? Your talking terabytes worth of log files and for what to catch criminals? This leads to too much information.
I certainly dont want my Instant Messaging, email and browsing to be archived...thats like recording every phone conversation I have without telling me before hand. This $hit wreaks of invasion of privacy.
Leave that thing alone
| |
| | | | 
nixen
Rockin' the Boxen
Premium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA
·Cox HSI
·Speakeasy
| Re: Watching me... said by sharkpedal :"they don't want to pay to keep all that information for so long." Does the DOJ realize how much information that would be? Your talking terabytes worth of log files and for what to catch criminals? This leads to too much information. I certainly dont want my Instant Messaging, email and browsing to be archived...thats like recording every phone conversation I have without telling me before hand. This $hit wreaks of invasion of privacy. Leave that thing alone While DoJ might like this, I gotta think that NSA won't. Why? NSA buys PetaBytes of storage every year. If they had to compete with thousands of network providers having to each buy TeraBytes of storage to satisfy the DoJ... Well, there's only so much production capacity out there. Either the DoJ's not going to be satisfiable or the NSA's not going to be able to do their yearly storage acquisitions.
-tom
--
"Some people have morals, standards and ideals about quality, but I'm an American: I couldn't care less." --Tony Pierce (paraphrased) | |
| | | | | 
bent
not broken
Premium
join:2004-10-04
Loveland, CO
clubs: | Re: Watching me... I would imagine production will rise to increased demand. If you are mass storage mfgr, and you are flooded with new contracts, you are going to scramble and do everything you can to keep up. | |
| | | | | |
nixen
Rockin' the Boxen
Premium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA
·Cox HSI
·Speakeasy
| Re: Watching me... said by bent :I would imagine production will rise to increased demand. If you are mass storage mfgr, and you are flooded with new contracts, you are going to scramble and do everything you can to keep up. However, there is only so much factory floor space and the amount of time necessary to build new factories is not trivial.
-tom
--
"Some people have morals, standards and ideals about quality, but I'm an American: I couldn't care less." --Tony Pierce (paraphrased) | |
|
nixen
Rockin' the Boxen
Premium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA
·Cox HSI
·Speakeasy
| Damn, My ISP Bill Ain't High Enough?? So, where are the TeraBytes of storage to store all these logs going to come from?? Yup, you got it: the subscribers' wallets. Oh, and pissed at your ISPs performance, now? Think how bad it will be when they have to log every packet and send ship those logs over the network to a centralized logging center.
Bleah.
-tom
--
"Some people have morals, standards and ideals about quality, but I'm an American: I couldn't care less." --Tony Pierce (paraphrased) | |
| | Alphy
join:2001-12-31
Troy, MI | Re: Damn, My ISP Bill Ain't High Enough?? The line between benign and malignant when it comes to privacy laws in the United States becomes thinner every day. | |
| | | 
Titus Pullo
I came, I saw, I slept
join:2004-06-26
·Embarq
| Re: Damn, My ISP Bill Ain't High Enough?? said by Alphy :The line between benign and malignant when it comes to privacy laws in the United States becomes thinner every day. Yes, and the knuckle-dragging denizens known as BushCo WarOnTerror Bots will be along shortly to provide ample ignorance argument on why it is a good thing in general for an ISP to compile tracking logs of every single thing a web surfer does while using the Internet.
This is what reality looks like when a government has declared war on its people and they won't know it until it's too late.
.
--
"The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppose." -- Frederick Douglass | |
| | aeiouy
join:2004-08-05
Fort Worth, TX | I guess we will just consider it a criminal tax.
Everyone will need to pay highe rates just so they might have the opportunity to gain some information on potential criminal acts.
Genius. | |
| | |
nixen
Rockin' the Boxen
Premium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA
·Cox HSI
·Speakeasy
| Re: Damn, My ISP Bill Ain't High Enough?? said by aeiouy :I guess we will just consider it a criminal tax. Everyone will need to pay highe rates just so they might have the opportunity to gain some information on potential criminal acts. Genius. Every day, "why not give up this? You might be a little safer because of it... At least after the fact".
-tom
--
"Some people have morals, standards and ideals about quality, but I'm an American: I couldn't care less." --Tony Pierce (paraphrased) | |
| devicenull
Premium
join:2002-12-01
Clifton, NJ
| Why not just.. Encrypt everything? SSH tunnels for IRC, HTTPS for web browsing.. Then they have to go to either you or the party on the other side for the private keys.
And what happens when someone breaks into the ISP's data logs? They have credit card numbers, and personal info from every subscriber there. | |
|
ann_ona_mous
@65.241.x.x
| everyone is guilty The most disturbing thing about the invasion of our movement, is the apathy of those who don't care. The "new" USofA seems to be that WE ARE guilty at all times and the government is "just making sure" that we are actually innocent.
If you as an American don't understand the theory: Innocent until proven guilty. What I would recommend, move to one of the many Turd World dictatorships, please.
The Constitution was created as a restriction of the power that an unchecked government could gain. NOT a grantor of our rights, the founding fathers believed our rights were granted to us by our Creator(God). | |
| Sarge_0321
join:2002-06-27
San Diego, CA | Judge Gonzalez Is this why the U.S. gov is building massive detention facilities? | |
| | 
IT Guy
Ow, My Balls
Premium
join:2004-07-29
Las Cruces, NM
clubs: | Re: Judge Gonzalez Martial law, baby! Break out the OC spray and billy clubs. | |
| Edrick
Premium
join:2004-09-11
Orlando, FL | What next Cameras In Houses? ok so are we going to now have cameras in our house watching our every move? It seems like its hedding that way.
--
Ricky SmithVerizon FIOS User15 Mbit Down 2 Mbit Up | |
| |
Fatal Vector
@sfldmi.ameritech
| Re: What next Cameras In Houses? Big brother is watching. All hail Big Brother! and it's not camersa, it's telescreens. Better check behind your mirrors and AC vents.
Yawn. Another scare mongering story in an attempt to frighten. Is it an election year again? So soon? I smell liberal/democrat scare tactics.
As if the ISP's wouldn't fight something like this tooth and nail not only because of cost, but because it's in their interests to protect their subscribers privacy. I doubt the public would go for it either. | |
| | |
Conker2k
@riv-eres.charterpipe | Re: What next Cameras In Houses? Next thing you know they are going to keep track of what we eat and drink. Sometimes there has to be risks involved. Too much protection is a bad thing. | |
| | |
lyls
@tele.dk | even if such a thing doesnt pass its still a bit unsettling that they are actually pressing forth such insane ideas =(... they'll prolly keep doing it untill it passes | |
| | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| said by Fatal Vector:
Yawn. Another scare mongering story in an attempt to frighten. Is it an election year again? So soon? I smell liberal/democrat scare tactics.
I smell a conservative/republican post here.
Are you for real? This, a liveral/democrat scare tactic? Besides the fact that almost NONE of the congress members read the original patriot act that they signed into law, this has republican scare tactic all over it. If you pay attention to most of the news out there, Democrats largely oppose this extension of the Patriot act.
This act was started by a republican in the first place, so how is this a democrat scare?
As my signature here, let me post the definition from the Federal Government of the patriot act...
"An act to deter and punish terrorist acts in The United States and around the world, to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools, and for other purposes..."
Other purposes?? WTF? Anyone that doesn't understand that the Patriot Act is an erosion of civil liberties is crazy. Anyone that doens't believe that the Patriot Act is not constitutional, in many areas, needs to study the constitution more.
The first act got passed; but it was passed on emotion of the times.. 6 weeks after the 9/11 attacks. The second one? I am sure it will have action groups challenging it in the courts. It will be a political pull and used as a tool to smear the other side politically, however, it will get challenged. There are many reason the first one never got challenged... and also to note, the patrio act HAS been used against people in the U.S. for other reasons that terrorism.... "in the name of law"... | |
|
bent
not broken
Premium
join:2004-10-04
Loveland, CO
clubs: | Isn't This why we have a Supreme Court? To rule on laws that are unconstitutional? | |
| | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: Isn't This why we have a Supreme Court? said by bent :To rule on laws that are unconstitutional? Challenge is not automatic. Someone, or some group has to bring up the challenge. I am sure that round 2 will see the SC. | |
| | |
bent
not broken
Premium
join:2004-10-04
Loveland, CO
clubs: | Re: Isn't This why we have a Supreme Court? God, I hope so.
--
Pura Vida! | |
| raye
Premium
join:2000-08-14
Orange, CA
| Govt is full of lazy asses The individuals at the FBI pushing this must be the same ones who were spying on New Orleans brothels as the planes were smashing into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on 911.
As the article says, NO ISP KEEPS SUCH DETAILED LOGS OF ITS USERS. The only items here are mail and newsgroups and if you host your own mail servers (and do a proper job of securing them) then there is little info gained here.
The Patriot Act already gives them free rein to search premises without a warrant, why is this necessary? | |
| 
DOStradamus
MVM
join:2003-11-04
Santa Rosa, CA
| "Trash your SPAM, Go To PRISON??" This is absurd! I run my own SMTP/POP3 services, and have "boxes" for personal use, business use, some for testing software that send and/or recieve messages, and a few used by friends. Now:
1. Technically, the DOJ's deliusion of granduere has them dreaming of being able just to walk up to me and ask for anything I've recieved or transmitted on ports 26/110 for the last few months. If they are in love with themselves THAT much, someone needs to tell them to go consummate their feelings!
2. 95% of the SPAM aimed at my server is immediately "bounced" by Sendmail, the dozen or so that sneak by are analized to improve my traps, then trashed, similarly for virii, too. Will recycing my spam win me a vacation at Stony Lonesome??
Stupid, unreasonabe un-Constitutional!. I'll just assert my right to be "secure in my person and property", and tell them to go... (see point #1:)!! | |
| | | |
|
|
Watching You