<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>

<rss version="2.0"
 xmlns:blogChannel="http://backend.userland.com/blogChannelModule"
>

<channel>
<title>Topic &#x27;Re: Conyers is my hero&#x27; in forum &#x27;&#x27; - dslreports.com</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Conyers-is-my-hero-20169003</link>
<description></description>
<language>en</language>
<pubDate>Thu, 24 Mar 2022 20:18:58 EDT</pubDate>
<lastBuildDate>Thu, 24 Mar 2022 20:18:58 EDT</lastBuildDate>

<item>
<title>Re: Conyers is my hero</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Conyers-is-my-hero-20180796</link>
<description><![CDATA[buggs1a8 posted : The government is NOT spying on US Citizens as you put it. I get so dang pissed at you people with your ignorant bull crud totally wrong attitudes. They are wiretapping etc on ONLY *suspected* terrorists and conversations to and from the Middle East or any other rogue nation.<br><br>Without this law there is a gap to what we can look into for protecting the US. If phone companies etc will be sued because they cooperate with the Government then they won't help out. Being immune from this possible lawsuit is a good thing because then the Government can access that info. <br><br>This is why the dems are utterly pathetic jerk off mother poopers! They just argue and do stupid stuff. The US governemt is so effed up and so greedy and they all want the power, their way is the only way and they hardly ever agree on anything. They're so dang divided.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Conyers-is-my-hero-20180796</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 17 Mar 2008 18:26:57 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Conyers is my hero</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Conyers-is-my-hero-20177647</link>
<description><![CDATA[morbo posted : <div class="bquote"><small>said by <a href="/profile/594412" onClick="this.blur(); return popup(event,'/uidpop?ajh=1&uid=594412');">FFH5</a>:</small><br><br> Where do you think the term "judicial activism" has come from? <br> </div>from Fox News and the Republican party of course. duh.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Conyers-is-my-hero-20177647</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 17 Mar 2008 07:31:57 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Conyers is my hero</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Conyers-is-my-hero-20176959</link>
<description><![CDATA[woody7 posted : well said guitarzan!<br><small>--<br><br>edit to add " I thought I was alone in this debate. I'm not for destroying the telcos, but more along the lines of not wanting to give up my rights without kicking and screaming. These rights apply to what I have to say, and what the other side has to say. I just can't believe how naive that some people are, and how willing they are to give them up. Peace<br><br>BlooMe</small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Conyers-is-my-hero-20176959</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 17 Mar 2008 00:11:41 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Conyers is my hero</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Conyers-is-my-hero-20176021</link>
<description><![CDATA[amigo_boy posted : <div class="bquote"><small>said by <a href="/profile/1001339" onClick="this.blur(); return popup(event,'/uidpop?ajh=1&uid=1001339');">guitarzan</a>:</small><br><br>How much more can the American people take ... till they're marching on D.C. armed with rifles and demanding their rights to life and liberty?<br> </div>When that happens, say goodbye to the 2nd Amendment.<br><br>Welcome to the irrelevant fringe.<br><br>Mark]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Conyers-is-my-hero-20176021</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 16 Mar 2008 20:55:26 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Conyers is my hero</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Conyers-is-my-hero-20175855</link>
<description><![CDATA[guitarzan posted : <div class="bquote"><small>said by <a href="/profile/218971" onClick="this.blur(); return popup(event,'/uidpop?ajh=1&uid=218971');">woody7</a>:</small><br><br>What part of it is illegal to spy on your own citizens without a warrant( even after the fact:FISA) don't you get?</div> I agree Woody, however examine government  from the fairly recent past. Ruby Ridge, then came Waco our government sent our own military "to save the kids", whether it was a religious cult or not. They were mostly American citizens, burnt to a crisp. <br><br>A Clinton White House showed it was willing to butcher its own citizens.<br><br>Under Bush, no sooner he got in office we got the Twin Tower bombings, the perfect excuse to start war in the Middle East over OIL. Time we stopped kidding ourselves.<br><br>Massive domestic spying. Last but not certainly not least, events after hurricane Katrina. The National Guard was sent in to confiscate ALL firearms from law abiding citizens. <br><br>ALL test and trial balloons to see how much intrusions and infringements government can get away with. They certainly did without having to pay a penalty for their actions. <br><br>The pathetic" if we don't fight the terrorists over there, we'll have to fight them here. News flash, Bush, OVER HERE we have home field advantage. I'd prefer to fight them here with closed borders.<br><br> <div class="bquote"><small>said by <a href="/profile/218971" onClick="this.blur(); return popup(event,'/uidpop?ajh=1&uid=218971');">woody7</a>:</small><br><br>See that is what is great about the document, it still works.  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? </div>Government could NEVER and should never be trusted.<br><br>THE TRUTH & LIES OF 9/11  2 hr 18 min - Jan 1, 2001 <br>&raquo;<A HREF="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8797525979024486145" >video.google.com/videopl &middot;&middot;&middot; 24486145</A><br><br>Please do not let  the title fool you. As it has nothing to do with the bombing of the Twin Towers. No conspiracy theory's, no speculation, just facts explaining how we as a nation came to the state we are in today. This former L.A.P.D narcotics officer explains how corrupt this government is. Especially the Bush Administration's undermining of the Bill of Rights & Constitution, due to the passage of the Patriot act and Homeland security act. <br><br>Both of those acts destroyed more than the 4th Amendment, wiretapping destroyed the 5th Amendment, its gone. Want to honestly know how the 1st Amendment and all others are destroyed? Watch the video. <br><br>Any one who can say this guy is full of it and the facts he presents are lies, then, that person and anyone who defends Bush or any member of government is attempting to brainwash you. Because they themselves are BRAINWASHED and part of the corruption.<br><br><div class="bquote"><small>said by <a href="/profile/218971" onClick="this.blur(); return popup(event,'/uidpop?ajh=1&uid=218971');">woody7</a>:</small><br><br> 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.<br><br>That is the problem,a lot of people, not just "crack pot" liberals care no matter how "insignificant" the violation is.</div>One is a "crack pot" or terrorist, WHEN you oppose Bush, thus the label un-patriotic. <br><br> <div class="bquote"><small>said by <a href="/profile/218971" onClick="this.blur(); return popup(event,'/uidpop?ajh=1&uid=218971');">woody7</a>:</small><br><br>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</div>Not only that, Bush, proved he will go any length necessary to break, undermine all laws and the Constitution itself, like the spoiled little bratty rich kid he is, throwing a temper tantrum, while wandering off on some tangent. <br><br>If Bush & government, is innocent and has nothing to hide. Why all the secrecy and immunity? I can hardly wait to see who Bush pardons on the last day of the job. <br><br><div class="bquote"><small>said by <a href="/profile/218971" onClick="this.blur(); return popup(event,'/uidpop?ajh=1&uid=218971');">woody7</a>:</small><br><br> Those old scraps of paper are what has separated us from most of the other countries for quite a few years. </div>They still could be, IF enough people decide to get off their lazy azz and take our Country back.<br>How much more can the American people take of this stuff till they're marching on D.C. armed with rifles and demanding their rights to life and liberty?<br><small>--<br> It's easier to manipulate non-religious people, Ever hear of Communism?<br>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.</small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Conyers-is-my-hero-20175855</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 16 Mar 2008 20:21:11 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Conyers is my hero</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Conyers-is-my-hero-20175048</link>
<description><![CDATA[amigo_boy posted : <div class="bquote"><small>said by <a href="/profile/187074" onClick="this.blur(); return popup(event,'/uidpop?ajh=1&uid=187074');">ross7</a>:</small><br><br>Still, the court does NOT make the law, it interprets the law.</div>I think that distinction would be lost on the 2k of African Americans lynched between 1866 and 1925 when the Supreme Court first recognized the 14th Amendment's intent (and the intent of to 1866 and 1875 Civil Rights Acts). <br><br><div class="bquote"><small>said by <a href="/profile/187074" onClick="this.blur(); return popup(event,'/uidpop?ajh=1&uid=187074');">ross7</a>:</small><br><br>...and besides, you can't please everyone all the time...<br> </div>Isn't that principle applied to the legislative branch's activities? (Majority versus a minority?).<br><br>Mark]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Conyers-is-my-hero-20175048</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 16 Mar 2008 17:25:13 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Conyers is my hero</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Conyers-is-my-hero-20175030</link>
<description><![CDATA[ross7 posted : <div class="bquote"><small>said by <a href="/profile/1236971" onClick="this.blur(); return popup(event,'/uidpop?ajh=1&uid=1236971');">amigo_boy</a>:</small><br><br>You omitted when precedent exists and they ignore it, or reverse it. Brown v Board (segregation) is a good example. Also the first cases involving the 14th Amendment's applicability of the BoR to State and private infringement (after 60 years of reaffirming Slaughterhouse, et. al.).<br><br>It's a bit arbitrary how they do that.<br><br>Which is a lot like creating law. If they allow a law today, and strike it down 50 years from now, reversing or ignoring the very precedent they used to allow the law in the first place, it's just as arbitrary (and powerful) as 500 politicians voting for/against a law.<br><br>Mark<br> </div>While you may say it "is a lot <i>like</i> creating law", it is NOT the SAME THING.<br><br>As you may have noticed, justice is often portrayed as both blind and a woman. Hence, while it may seem arbitrary and capricious from time to time, somewhere divine orderliness must be conserved.<br><br>Still, the court does NOT make the law, it interprets the law. The filters which constitute the sieve of justice may not be so finely wrought that they do not occasionally pass the out-sized ordure, or with great difficulty expel it only after some duly respectful period has intervened and softened its impact<strike>edness</strike>.<br><br>...and besides, you can't please everyone all the time...]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Conyers-is-my-hero-20175030</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 16 Mar 2008 17:20:43 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Conyers is my hero</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Conyers-is-my-hero-20174527</link>
<description><![CDATA[amigo_boy posted : <div class="bquote"><small>said by <a href="/profile/187074" onClick="this.blur(); return popup(event,'/uidpop?ajh=1&uid=187074');">ross7</a>:</small><br><br>its own rulings if precedent exists, </div>You omitted when precedent exists and they ignore it, or reverse it. Brown v Board (segregation) is a good example. Also the first cases involving the 14th Amendment's applicability of the BoR to State and private infringement (after 60 years of reaffirming Slaughterhouse, et. al.).<br><br>It's a bit arbitrary how they do that.<br><br><div class="bquote"><small>said by <a href="/profile/187074" onClick="this.blur(); return popup(event,'/uidpop?ajh=1&uid=187074');">ross7</a>:</small><br><br>and decides if the law may stand, or should be struck down.<br> </div>Which is a lot like creating law. If they allow a law today, and strike it down 50 years from now, reversing or ignoring the very precedent they used to allow the law in the first place, it's just as arbitrary (and powerful) as 500 politicians voting for/against a law.<br><br>Mark]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Conyers-is-my-hero-20174527</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 16 Mar 2008 15:17:02 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Conyers is my hero</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Conyers-is-my-hero-20174465</link>
<description><![CDATA[ross7 posted : <div class="bquote"><small>said by <a href="/profile/594412" onClick="this.blur(); return popup(event,'/uidpop?ajh=1&uid=594412');">FFH5</a>:</small><br><br>...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? <br> </div>"Judicial activism" is a phrase born of hallucination, conjured up by right-wing wackos to describe the process whereby their periodic attempts to pervert and subvert our Constitution, abridge our civil rights, and privatize the public treasury are dashed asunder upon the inhospitable shores of bedrock reason (as pitiably constituted by the current USSC), and are thus dissipated and pacified.  :D The religio-righteous warrior's unbearable frustration has given rise to the term "judicial activism", to be used as a verbal shillelagh with which to beat the unsuspecting common man into mindless submission to their twisted will. ;)<br><br>For your review:<br><br>1) Laws are written and passed by the legislative branch, then passed along to the...<br>2) Executive branch, where laws are approved or disapproved...signed or vetoed.<br>3) If controversy over the interpretation, implementation or enforcement of a law occurs, the Judicial branch reviews and rules upon the facts of the case before them, taking into account our founding documents explicit, and implicit, language, as well as the legislative history, or purpose of the law as originally stated by legislative branch, its own  rulings if precedent exists, and decides if the law may stand, or should be struck down.<br><br>Or, at least that's the way it used to work before mein fuhrer, the chimp, took over...now <strike>we</strike> he just makes them up as he sees fit...depending on whether he is a decider that day, or the commander in chief, or a make believe pilot, or...a farmer, or a fireman, or just a good ol' boy slammin one down at the local bar with his friends, er, ah, u know, me and you, hiyuckyuckyuck!  :huh:]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Conyers-is-my-hero-20174465</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 16 Mar 2008 14:59:48 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Conyers is my hero</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Conyers-is-my-hero-20174269</link>
<description><![CDATA[FFH5 posted : <div class="bquote"><small>said by <a href="/profile/1236971" onClick="this.blur(); return popup(event,'/uidpop?ajh=1&uid=1236971');">amigo_boy</a>:</small><br><br><div class="bquote"><small>said by <a href="/profile/614772" onClick="this.blur(); return popup(event,'/uidpop?ajh=1&uid=614772');">jc10098</a>:</small><br><br>The Court these days worries too much about politics and partisanism and too little about the issues.<br> </div>Soon after Justice Douglas's appointment in 1939, Chief Justice Hughes gave the newcomer some surprising advice: <br><br><blockquote>"You must remember one thing. At the constitutional level where we work, ninety percent of any decision is emotional. The rational part of us supplies the reasons for supporting our own predilections."</blockquote><br><br>Mason, William O. Douglas: A Justice for All, Wash. Post (Book World), Nov. 2, 1980, at 1, col. 1. <br><br>Mark<br> </div>I had a Federal Judge for a teacher in Business Law in the MBA program I took. And he said basically the same thing - that most judges make a decision that they personally consider fair, and then look for legal precedent to back their personal decision. They don't enforce the law - they make it up as they go along. And there are so MANY conflicting laws and regulations that they can usually find something to back their personal decisions.<br><small>--<br><A HREF="http://tinyurl.com/bqv2h"><b>My BLOG ..</b></a><A HREF="http://tinyurl.com/2a9xcb"><i> .. Internet News ..</i></a><A HREF="http://tinyurl.com/yz8xto"><b> .. My Web Page</b></a></small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Conyers-is-my-hero-20174269</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 16 Mar 2008 14:11:23 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Conyers is my hero</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Conyers-is-my-hero-20174215</link>
<description><![CDATA[amigo_boy posted : <div class="bquote"><small>said by <a href="/profile/614772" onClick="this.blur(); return popup(event,'/uidpop?ajh=1&uid=614772');">jc10098</a>:</small><br><br>The Court these days worries too much about politics and partisanism and too little about the issues.<br> </div>Soon after Justice Douglas's appointment in 1939, Chief Justice Hughes gave the newcomer some surprising advice: <br><br><blockquote>"You must remember one thing. At the constitutional level where we work, ninety percent of any decision is emotional. The rational part of us supplies the reasons for supporting our own predilections."</blockquote><br><br>Mason, William O. Douglas: A Justice for All, Wash. Post (Book World), Nov. 2, 1980, at 1, col. 1. <br><br>Mark]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Conyers-is-my-hero-20174215</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 16 Mar 2008 14:01:04 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Conyers is my hero</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Conyers-is-my-hero-20174172</link>
<description><![CDATA[amigo_boy posted : <div class="bquote"><small>said by <a href="/profile/614772" onClick="this.blur(); return popup(event,'/uidpop?ajh=1&uid=614772');">jc10098</a>:</small><br><br>The Court these days worries too much about politics and partisanism and too little about the issues.<br> </div>With every ruling their will be winners and losers. Those who win will say "finally! The SC did the right thing instead of following their personal preferences." The losers will say "these days they worry too much about partisan politics."<br><br>It's been that way since 1791.<br><br>Mark]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Conyers-is-my-hero-20174172</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 16 Mar 2008 13:52:21 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Conyers is my hero</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Conyers-is-my-hero-20174072</link>
<description><![CDATA[amigo_boy posted : <div class="bquote"><small>said by <a href="/profile/614772" onClick="this.blur(); return popup(event,'/uidpop?ajh=1&uid=614772');">jc10098</a>:</small><br><br>the Bill of Rights was setup to grant state rights and federal rights.<br> </div>I'll let Ross handle this since he seems to be so picky about historic accuracy.<br><br>Mark]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Conyers-is-my-hero-20174072</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 16 Mar 2008 13:28:13 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Conyers is my hero</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Conyers-is-my-hero-20174019</link>
<description><![CDATA[amigo_boy posted : <div class="bquote"><small>said by <a href="/profile/187074" onClick="this.blur(); return popup(event,'/uidpop?ajh=1&uid=187074');">ross7</a>:</small><br><br>The right to privacy is implicit in the language of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution,</div>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.<br><br>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).<br><br>Therefore, it's perfectly true to say rights "contract." By creating the Federal government their rights contracted. <br><br>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). <br><br>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. <br><br>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).<br><br><div class="bquote"><small>said by <a href="/profile/187074" onClick="this.blur(); return popup(event,'/uidpop?ajh=1&uid=187074');">ross7</a>:</small><br><br>but was further codified in the Privacy Act of 1974 </div>"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?<br><br><div class="bquote"><small>said by <a href="/profile/187074" onClick="this.blur(); return popup(event,'/uidpop?ajh=1&uid=187074');">ross7</a>:</small><br><br>Bottom line, the founding fathers never expected that any rights would need to "contract" as you put it. <br> </div>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.). <br><br>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.<br><br>I appreciate your passion. But, passion often gets in the way of truth. <br><br>Mark]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Conyers-is-my-hero-20174019</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 16 Mar 2008 13:20:12 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Conyers is my hero</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Conyers-is-my-hero-20173233</link>
<description><![CDATA[jc10098 posted : 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.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Conyers-is-my-hero-20173233</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 16 Mar 2008 10:18:17 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Conyers is my hero</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Conyers-is-my-hero-20173144</link>
<description><![CDATA[FFH5 posted : <div class="bquote"><small>said by <a href="/profile/187074" onClick="this.blur(); return popup(event,'/uidpop?ajh=1&uid=187074');">ross7</a>:</small><br><br> Even <i>you</i> should know the U.S. Supreme Court doesn't make the law, it merely interprets the law.  </div>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? <br><small>--<br><A HREF="http://tinyurl.com/bqv2h"><b>My BLOG ..</b></a><A HREF="http://tinyurl.com/2a9xcb"><i> .. Internet News ..</i></a><A HREF="http://tinyurl.com/yz8xto"><b> .. My Web Page</b></a></small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Conyers-is-my-hero-20173144</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 16 Mar 2008 09:54:54 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Conyers is my hero</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Conyers-is-my-hero-20172790</link>
<description><![CDATA[ross7 posted : <div class="bquote"><small>said by <a href="/profile/1236971" onClick="this.blur(); return popup(event,'/uidpop?ajh=1&uid=1236971');">amigo_boy</a>:</small><br><br><div class="bquote"><small>said by <a href="/profile/198350" onClick="this.blur(); return popup(event,'/uidpop?ajh=1&uid=198350');">joako</a>:</small><br><br>The bill of rights was written hundreds of years ago and no longer applies to modern times.<br> </div>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.<br><br>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.<br><br>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.).<br><br>Mark<br> </div>Again with the bullshit pseudo history! Even <i>you</i> 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.<br><br>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.<br><br>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.<br><br>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.<br><br>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". ]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Conyers-is-my-hero-20172790</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 16 Mar 2008 05:23:23 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Conyers is my hero</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Conyers-is-my-hero-20172730</link>
<description><![CDATA[jc10098 posted : 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.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Conyers-is-my-hero-20172730</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 16 Mar 2008 04:10:02 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Conyers is my hero</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Conyers-is-my-hero-20172410</link>
<description><![CDATA[woody7 posted : "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.<br>Exactly what law-abiding American has been affected? NONE"<br><br>And you have what proof of that?<br><br>What part of it is illegal to spy on your own citizens without a warrant( even after the fact:FISA) don't you get? <br><br>"Times have changed. The bill of rights was written hundreds of years ago and no longer applies to modern times."<br><br>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? <br><br>"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.<br><br>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.<br><br>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. <br><br>Those old scraps of paper are what has separated us from most of the other countries for quite a few years. <br><small>--<br>BlooMe</small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Conyers-is-my-hero-20172410</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 16 Mar 2008 01:14:27 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Conyers is my hero</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Conyers-is-my-hero-20172256</link>
<description><![CDATA[guitarzan posted : After the statement made below, how can anyone trust this liar? <br>Know how he is lying? His lips are moving.<br><br>F.B.I. Head Admits Mistakes in Use of Security Act<br><br>&raquo;<A HREF="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/10/washington/10fbi.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin" >www.nytimes.com/2007/03/ &middot;&middot;&middot; f=slogin</A><br><br>  <blockquote><small>quote:</small><hr>WASHINGTON, March 9 &#151; 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.<hr></blockquote><br><br><div class="bquote"><small>said by <a href="/profile/1447722" onClick="this.blur(); return popup(event,'/uidpop?ajh=1&uid=1447722');">supergirl</a>:</small><br><br>I don't get the big issue of all this. Maybe change the FISA court to conform with the new threat. <br><br>Exactly what law-abiding American has been affected? NONE. <br></div>Try more than NONE there honey, Bottom line. I doubt the F.B.I and NSA know how many people has been affected themselves. <br><br>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. <br><br>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. <br><br> Report: FBI abuse of investigative tool continued in 2006 <small>quote:</small><hr>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.<br><br>FBI Director Robert Mueller testifes about oversight before a Senate committee last week.<br><br>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."<br><br>But a top department official said significant progress has been made in the past year toward correcting those errors.<br><br>Inspector General Glenn Fine said it's too soon to tell if the problems will be eliminated.<hr></blockquote><br><br>FBI Violations May Number 3,000, Official Says<br>&raquo;<A HREF="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/20/AR2007032000921.html" >www.washingtonpost.com/w &middot;&middot;&middot; 921.html</A><br><br>  <blockquote><small>quote:</small><hr>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.<br><br>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.<hr></blockquote><br><br>FBI again admits privacy abuses with National Security Letters<br>By Bill Freivogel<br>03/06/2008 3:30 pm <small>quote:</small><hr>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.<br><br>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&#146;s Inspector General.<br><br>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.<hr></blockquote><br><br>&raquo;<A HREF="http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gxSQM-Pj5GvDDx_r9HNZvtF6JAGgD8V7R6S01" >ap.google.com/article/AL &middot;&middot;&middot; 8V7R6S01</A><br><br>More FBI Privacy Violations Confirmed<br><br>By LARA JAKES JORDAN &#150; Mar 6, 2008<br><br>  <blockquote><small>quote:</small><hr>WASHINGTON (AP) &#151; 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.<br><br>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.<br><br>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.<br><br>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.<hr></blockquote><br><br>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.<br><br>Gee guys, what was the final tally of the war on drugs?<br>How is the war on terrorism going? When our borders are still left wide open.<br><br>How long has the war in Iraq been dragging on? Still no body of bin laden to show for it?<br><br>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? <br><br>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, <br>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) <br><br>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.<br><br>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?  <br><br>When questioned what language those bills contained. The common response house and senate members gave was: <u>"I didn't have time to read it"</u> <br><br>So no one had the time to take to read what the bill contained. Yet they passed it. <br><br>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.<br><br>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. <br><small>--<br> It's easier to manipulate non-religious people, Ever hear of Communism?<br>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.</small><!-- 20172256  HASH(0xac949f0)   --><div class="borderless"><TABLE WIDTH=96% align=center border=0 CELLPADDING=4"><TR><TD ALIGN=CENTER VALIGN=MIDDLE COLSPAN=3 WIDTH=100%><A HREF="/speak/slideshow/20172256?c=1286971&ret=64urlL2ZvcnVtL3IyMDE3MzIzMy54bWw"><IMG class="apic" id="p15985" TITLE="46422 bytes" BORDER=0 SRC="/r0/download/1286971~38c1431a5be1973aa3caeb9b371c3f2f/Robert%20S.%20Mueller%20III,%20the%20F.B.I.%20director.jpg"></A></TD></TABLE></div>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Conyers-is-my-hero-20172256</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 16 Mar 2008 00:27:33 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Conyers is my hero</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Conyers-is-my-hero-20171656</link>
<description><![CDATA[Noah Vail posted : If I can get a law into the US code mandating your castration, will you support it?<br><br>Laws that permit evil, are wrong.  Emerson prescribed civil disobedience.  It's worth a look.<br><br>NV<br><small>--<br>Abortion: A Republican Plot to Thin the Liberal Herd.</small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Conyers-is-my-hero-20171656</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 15 Mar 2008 21:45:17 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Conyers is my hero</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Conyers-is-my-hero-20171375</link>
<description><![CDATA[amigo_boy posted : <div class="bquote"><small>said by <a href="/profile/198350" onClick="this.blur(); return popup(event,'/uidpop?ajh=1&uid=198350');">joako</a>:</small><br><br>The bill of rights was written hundreds of years ago and no longer applies to modern times.<br> </div>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.<br><br>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.<br><br>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.).<br><br>Mark]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Conyers-is-my-hero-20171375</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 15 Mar 2008 20:36:36 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Conyers is my hero</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Conyers-is-my-hero-20171298</link>
<description><![CDATA[joako posted : <div class="bquote"><small>said by <a href="/profile/594412" onClick="this.blur(); return popup(event,'/uidpop?ajh=1&uid=594412');">FFH5</a>:</small><br><br>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.<br> </div>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.<br><small>--<br>09:F9:11:02:9D:74:E3:5B:D8:41:56:C5:63:56:88:C0</small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Conyers-is-my-hero-20171298</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 15 Mar 2008 20:20:14 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Conyers is my hero</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Conyers-is-my-hero-20171010</link>
<description><![CDATA[amigo_boy posted : <div class="bquote"><small>said by <a href="/profile/1519232" onClick="this.blur(); return popup(event,'/uidpop?ajh=1&uid=1519232');">28655376</a>:</small><br><br>I think the fact he hasn't been charged with anything or fined anything is pretty compelling.  </div>It may be as simple as the government wanting to keep a low profile and avoid explaining their surveillance. <br><br>Mark]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Conyers-is-my-hero-20171010</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 15 Mar 2008 19:17:20 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Conyers is my hero</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Conyers-is-my-hero-20170987</link>
<description><![CDATA[28655376 posted : I find it interesting that the testimony you link to is about the Deputy AG saying he didn't feel he could re-certify the program.<br><br>There's also:<br><br><div class="bquote">with respect to which the person has been furnished</div>It can easily be argued that he was unaware of such an order or certification <b>due to the great lengths AT&T went to keep it hidden</b>.<br><br>I think the fact he hasn't been charged with anything or fined anything is pretty compelling. If the government that doesn't bat an eye at locking up enemy combatants without trial isn't going after him, perhaps they don't have a case.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Conyers-is-my-hero-20170987</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 15 Mar 2008 19:12:58 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Conyers is my hero</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Conyers-is-my-hero-20170955</link>
<description><![CDATA[amigo_boy posted : <div class="bquote"><small>said by <a href="/profile/1519232" onClick="this.blur(); return popup(event,'/uidpop?ajh=1&uid=1519232');">28655376</a>:</small><br><br>Now, point us to the certification under the chapter which this program was made.<br> </div>Comey's testimony makes it clear it was certified prior to Ashcroft's surgery. &raquo;<A HREF="http://thinkprogress.org/comey-testimony/" >thinkprogress.org/comey- &middot;&middot;&middot; stimony/</A><br><br>Mark]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Conyers-is-my-hero-20170955</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 15 Mar 2008 19:06:20 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Conyers is my hero</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Conyers-is-my-hero-20170928</link>
<description><![CDATA[28655376 posted : Ah, you're not reading the whole thing.<br><br><div class="bquote">device used to accomplish the interception or surveillance with respect <b>to which the person has been furnished a court order or certification under this chapter</b></div>Now, we know the AT&T surveillance room wasn't a result of a court order, so there goes that part of the argument.<br><br>Now, point us to the certification under the chapter which this program was made.<br><br>Oh wait, it wasn't.  This was a secret deal between the government and AT&T.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Conyers-is-my-hero-20170928</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 15 Mar 2008 19:01:33 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Conyers is my hero</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Conyers-is-my-hero-20170835</link>
<description><![CDATA[amigo_boy posted : <div class="bquote"><small>said by <a href="/profile/1376598" onClick="this.blur(); return popup(event,'/uidpop?ajh=1&uid=1376598');">swhx7</a>:</small><br><br>in defense of the rule of law,<br> </div>Why are those impassioned with "defense of the rule of law" ignoring 18 USC 2511 (2)(a)(ii)? That law holds Klein to the same standard the government is being held to.<br><br><blockquote>"No provider of wire or electronic communication service, officer, employee, or agent thereof, or landlord, custodian, or other specified person shall disclose the existence of any interception or surveillance or the device used to accomplish the interception or surveillance with respect to which the person has been furnished a court order or certification under this chapter, except as may otherwise be required by legal process and then only after prior notification to the Attorney General or to the principal prosecuting attorney of a State or any political subdivision of a State, as may be appropriate. Any such disclosure, shall render such person liable for the civil damages provided for in section 2520. "</blockquote><br><br>Mark]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Conyers-is-my-hero-20170835</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 15 Mar 2008 18:41:02 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Conyers is my hero</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Conyers-is-my-hero-20170820</link>
<description><![CDATA[amigo_boy posted : <div class="bquote"><small>said by <a href="/profile/218971" onClick="this.blur(); return popup(event,'/uidpop?ajh=1&uid=218971');">woody7</a>:</small><br><br>why it is ok to snoop on americans in this country without the proper subpoenas </div>It may not be ok. But,   18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(a)(ii)(B) & 2702(a)(3) & (c) don't require a warrant.<br><br>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?<br><br>Mark]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Conyers-is-my-hero-20170820</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 15 Mar 2008 18:36:44 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Conyers is my hero</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Conyers-is-my-hero-20170563</link>
<description><![CDATA[81399672 posted : Understand one thing, teleco is not getting their immunity regardless how much you or bush administration demand it. You can support teleco all you want, but in the end they will be found liable in civil court and ordered to billion of dollars in compensation.<br><small>--<br>i am not a lawyer but I do play one on the internet</small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Conyers-is-my-hero-20170563</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 15 Mar 2008 17:42:50 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Conyers is my hero</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Conyers-is-my-hero-20170251</link>
<description><![CDATA[supergirl posted : <div class="bquote"><small>said by <a href="/profile/218971" onClick="this.blur(); return popup(event,'/uidpop?ajh=1&uid=218971');">woody7</a>:</small><br><br>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.<br> </div>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.<br><br>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.<br><br>Exactly what law-abiding American has been affected? NONE. <br><br>Give the Telecoms immunity if only the gov't is doing the spying not their employees.<br><small>--<br>Saving the world keeps me busy. However, I find Earth very primitive from my home planet of Krypton.<br>-Supergirl</small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Conyers-is-my-hero-20170251</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 15 Mar 2008 16:27:38 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Conyers is my hero</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Conyers-is-my-hero-20170181</link>
<description><![CDATA[woody7 posted : 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<br><small>--<br>BlooMe</small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Conyers-is-my-hero-20170181</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 15 Mar 2008 16:12:03 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Conyers is my hero</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Conyers-is-my-hero-20170080</link>
<description><![CDATA[tc1uscg posted : <div class="bquote"><small>said by <a href="/profile/218971" onClick="this.blur(); return popup(event,'/uidpop?ajh=1&uid=218971');">woody7</a>:</small><br><br>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.<br> </div>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.  :D]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Conyers-is-my-hero-20170080</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 15 Mar 2008 15:45:10 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Conyers is my hero</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Conyers-is-my-hero-20169942</link>
<description><![CDATA[Noah Vail posted : <div class="bquote"><small>said by <a href="/profile/594412" onClick="this.blur(); return popup(event,'/uidpop?ajh=1&uid=594412');">FFH5</a>:</small><br><br>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.</div>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.<br><br>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?<br><br>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.<br><br>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?<br><br>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.<br><br>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.<br><br>Frankly, you've become a bit of a tease and it's starting to piss people off.<br><br>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.<br><br>NV<br><small>--<br>Abortion: A Republican Plot to Thin the Liberal Herd.</small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Conyers-is-my-hero-20169942</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 15 Mar 2008 15:06:14 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Conyers is my hero</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Conyers-is-my-hero-20169626</link>
<description><![CDATA[jc10098 posted : 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.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Conyers-is-my-hero-20169626</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 15 Mar 2008 13:47:55 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Conyers is my hero</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Conyers-is-my-hero-20169517</link>
<description><![CDATA[FFH5 posted : <div class="bquote"><small>said by <a href="/profile/218971" onClick="this.blur(); return popup(event,'/uidpop?ajh=1&uid=218971');">woody7</a>:</small><br><br>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.<br> </div>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.<br><small>--<br><A HREF="http://tinyurl.com/bqv2h"><b>My BLOG ..</b></a><A HREF="http://tinyurl.com/2a9xcb"><i> .. Internet News ..</i></a><A HREF="http://tinyurl.com/yz8xto"><b> .. My Web Page</b></a></small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Conyers-is-my-hero-20169517</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 15 Mar 2008 13:22:22 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Conyers is my hero</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Conyers-is-my-hero-20169477</link>
<description><![CDATA[woody7 posted : 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.<br><small>--<br>BlooMe</small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Conyers-is-my-hero-20169477</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 15 Mar 2008 13:13:19 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Conyers is my hero</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Conyers-is-my-hero-20169279</link>
<description><![CDATA[TScheisskopf posted : When they finally get around to draining the Porta-Pottie that is this administration, they are gonna find some really shocking things hiding in the tank.<br><br>One of their goals will be accomplished, however: The Legacy of Nixon will be rehabilitated, albeit by The Law of Unintended Effects.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Conyers-is-my-hero-20169279</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 15 Mar 2008 12:20:26 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Conyers is my hero</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Conyers-is-my-hero-20169273</link>
<description><![CDATA[FFH5 posted : <div class="bquote"><small>said by <a href="/profile/787085" onClick="this.blur(); return popup(event,'/uidpop?ajh=1&uid=787085');">firephoto</a>:</small><br><br>No, it's too much to understand for simple minded folk. No worries if the gov't listens to them <b>talking about nascar and the new hooters waitress</b>.<br> </div>Or reading posts like this.<br><small>--<br><A HREF="http://tinyurl.com/bqv2h"><b>My BLOG ..</b></a><A HREF="http://tinyurl.com/2a9xcb"><i> .. Internet News ..</i></a><A HREF="http://tinyurl.com/yz8xto"><b> .. My Web Page</b></a></small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Conyers-is-my-hero-20169273</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 15 Mar 2008 12:19:33 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Conyers is my hero</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Conyers-is-my-hero-20169250</link>
<description><![CDATA[firephoto posted : <div class="bquote"><small>said by <a href="/profile/1519232" onClick="this.blur(); return popup(event,'/uidpop?ajh=1&uid=1519232');">28655376</a>:</small><br><br>Doesn't it bother even the most hardcore Bush supporters that <b>everything</b> is a state secret and a matter of national security?<br></div>No, it's too much to understand for simple minded folk. No worries if the gov't listens to them talking about nascar and the new hooters waitress.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Conyers-is-my-hero-20169250</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 15 Mar 2008 12:15:36 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Conyers is my hero</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Conyers-is-my-hero-20169148</link>
<description><![CDATA[swhx7 posted : Posted by Scuttlebutt on Slashdot today:<br><br> <blockquote><small>quote:</small><hr>As impressive as the House vote itself was, more impressive still was the floor debate which preceded it. ... One Democrat after the next -- of all stripes -- delivered impassioned, defiant speeches in defense of the rule of law, oversight on presidential eavesdropping, and safeguards on government spying. They swatted away the GOP's fear-mongering claims with the dismissive contempt such tactics deserve, rejecting the principle that has predominated political debate in this country since 9/11: that the threat of the Terrorists means we must live under the rule of an omnipotent President and a dismantled constitutional framework.<hr></blockquote>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Conyers-is-my-hero-20169148</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 15 Mar 2008 11:53:36 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Conyers is my hero</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Conyers-is-my-hero-20169022</link>
<description><![CDATA[FFH5 posted : <div class="bquote"><small>said by <a href="/profile/1519232" onClick="this.blur(); return popup(event,'/uidpop?ajh=1&uid=1519232');">28655376</a>:</small><br><br>Agreed. Finally showing some backbone.<br><br>Doesn't it bother even the most hardcore Bush supporters that <b>everything</b> is a state secret and a matter of national security?<br><br>His stonewalling tactics make Nixon look like a Boy Scout.<br> </div>NO<br><small>--<br><A HREF="http://tinyurl.com/bqv2h"><b>My BLOG ..</b></a><A HREF="http://tinyurl.com/2a9xcb"><i> .. Internet News ..</i></a><A HREF="http://tinyurl.com/yz8xto"><b> .. My Web Page</b></a></small>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Conyers-is-my-hero-20169022</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 15 Mar 2008 11:28:05 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
