Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
This stuff is legal and has been going on for a long time.
The authority comes from F.I.S.A. http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/ |
#2
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
It's legal when a court order is obtained, even ex post facto. That
Bush did not even seek it after the fact is suspect. He has the same legal team that tells him that indefinitely holding people without charges is fine, and that America does not have to follow the Geneva or Hague conventions, advising him on this one. |
#3
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message oups.com... It's legal when a court order is obtained, even ex post facto. That Bush did not even seek it after the fact is suspect. The President has the power to order wiretaps without warrants, this is a matter of settled law. This was in fact argued before Congress by one of the Clinton legal team, so it's not new. Then there's the law passed after 9/11 that gave the President the power to anything he sees fit to prevent further terrorist acts. He has the same legal team that tells him that indefinitely holding people without charges is fine, and that America does not have to follow the Geneva or Hague conventions, advising him on this one. The Genevea Convention only applies to members of the military, which country does Al Quaeda fight for? As to holding the terroroists indefinitely that power has also been challenged in court and the President won. |
#4
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
The insurgency in Iraq has some elements of Al Quaeda in it, no doubt.
Some insurgents are no different than the French Resistance in World War II. Some are probably just having fun. F.I.S.A. deals with foreign, not domestic, intelligence. NSA deals with foreign, not domestic, intelligence. I would like to see the 'settled law' that allows the President to authorize domestic wiretaps without a court order. Can you please provide it? As for the Geneva Convention, I am quite sure that someone as well-versed as you appear to be is aware that several uniformed Iraqi and Afghani soldiers that were captured by US forces, including a Brigadier General, have died in US custody. The Brigadier General (as I recall) died of asphyxiation (or was it a traumatic chest injury?). |
#5
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message ups.com... The insurgency in Iraq has some elements of Al Quaeda in it, no doubt. Some insurgents are no different than the French Resistance in World War II. Some are probably just having fun. F.I.S.A. deals with foreign, not domestic, intelligence. NSA deals with foreign, not domestic, intelligence. I would like to see the 'settled law' that allows the President to authorize domestic wiretaps without a court order. Can you please provide it? I'll see if I can find more detail. The phone calls that were being monitored were made to or came from other countries and were to suspected terrorists. Those computers they find in Iraq and other places have phone numbers, those are the ones being monitored, at least as far as I am aware. Settled law was possibly a bad choice of words, but it is not without precedent. It has been done by many other presidents. As for the Geneva Convention, I am quite sure that someone as well-versed as you appear to be is aware that several uniformed Iraqi and Afghani soldiers that were captured by US forces, including a Brigadier General, have died in US custody. The Brigadier General (as I recall) died of asphyxiation (or was it a traumatic chest injury?). As far as I am aware of the prisoners we have from Afghanistan and Iraq are being treated well. Inpsections have been carried out by human rights groups and AFAICR they have not had any serious complaints. I don't know any details about any uniformed personel. If yo can point me to some info, I'd be interested. |
#6
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I have no issue with suspected terrorists having their phones tapped. I
can also understand that it may need to be done immediately. I believe that's why there's a policy in place that allows for court orders after the fact. Here are a couple of references regarding POW treatment: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2005Mar25.html This one deals with Amnesty International's take on the treatment of POWs: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3100027.stm While this one may help explain why you don't hear more from human rights groups: http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nat...ck=1&cset=true And this one refers to the Major General (my mistake, I said Brigadier General) that I mentioned: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004May27.html I am of the opinion that when the top official and his administration are manipulating information and shading fine lines of grey between right and wrong, those attitudes tend to 'trickle down' to their subordinates much like certain corrupt economic theories are supposed to. The buck, after all, stops at his desk. |
#7
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message ups.com... The insurgency in Iraq has some elements of Al Quaeda in it, no doubt. Some insurgents are no different than the French Resistance in World War II. Some are probably just having fun. F.I.S.A. deals with foreign, not domestic, intelligence. NSA deals with foreign, not domestic, intelligence. I would like to see the 'settled law' that allows the President to authorize domestic wiretaps without a court order. Can you please provide it? Here's what I've found so far: From the New York Sun: http://www.nysun.com/article/24610 Beyond the Fourth Amendment, the law that is said to restrict the Bush administration's activities is the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. But, contrary to what you may read in some other newspapers, that law does not require that all such surveillance be authorized by a court. The law provides at least two special exceptions to the requirement of a court order. As FISA has been integrated into Title 50 of the U.S. Code, Chapter 36, Subchapter I, Section 1802, one such provision is helpfully headed, "Electronic surveillance authorization without court order." This "without court order" was so clear that even President Carter, a Democrat not known for his vigilance in the war on terror, issued an executive order on May 23, 1979, stating, "Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order." He said, "without a court order." Now, Section 1802 does impose some conditions, including that "there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party." But the law defines "United States person" somewhat narrowly, so that it would not include illegal aliens or, arguably, those who fraudulently obtained legal status. And if Section 1802 isn't enough, regard section 1811 of the same subchapter of the United States Code, "Authorization during time of war." It states, "Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days following a declaration of war by the Congress." Again, mark the phrase, "without a court order." From Slate :http://www.slate.com/id/2070287/ The Fourth Amendment guarantees that "the right ... against unreasonable searches and seizures . shall not be violated." Two hundred years of case law and Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 provide that if the government wants to eavesdrop on your conversations or search your possessions for the purposes of bringing criminal charges, it must first provide a judge or magistrate with evidence of "probable cause" that a crime has been committed. No probable cause, no wiretap, no warrant, and no quickie search just for the fun of it. The exception to this principle arises with respect to presidential authority and national security. Presidents from Roosevelt to Bush have asserted the constitutional right to authorize surveillance without a warrant, where national security-as opposed to crime control-is at issue. Courts generally agreed, and it wasn't until after Richard Nixon gave a whole new meaning to both surveillance and national security that Congress, in 1978, enacted the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, allowing the executive branch to still conduct surveillance and searches for foreign security purposes, but only subject to the oversight of a supersecret FISA "spy court." First mistake: ensuring presidential openness and transparency by creating a secret court. The FISA court permits warrantless government surveillance so long as the primary purpose is to obtain foreign intelligence information. Under FISA, the government needn't show probable cause that a crime has occurred; FISA surveillance orders are valid for 90 days as opposed to 30 days for ordinary search warrants; the target of surveillance is never advised of this surveillance; and the application itself and supporting affidavits are filed under seal so that neither the target nor his attorney can ever see the allegations against him. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court is comprised of 11 federal district court judges secretly selected by the chief justice of the United States. These judges preside in a secret windowless courtroom, behind elaborately locked doors on the top floor of the Department of Justice on Washington's Pennsylvania Avenue NW. James Bond, Austin Powers, and Underdog take turns guarding the door. Following Sept. 11, Congress scrambled to enact legislation to prevent future terrorism. In the six weeks lawmakers gave themselves to enact the USA Patriot Act, they had just enough time to rubber-stamp John Ashcroft's Christmas wish list with scant scrutiny of the legal necessity or constitutionality of his myriad requests. That flapping noise we are now hearing about secret courts is the sound of these chickens coming home to roost. The Patriot Act amended FISA so that foreign intelligence gathering need no longer be the "primary" purpose of the surveillance, so long as it's a "significant purpose." In other words, thanks to the Patriot Act, the primary purpose for a warrantless FISA wiretap or search can now be evidence collection for criminal prosecution or the fact that someone just looks kind of creepy. As for the Geneva Convention, I am quite sure that someone as well-versed as you appear to be is aware that several uniformed Iraqi and Afghani soldiers that were captured by US forces, including a Brigadier General, have died in US custody. The Brigadier General (as I recall) died of asphyxiation (or was it a traumatic chest injury?). |
#8
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message oups.com... I have no issue with suspected terrorists having their phones tapped. I can also understand that it may need to be done immediately. I believe that's why there's a policy in place that allows for court orders after the fact. Here are a couple of references regarding POW treatment: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2005Mar25.html This one deals with Amnesty International's take on the treatment of POWs: I also note that the fact that such a story appears at all, demonstrates that the system is working and that people who do wrong can be discovered through the government's own resources. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3100027.stm Sorry, but the BBC is not a relaible source IMO. While this one may help explain why you don't hear more from human rights groups: http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nat...ck=1&cset=true And this one refers to the Major General (my mistake, I said Brigadier General) that I mentioned: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004May27.html I am of the opinion that when the top official and his administration are manipulating information and shading fine lines of grey between right and wrong, those attitudes tend to 'trickle down' to their subordinates much like certain corrupt economic theories are supposed to. The buck, after all, stops at his desk. Then you must be waitnig anxiously for the Barret report, which is said to show numerous abuses by the previous administration and how they, unlike any other administration, were able to use the IRS for abuse. |
#9
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Logical construct: Others have potentially broken the law. Therefore,
it is OK to break the law. From: Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 20:54:47 GMT Then you must be waitnig anxiously for the Barret report, which is said to show numerous abuses by the previous administration and how they, unlike any other administration, were able to use the IRS for abuse. |
#10
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
From: - Find messages by this author
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 16:48:21 GMT F.I.S.A. deals with foreign, not domestic, intelligence. NSA deals with foreign, not domestic, intelligence. I would like to see the 'settled law' that allows the President to authorize domestic wiretaps without a court order. Can you please provide it? Here's what I've found so far: From the New York Sun: http://www.nysun.com/article/24610 I'm sorry, the New York Sun is not a credible agency for news reporting, IMO. Let's see what Bushie has to say on the matter: From the Minneapolis Star Tribune: Last update: December 20, 2005 at 5:09 PM COMPILED BY EDITORIAL STAFF Eat those words PRESIDENT BUSH, SPEECH, APRIL 20, 2004. "Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution." Briefing Congress, briefly "The president asserted in his Dec. 17 radio address that 'leaders in Congress have been briefed more than a dozen times on this authorization and the activities conducted under it.' This statement gives the American public a very misleading impression that the president fully consulted with Congress. First, it is quite likely that 96 senators of 100 senators, including 13 of 15 on the Senate Intelligence Committee, first learned about this program in the New York Times, not from any administration briefing. I personally received a single very short briefing on this program earlier this year prior to its public disclosure. That briefing occurred more than three years after the president said this program began." HARRY REID, SENATE MINORITY LEADER, R (sic)-NEV. As to your other arguments, there has been no formal declaration of war, no 'warring factions' identified, no definable parameters for declaring victory ("unconditional surrender" or otherwise), and so on. So we are left with an undeclared war against a person or persons unknown which could potentially last for the rest of time which gives dictatorial powers to the president and vast amounts of national treasure being expended in the name of 'freedom.' This is beginning to sound a lot like fascism. |
#11
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message oups.com... Logical construct: Others have potentially broken the law. Therefore, it is OK to break the law. Not at all. I don't see where the Bush Aministration has broken any laws. If they have then the same laws were broken by several other administrations who used the same warrantless search policy. From: Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 20:54:47 GMT Then you must be waitnig anxiously for the Barret report, which is said to show numerous abuses by the previous administration and how they, unlike any other administration, were able to use the IRS for abuse. AFAIK no other President ever got IRS information to use against it's enemies. Nixon was reported to have tried but was not able to because of the unwillingness of the people at he IRS. If Clinton was able to do such a thing, it marks a new low in politics, and another plank removed from his separately creaky platform he was trying to build a legacy on. |
#12
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message ups.com... From: - Find messages by this author Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 16:48:21 GMT F.I.S.A. deals with foreign, not domestic, intelligence. NSA deals with foreign, not domestic, intelligence. I would like to see the 'settled law' that allows the President to authorize domestic wiretaps without a court order. Can you please provide it? Here's what I've found so far: From the New York Sun: http://www.nysun.com/article/24610 I'm sorry, the New York Sun is not a credible agency for news reporting, IMO. Let's see what Bushie has to say on the matter: From the Minneapolis Star Tribune: Last update: December 20, 2005 at 5:09 PM COMPILED BY EDITORIAL STAFF Eat those words PRESIDENT BUSH, SPEECH, APRIL 20, 2004. "Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution." Briefing Congress, briefly "The president asserted in his Dec. 17 radio address that 'leaders in Congress have been briefed more than a dozen times on this authorization and the activities conducted under it.' This statement gives the American public a very misleading impression that the president fully consulted with Congress. First, it is quite likely that 96 senators of 100 senators, including 13 of 15 on the Senate Intelligence Committee, first learned about this program in the New York Times, not from any administration briefing. I personally received a single very short briefing on this program earlier this year prior to its public disclosure. That briefing occurred more than three years after the president said this program began." HARRY REID, SENATE MINORITY LEADER, R (sic)-NEV. As to your other arguments, there has been no formal declaration of war, That appears to be debatable. SDome people think Congress did that when they passed the legislation that gave the President the power to pretty much do whatever he wanted after 9/11. no 'warring factions' identified, no definable parameters for declaring victory ("unconditional surrender" or otherwise), and so on. So we are left with an undeclared war against a person or persons unknown which could potentially last for the rest of time which gives dictatorial powers to the president and vast amounts of national treasure being expended in the name of 'freedom.' This is beginning to sound a lot like fascism. No, it's just the ususal leftist doublespeak. It's OK for them but not for Republicans. |
#13
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
That appears to be debatable. SDome people think Congress did that
when they passed the legislation that gave the President the power to pretty much do whatever he wanted after 9/11. Would those 'some people' include Gonzalez. Miers, Rice, Rumsfeld, and others, or perhaps the F.I.S.A. judge who resigned in protest, or Frist and DeLay? LOL Some people think they've been abducted by aliens, think they are Elvis, still believe in alchemy, and so on. You believe whatever Scott McClellan spins. If you believe in logic, you can't possibly believe the trash you're trying to sell. no 'warring factions' identified, no definable parameters for declaring victory ("unconditional surrender" or otherwise), and so on. So we are left with an undeclared war against a person or persons unknown which could potentially last for the rest of time which gives dictatorial powers to the president and vast amounts of national treasure being expended in the name of 'freedom.' This is beginning to sound a lot like fascism. No, it's just the ususal leftist doublespeak. It's OK for them but not for Republicans. No, it's not OK for anybody, particularly those people under Oath to protect the Constitution, to break the law (please point to where I said any such thing). If this report you alluded to shows that the Democrats broke the law, then those that are guilty and broke it should pay. Just like Sean Hannity's radio theme song (which, by the way, is actually about an abusive spouse she kills, I think). I think the basic difference between most of us on the left and the Republicans (or conservatives, as there really isn't any other segment) is that most of those on the left are aware of such things as civil liberties, and that we don't put parties first in their protection. That, and we're much better educated for the most part. That's statistically proven. (And it is also why it's such a high priority for the conservatives to pit themselves against the evil 'liberal education system.') You conservatives may be dumb, but you ain't (By God) liberal. Congratulations. |
#14
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message oups.com... That appears to be debatable. SDome people think Congress did that when they passed the legislation that gave the President the power to pretty much do whatever he wanted after 9/11. Would those 'some people' include Gonzalez. Miers, Rice, Rumsfeld, and others, or perhaps the F.I.S.A. judge who resigned in protest, or Frist and DeLay? LOL Some people think they've been abducted by aliens, think they are Elvis, still believe in alchemy, and so on. You believe whatever Scott McClellan spins. If you believe in logic, you can't possibly believe the trash you're trying to sell. I didn't say I beleive it, It's simply saying it's debateable. no 'warring factions' identified, no definable parameters for declaring victory ("unconditional surrender" or otherwise), and so on. So we are left with an undeclared war against a person or persons unknown which could potentially last for the rest of time which gives dictatorial powers to the president and vast amounts of national treasure being expended in the name of 'freedom.' This is beginning to sound a lot like fascism. No, it's just the ususal leftist doublespeak. It's OK for them but not for Republicans. No, it's not OK for anybody, particularly those people under Oath to protect the Constitution, to break the law (please point to where I said any such thing). Please point to any place I said you did. If this report you alluded to shows that the Democrats broke the law, then those that are guilty and broke it should pay. Just like Sean Hannity's radio theme song (which, by the way, is actually about an abusive spouse she kills, I think). I think the basic difference between most of us on the left and the Republicans (or conservatives, as there really isn't any other segment) is that most of those on the left are aware of such things as civil liberties, and that we don't put parties first in their protection. As a registered Libertarian I believe in civil liberty as well, but I don't beleive that anybody has a claim on the fruits of my labor. I also don't think there's any evidence that teh GOP is out to do away with them either. There are reasonable things that ought ot be done in order to prevent another 9/11 and listening to phne calls from people who ahd their numbers show up on a terroist hard drive is one of them. I also don't think the public has the right to know everything, unless there is abuse. Yes it is a very fine line and somebody has to watch the people doing the listening. The problem I see is that this is all very political and the fact that there is teh current outcry is because the Democrats are looking to score points, it has nothing to do with civil liberty, it has everything to do with politics. That, and we're much better educated for the most part. That's statistically proven. (And it is also why it's such a high priority for the conservatives to pit themselves against the evil 'liberal education system.') Part of it is the Liberal eleitism that flows from the Universities these days. Where any idiot can get up and say that the GOP is for poisoning water and denying civil rights, but when a Conservative comes to their campus to speak o behalf of their viewpoint they get harrassed and heckled and disinvited. They used to be places where ideas were argued and no the only thing they argue about is how evil the non-liberals are. The ratio of liberal to conservative professors is hardly giving fair shake to any other philosophy. While guys like Ward Churchill may have a right to speak, they ought not be teaching wihtout something to balance their insanity. You conservatives may be dumb, but you ain't (By God) liberal. Congratulations. Not a conservative. There are plenty of things I think should be legal that aren't and will never be if Conservatives have their way. I couldn't in good conscience, belong to either party. I just think that when you have 2 bad choices, it's OK to point out which one is worse and why, and often it depends on the issue. |
#15
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
From: - Find messages by this author
Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 07:55:07 GMT As a registered Libertarian I believe in civil liberty as well, but I don't beleive that anybody has a claim on the fruits of my labor. I'm not sure, but I presume this means you don't believe in paying taxes? There are reasonable things that ought ot be done in order to prevent another 9/11 and listening to phne calls from people who ahd their numbers show up on a terroist hard drive is one of them. I'm sure you'll dismiss Reuters and the New York Times as casually as you did the BBC: Reuters Updated: 2:41 a.m. ET Dec. 24, 2005 NEW YORK - "The volume of information gathered from telephone and Internet communications by the National Security Agency without court-approved warrants was much larger than the White House has acknowledged, The New York Times reported Saturday. Citing current and former government officials, the Times said the information was collected by tapping directly into some of the U.S. telecommunication system's main arteries. The officials said the NSA won the cooperation of telecommunications companies to obtain access to both domestic and international communications without first gaining warrants." So much for 'listening to phne (sic) calls from people who ahd (sic) their numbers show up on a terroist (sic) hard drive.' But don't worry. I'm not expecting you to change your mind. Even when you're confronted with new evidence. |
#16
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Shhhh! said to the Bug Eater: I'm not sure, but I presume this means you don't believe in paying taxes? Ah yes, the crazy quilt of Mickey's beliefs. An excellent accompaniment to the overwrought rituals of the American holiday season. What duh-Mikey Believes Mickey believes almost all government is an intrusion on personal liberty. The only explicit exceptions he's allowed for are national defense and emergency services (police, firemen, EMTs). Mickey just says "No!" to public schools, regulation of the marketplace, publicly funded and maintained parks, government-sponsored tests of food and drugs, and on and on and on. Mickey believes that Arnii Krooborg never initiates hostilities on Usenet. Also, that all nasty posts by Mr. **** are fully warranted by previous nasty posts by others, but not necessarily the victim at whom a specific Kroo-post is aimed. Mickey further believes that Arnii Krooborg has never told a lie, that Arnii Krooborg is the foremost expert in audio engineering known to man, and that Arnii Krooborg is a natural leader who is possessed of great intelligence and charisma. Mickey believes that every individual property owner should be responsible for building his or her own section of the roadway system. Nobody, and especially not the government, should be allowed to seize property in order to build a road on it. Mickey believes with absolute faith in the efficacy of audio DBTs. The poor dunce's faith is unshaken by his own complete lack of experience with any DBTs, including his cherished aBxism. That's right -- Mickey has never, ever participated in a single aBxism ritual, or in any other kind of DBT for that matter. The numerous problems of DBTs for untrained consumers notwithstanding, Mickey fervently believes that if you can't perceive audible differences during a DBT, then you are deluded if you can perceive them in Normal listening. |
#17
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message oups.com... From: - Find messages by this author Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 07:55:07 GMT As a registered Libertarian I believe in civil liberty as well, but I don't beleive that anybody has a claim on the fruits of my labor. I'm not sure, but I presume this means you don't believe in paying taxes? Not at the point of a gun. Rational people understand teh need for certain government services, but only the ones that protect the liberty of the individual. There are reasonable things that ought ot be done in order to prevent another 9/11 and listening to phne calls from people who ahd their numbers show up on a terroist hard drive is one of them. I'm sure you'll dismiss Reuters and the New York Times as casually as you did the BBC: Reuters Updated: 2:41 a.m. ET Dec. 24, 2005 NEW YORK - "The volume of information gathered from telephone and Internet communications by the National Security Agency without court-approved warrants was much larger than the White House has acknowledged, The New York Times reported Saturday. Reuthers, like the BBC is not knon for its objectivity, then there is the issue f them quoting the NY Times. Citing current and former government officials, the Times said the information was collected by tapping directly into some of the U.S. telecommunication system's main arteries. The officials said the NSA won the cooperation of telecommunications companies to obtain access to both domestic and international communications without first gaining warrants." My understanding is that cel calls don't enjoy the same protections as other forms of communication. So much for 'listening to phne (sic) calls from people who ahd (sic) their numbers show up on a terroist (sic) hard drive.' That was one of the resons for monitoring calls. IMO they would have been derelict had they not listened to those calls. But don't worry. I'm not expecting you to change your mind. Even when you're confronted with new evidence. When there is evidence that they were monitoring people for th purpose of making them political enemies or some other non-defense related issues, I might. Protecting the people of this country is acceptable to me. There is also the issue of the Intellgence Committee being made aware of all this and Bush subjecting himself to oversight that he didn't need to, at least according to an interview I overheard on television while making dinner for my kids. Sorry I can't tell you who it was being interviewed. |
#18
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote in message ... Shhhh! said to the Bug Eater: I'm not sure, but I presume this means you don't believe in paying taxes? Ah yes, the crazy quilt of Mickey's beliefs. An excellent accompaniment to the overwrought rituals of the American holiday season. What duh-Mikey Believes Mickey believes almost all government is an intrusion on personal liberty. The only explicit exceptions he's allowed for are national defense and emergency services (police, firemen, EMTs). Mickey just says "No!" to public schools, regulation of the marketplace, publicly funded and maintained parks, government-sponsored tests of food and drugs, and on and on and on. The government has and should have the abilty to use force for protection of liberty, they should not be able to force people to pay for things they could do themselves. Mickey believes that every individual property owner should be responsible for building his or her own section of the roadway system. Not what I said. Nobody, and especially not the government, should be allowed to seize property in order to build a road on it. Nobody should be allowed to sieze property that is owned by somebody other than the government. The government doesn't need to own any property other than that which it need for it's buildings. Mickey believes with absolute faith in the efficacy of audio DBTs. Faith has noting to do with it. The poor dunce's faith is unshaken by his own complete lack of experience with any DBTs, including his cherished aBxism. That's right -- Mickey has never, ever participated in a single aBxism ritual, or in any other kind of DBT for that matter. Nor does that have any bearing on their efficacy or not. I have likewise never seen the earth from space but I am certain that it is round. The numerous problems of DBTs for untrained consumers notwithstanding, Mickey fervently believes that if you can't perceive audible differences during a DBT, then you are deluded if you can perceive them in Normal listening. Have you any evidence other than anecdote to the contrary? |
#19
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "duh!" sez Mikey, while bashing his head with a brick. Mickey believes that Arnii Krooborg never initiates hostilities on Usenet. Also, that all nasty posts by Mr. **** are fully warranted by previous nasty posts by others, but not necessarily the victim at whom a specific Kroo-post is aimed. Mickey further believes that Arnii Krooborg has never told a lie, that Arnii Krooborg is the foremost expert in audio engineering known to man, and that Arnii Krooborg is a natural leader who is possessed of great intelligence and charisma. Thanks Mr. McMickey for, admitting you're mentally unbalanced. |
#20
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
From:
Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 21:47:09 GMT I'm not sure, but I presume this means you don't believe in paying taxes? Not at the point of a gun. Rational people understand teh need for certain government services, but only the ones that protect the liberty of the individual. So instead, we have the Laffer curve (take II). Notice to the brain dead: it's like going on strike. Even if (and that's a big if) you get more revenue down the road, you never, ever, make up the revenue that's lost. Reductio ad absurdum: remove all taxes and revenue will explode. I have an individual liberty of providing salmonella-laced poultry, so we can do away with the USDA. I can dump toxic chemicals and other waste unimpeded (after all, Ann Coultier said the planet is 'ours to rape') so let's get rid of the EPA. Since the government will pick up the tab for pensions (at a much reduced rate, of course), and since forcing me to fund my business' pensions is an affront to my personal liberty (as well as digging onto the fruits of my labor) we can deregulate any and all business endeavors. Enron, Worldcom, et al, were aberrations. Business really WILL look out for the small guy if left unimpeded. Roads, locks and dams, bridges, airports, ports, military bases, etc., and their maintenance are not my problems. And by selling the airwaves to big business, and deregulating it, we have greatly improved the dissemination of accurate news coverage. Idealistic, but very naive, IMO. Your position appears to me to be that there is not (or should not be) a fabric in the US consisting of about 280 million threads, but rather a country of about 280 million individual threads with no connection. Perhaps that's why it appears to some that the US is unravelling... IMO your apparent position also implies that you believe that all people are equal, in innate intelligence, physical abilities, opportunities, and so on. If this is incorrect, let the *******s starve or freeze to death, I say! I have a friend who says that he's a libertarian. He says that businesses should be allowed to not allow blacks, muslims, or any other minority or class of people, into them, or that they should not be required to hire them if they do not want to. The market, he claims, will 'make the adjustment if their position is incorrect' (which of course ignores the fact that the other 88% of the population would not care, as it does not effect them), and that to force a business to serve anybody, or to hire anybody, that they do not want to is against their civil liberties. How do you feel about that position? My understanding is that cel calls don't enjoy the same protections as other forms of communication. So much for 'listening to phne (sic) calls from people who ahd (sic) their numbers show up on a terroist (sic) hard drive.' That was one of the resons for monitoring calls. IMO they would have been derelict had they not listened to those calls. Perhaps you should read the whole article. This is not targeting specific individuals based on intelligence derived from terrorist computers. This is warrantless, wholesale monitoring of trunk landlines and email. As a 'libertarian' you should be offended, at the very least. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10592932/ Maybe Bushie and his cronies should take a look at the 9/11 committee's recommendations and shore up the plethora of chinks in our defenses (assuming they really ARE serious about stopping another attack). |
#21
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
From:
Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 21:47:09 GMT There is also the issue of the Intellgence Committee being made aware of all this and Bush subjecting himself to oversight that he didn't need to, at least according to an interview I overheard on television while making dinner for my kids. Sorry I can't tell you who it was being interviewed. I'm sorry, I missed this from my initial read of your post, as so many areas had me utterly incredulous. Now that you've pointed out that some guy on TV said it was OK for Bushie to do whatever he wants with no oversight (but that he's such a Great Amurrican that he unecessarily *subjects* himself to it anyway), I can see my positions are entirely wrong. I'm very sorry. I can also see that I need to watch more TV. Thanks for the tip! |
#22
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message ups.com... From: Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 21:47:09 GMT I'm not sure, but I presume this means you don't believe in paying taxes? Not at the point of a gun. Rational people understand teh need for certain government services, but only the ones that protect the liberty of the individual. So instead, we have the Laffer curve (take II). Notice to the brain dead: it's like going on strike. Even if (and that's a big if) you get more revenue down the road, you never, ever, make up the revenue that's lost. Reductio ad absurdum: remove all taxes and revenue will explode. I have an individual liberty of providing salmonella-laced poultry, so we can do away with the USDA. You assume there are only corrupt buthers and that no private enterprise might come to do the smae job as the USDA. can dump toxic chemicals and other waste unimpeded (after all, Ann Coultier said the planet is 'ours to rape') so let's get rid of the EPA. You assume that people would be allowed to poison their neighbors. Since the government will pick up the tab for pensions (at a much reduced rate, of course), and since forcing me to fund my business' pensions is an affront to my personal liberty (as well as digging onto the fruits of my labor) we can deregulate any and all business endeavors. You assume that contracts would not be enforced. Enron, Worldcom, et al, were aberrations. Business really WILL look out for the small guy if left unimpeded. Considering that most businesses are not run like Enron et al, I'd say business has a very good track record. It is not in the self interest of business to cheat anybody, employees or customers. Contract law and laws against doing harm to people are not thrown out simply because we don't have Federal agencies overseeing every aspect of our lives. Roads, locks and dams, bridges, airports, ports, military bases, etc., and their maintenance are not my problems. What rational person would not want to have a military? Where there no roads or bridges not built by government? Government is not the only way to get things done, plus it is one of the most wasteful ways of tranferring money from people to projects. And by selling the airwaves to big business, and deregulating it, we have greatly improved the dissemination of accurate news coverage. Idealistic, but very naive, IMO. Should people not have the right to obtain their news from whomever they choose? Do you assume that people are not smart enough to discover who is providing the most accurate reporting? Your position appears to me to be that there is not (or should not be) a fabric in the US consisting of about 280 million threads, but rather a country of about 280 million individual threads with no connection. Perhaps that's why it appears to some that the US is unravelling... My position is that force is immoral unless it is being used in response to force. My position is that people have the right to decide for themselves how their money should be spent. IMO your apparent position also implies that you believe that all people are equal, in innate intelligence, physical abilities, opportunities, and so on. If this is incorrect, let the *******s starve or freeze to death, I say! Of course not, but they are capable of determining who is cheating them and who is providing the best bang for the buck. Rather than rely on something as crappy as Social Security that picked 65 as the age to collect benefits because that's when most people were dead by that age, they can choose something with a better return. |
#23
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
From:
Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 17:15:09 GMT Let's examine your ridiculous statements one by one: You assume there are only corrupt buthers and that no private enterprise might come to do the smae job as the USDA. No, I *know* that most butchers are not chemists or biologists, and therefore do not have the necessary expertise to determine if something is tainted. I do not want to trust my health to someone with a Vo-Tech degree at 'Sam's Meat Examinations, Inc.' You assume that people would be allowed to poison their neighbors. No, I *know* that they already have. Rivers caught on fire, there were no scrubbers in industrial chimneys, Lake Erie died, Love Canal, another similar area in Missouri, and on and on and on. The market did NOT change these things, by the way. Business will take the most economical course, including burying or pouring waste into a lake. You assume that contracts would not be enforced. No, I *know* they already aren't. By some estimates a VAST majority of pension funds are underfunded. This is due, in part, to deregulation, or removing certain tax codes. Business has two prime responsibilities: a return for investors the next fiscal quarter, and making money for management. None of the management in place when the pensions were underfunded will be required to make it up, I'm sure. Who's picking up the tab for United's pension? Are you so blind that you think that United is going to be the extent of it? What rational person would not want to have a military? Where there no roads or bridges not built by government? Government is not the only way to get things done, plus it is one of the most wasteful ways of tranferring money from people to projects. So in your ideal world, you leave your driveway and pay a toll to whomever owns that road. As you turn onto a former County road, you pay another toll. As you turn from that road onto the former US Interstate, you pay another toll. As you exit, you pay another toll, then another because JohnCo only owns that road to the county line. Sounds like nirvana to me, too. How efficient! Considering that most businesses are not run like Enron et al, I'd say business has a very good track record. It is not in the self interest of business to cheat anybody, employees or customers. Contract law and laws against doing harm to people are not thrown out simply because we don't have Federal agencies overseeing every aspect of our lives. While I, on the contrary, *know* that prior to government intervention and the formation of labor unions, business' track record was abominable. Given the choice between screwing people or employees, and reporting poor income to investors (or taking reduced income packages themselves), the record speaks for itself. Should people not have the right to obtain their news from whomever they choose? Do you assume that people are not smart enough to discover who is providing the most accurate reporting? I *know* people are not smart enough, especially when most of the information is hidden from them. If you give someone complete information, most can probably do a pretty good job of figuring things out. By privatizing something that WE all own, there is no requirement for any kind of balance in the news. Should we open up ownership of the Mississippi River to the highest bidder? My position is that force is immoral unless it is being used in response to force. Then we have a pretty ****-poor record here, as well. My position is that people have the right to decide for themselves how their money should be spent. And with you it always relates back to money. Your money in particular. Is there any other factor more important in your world? Of course not, but they are capable of determining who is cheating them and who is providing the best bang for the buck. Rather than rely on something as crappy as Social Security that picked 65 as the age to collect benefits because that's when most people were dead by that age, they can choose something with a better return. Social security has been a minimum subsistance for millions over decades. You *assume* that everybody is smart enough to beat the stock market, when in reality there are at least as many losers as winners. But I know, I know, it's YOUR money. You have no responsibility to anyone but yourself. |
#24
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message oups.com... You *assume* that everybody is smart enough to beat the stock market, when in reality there are at least as many losers as winners. But I know, I know, it's YOUR money. You have no responsibility to anyone but yourself. Wrong! It is not a zero sum game. when the market goes up, there are many more winners than losers. Historically, the market went up in almost, if not every, consecutive twenty year period. -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access |
#25
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message oups.com... From: Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 17:15:09 GMT Let's examine your ridiculous statements one by one: You assume there are only corrupt butchers and that no private enterprise might come to do the smae job as the USDA. No, I *know* that most butchers are not chemists or biologists, and therefore do not have the necessary expertise to determine if something is tainted. I do not want to trust my health to someone with a Vo-Tech degree at 'Sam's Meat Examinations, Inc.' Did everybody die from tainted meat before the FDA? NO. There are simple ways to insure meat is not contaminated and the more complicated ones could be done by private companies who contract with the butchers. You assume that people would be allowed to poison their neighbors. No, I *know* that they already have. Not legally and not because of the lack of an FDA. Rivers caught on fire, there were no scrubbers in industrial chimneys, Lake Erie died, Love Canal, another similar area in Missouri, and on and on and on. Even though we have these giant government agencies to oversee these things? The market did NOT change these things, by the way. Business will take the most economical course, including burying or pouring waste into a lake. Especially when they are getting butt****ed by government over things like snail darters. Your jingosim is noted. You assume that contracts would not be enforced. No, I *know* they already aren't. By some estimates a VAST majority of pension funds are underfunded. This is due, in part, to deregulation, or removing certain tax codes. Business has two prime responsibilities: a return for investors the next fiscal quarter, and making money for management. Something that Liberals seem to like to **** with every chance they get as well. The best solution is for government to stay out of it except for prosecuting actuyal crimes of fraud and contract violation. None of the management in place when the pensions were underfunded will be required to make it up, I'm sure. And you assume that I support such fraud? How about the Teamsters mismanagement of their funds. It cuts both ways. Who's picking up the tab for United's pension? Are you so blind that you think that United is going to be the extent of it? Are you so blind as to think that is how all business workd and that there are no factors outside of the control of the airlines that might be partly responsible? In the case of United, I have heard from people I trust that is was not managed very well. If there is fraud involved, then naturally there should be jail sentences. You seem to assume that capitalism means that nobody has any responsablity any longer. What rational person would not want to have a military? Where there no roads or bridges not built by government? Government is not the only way to get things done, plus it is one of the most wasteful ways of tranferring money from people to projects. So in your ideal world, you leave your driveway and pay a toll to whomever owns that road. Perhaps, more likely a group of people finance the building of roads for their use and maintain it themselves. People who own tings tend to keep them repaired. As you turn onto a former County road, you pay another toll. As you turn from that road onto the former US Interstate, you pay another toll. As you exit, you pay another toll, then another because JohnCo only owns that road to the county line. Perhaps, but it would be better than the taxes we pay for gasoline beikng used for welfare or whatever non transportation idea that government finds a use for as happens here in California. Sounds like nirvana to me, too. How efficient! And the system we have now which has led to gridlock is better? The 101 and 405 freeways need 5 more lanes on each side or to be double decked, but there is no action at all. Only NIMBYism. I doubt very seriously that the situation would not be better had there never been state run roads. Considering that most businesses are not run like Enron et al, I'd say business has a very good track record. It is not in the self interest of business to cheat anybody, employees or customers. Contract law and laws against doing harm to people are not thrown out simply because we don't have Federal agencies overseeing every aspect of our lives. While I, on the contrary, *know* that prior to government intervention and the formation of labor unions, business' track record was abominable. That must be why so few people belong to unions. You beleive whatever propaganda the leftists preached about business, and forget about eh abuses of the unions themselves. The Teamsters and the Dockworkers are prime reasons for high prices in the areas they affect. Given the choice between screwing people or employees, and reporting poor income to investors (or taking reduced income packages themselves), the record speaks for itself. Perhaps but not in the simplistic way you wish to interpret it. Should people not have the right to obtain their news from whomever they choose? Do you assume that people are not smart enough to discover who is providing the most accurate reporting? I *know* people are not smart enough, especially when most of the information is hidden from them. If you give someone complete information, most can probably do a pretty good job of figuring things out. By privatizing something that WE all own, there is no requirement for any kind of balance in the news. I see, so the world is made up of only 2 kinds of people, the ones who screw you and the people getting screwed. I think you are a bit simplistic in your view. The world has benefitted in many ways because of business and big business in particular. That there are some scummy people in the world is a fact but it is not a fact that they are the only people in business. My position is that force is immoral unless it is being used in response to force. Then we have a pretty ****-poor record here, as well. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. My position is that people have the right to decide for themselves how their money should be spent. And with you it always relates back to money. Your money in particular. Is there any other factor more important in your world? Personal responsibilty. Being accountable for one's own actions and not crying to government to fix one's own ****ups. Of course not, but they are capable of determining who is cheating them and who is providing the best bang for the buck. Rather than rely on something as crappy as Social Security that picked 65 as the age to collect benefits because that's when most people were dead by that age, they can choose something with a better return. Social security has been a minimum subsistance for millions over decades. You *assume* that everybody is smart enough to beat the stock market, when in reality there are at least as many losers as winners. There are people who invest their money in mutual funds and if they use reasonable care and patience they will make a profit. That's part of that responsibility thing I was talking about. When you are responsible for your self you take better care to see that you are not getting screwed. But I know, I know, it's YOUR money. You have no responsibility to anyone but yourself. If everyone understood that responsibility, there would be a lot less poor people. |
#26
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
From:
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 03:30:23 GMT You assume that people would be allowed to poison their neighbors. No, I *know* that they already have. Not legally and not because of the lack of an FDA. The poison refers to what I said below, not to the FDA. Rivers caught on fire, there were no scrubbers in industrial chimneys, Lake Erie died, Love Canal, another similar area in Missouri, and on and on and on. Even though we have these giant government agencies to oversee these things? Um, perhaps the reason we have these things now is because of government regulations? Tell me how the market drove these companies to clean up their act. And tell me how these same companies will be driven to reduce greenhouse gases without Kyoto or some other outside influence. The market did NOT change these things, by the way. Business will take the most economical course, including burying or pouring waste into a lake. Especially when they are getting butt****ed by government over things like snail darters. Argument by exception. You lose. Your jingosim is noted. jin·go·ism (jÄ*ng'gÅ?-Ä*z'É™m) n. Extreme nationalism characterized especially by a belligerent foreign policy; chauvinistic patriotism. You've totally lost me here. Can you explain? While I, on the contrary, *know* that prior to government intervention and the formation of labor unions, business' track record was abominable. That must be why so few people belong to unions. You beleive whatever propaganda the leftists preached about business, and forget about eh abuses of the unions themselves. The Teamsters and the Dockworkers are prime reasons for high prices in the areas they affect. Um, you'll note that I said 'prior to.' You seem to be arguing for company stores, child labor abuse, and so on. That was the status quo prior to government intervention and labor unions. I personally think that the pendulum has swung too far toward the unions in the past few years. You do kind of need to pay attention. Unless you truly ARE arguing for 'the good old days' of company stores and the like... Given the choice between screwing people or employees, and reporting poor income to investors (or taking reduced income packages themselves), the record speaks for itself. Perhaps but not in the simplistic way you wish to interpret it. Then enlighten me, O Wise One. Mysterious, simplistic parries to the negative with no explanation hardly carry any weight. I *know* people are not smart enough, especially when most of the information is hidden from them. If you give someone complete information, most can probably do a pretty good job of figuring things out. By privatizing something that WE all own, there is no requirement for any kind of balance in the news. I see, so the world is made up of only 2 kinds of people, the ones who screw you and the people getting screwed. I think you are a bit simplistic in your view. The world has benefitted in many ways because of business and big business in particular. That there are some scummy people in the world is a fact but it is not a fact that they are the only people in business. Wow. Where did you get that? To reiterate exactly what I said (and to spell it out and use more and smaller words): The government (particularly the Reagan administration) did us no favor by selling something in the public's domain (i.e. the radio and television airwaves) to private concerns. This ended any requirement for equal time, or any facade of balanced news. People cannot make educated, intelligent decisions when large amounts of data are withheld from them. GIGO. Many people are not mad that the New York Times ran the report about large amounts of illegal wiretaps occuring. Many ARE upset that the Times held on to that report for a year. That information may have changed how some people voted, for example. It may not have. But people could not properly make up their minds in this case because information was held from them. Your position is the media is a bunch of damned liberals (used as an epithet). My position is that all the main news outlets are owned by the likes of News Corp., TimeWarnerAOL, and so on, and to me have a decidedly conservative bent apparently mirroring their parent company's views. Look at the chicken**** follow-up questions (or lack of follow-up at all) asked by the White House beat reporters as an example of this. I find discussing things with you somewhat like reviewing data from a computer with a faulty logic circuit. For most people, the argument "if 'a', then 'b': 'a' therefore 'b'" is a valid form. It appears you come up with a conclusion of 'm' or 'q' from the same form. But I know, I know, it's YOUR money. You have no responsibility to anyone but yourself. If everyone understood that responsibility, there would be a lot less poor people. And if everybody understood that there is a large group that is being excluded from participating based on factors that they have no control over, I'd argue the same likely result. While you begrudge social services, I begrudge pork. I believe that if we got rid of Senator Steven's 'Bridge to Nowhere' and Trent Lott's billion dollar unwanted ships and like pork, we could have a very nice and effective set of social services and still have a balanced budget. |
#27
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote: People cannot make educated, intelligent decisions when large amounts of data are withheld from them. Those who promote the efficient action of the free market too often forget that Adam Smith required there be free access to all relevant information for a free market to operate efficiently. John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Who would be upset at a cartoon of Thor? | Car Audio | |||
Who would be upset at a cartoon of Thor? | Car Audio | |||
Who would be upset at a cartoon of Thor? | Car Audio | |||
Who would be upset at a cartoon of Thor? | Car Audio |