Our Big Brother
-
I'm happy as long as I get to use my userid. ;P
Regards,Rohit Sinha
...celebrating Indian spirit and Cricket. 8MB video, really cool!
Damn, it won't let me edit the above message to shorten my "name". ;P Anyway, it was, "I'm not Rohit, I'm anonymous. Honest.". :rolleyes: Whatever. <>
Regards,Rohit Sinha
...celebrating Indian spirit and Cricket. 8MB video, really cool!
-
Stan Shannon wrote: The real question is : Why is this such a big deal to you? which part? the part that Ashcroft is a totally partisan two-faced P.O.S., or that he's responsible for the erosion of the 1st, 4th, 5th and 6th amendments? i'm shocked that you, one who complains about the way the government has abandoned the Constitution, would (apparently) have no problem with this. -c
Image tools: ThumbNailer, Bobber, TIFFAssembler
Chris Losinger wrote: i'm shocked, that you, one who complains about the way the government has abandoned the Constitution, would (apparently) have no problem with this. Hell, far from being shocked by it, I think its funny as hell watching all the lefties squirm as their chickens come home to roost. I thought safety and security always trumped the constitution. Isn't that what arguments against the 2nd amendment are all about? I thought the federal government could change the inherent meaning of the constitution on a whim. Isn't that what Row v Wade and the Flag Burning decision and Prayer in school, etc, etc, etc. were all about? You either respect the constitution or you don't. The left long ago tossed away any right to complain about Ashcroft's antics. "My job is to protect America" George W. Bush.
-
Stan Shannon wrote: The real question is : Why is this such a big deal to you? :~ Youre kidding right. Hey don't worry, I can handle it. I took something. I can see things no one else can see. Why are you dressed like that? - Jack Burton
He's just taking a piss on Chris because he's a "leftie". ;) -- In the land of the blind, be king! Some day, Dominion, some say prayers, now I say mine.
-
Stan Shannon wrote: The real question is : Why is this such a big deal to you? :~ Youre kidding right. Hey don't worry, I can handle it. I took something. I can see things no one else can see. Why are you dressed like that? - Jack Burton
Anyone trully concerned about their constitutional rights would have been worried long before Ashcroft came along. This country richly deserves Ashcroft. I love the guy. "My job is to protect America" George W. Bush.
-
Chris Losinger wrote: i'm shocked, that you, one who complains about the way the government has abandoned the Constitution, would (apparently) have no problem with this. Hell, far from being shocked by it, I think its funny as hell watching all the lefties squirm as their chickens come home to roost. I thought safety and security always trumped the constitution. Isn't that what arguments against the 2nd amendment are all about? I thought the federal government could change the inherent meaning of the constitution on a whim. Isn't that what Row v Wade and the Flag Burning decision and Prayer in school, etc, etc, etc. were all about? You either respect the constitution or you don't. The left long ago tossed away any right to complain about Ashcroft's antics. "My job is to protect America" George W. Bush.
Stan Shannon wrote: their chickens come home to roost. their chickens???? Ashcroft is, and always has been, a Republican. Stan Shannon wrote: The left long ago tossed away any right to complain about Ashcroft's antics. you put Party Politics before everything else: before your own liberties and before the solidity of the Constitution. you bitch about what one party does, but cheer when your own party does it. that's truly fucking disgusting. -c
Image tools: ThumbNailer, Bobber, TIFFAssembler
-
For ten points, who said this (no search engines, please): "The administration's interest in all e-mail is a wholly unhealthy precedent, especially given this administration's track record on FBI files and IRS snooping. Every medium by which people communicate can be subject to exploitation by those with illegal intentions. Nevertheless, this is no reason to hand Big Brother the keys to unlock our e-mail diaries, open our ATM records, read our medical records, or translate our international communications." ? Here's a hint: he was responsible for the USA PATRIOT act, which gave sweeping new powers to law enforcement, including a whole host of snooping privileges, and for the upcoming legislation nicknamed "PATRIOT II", which extends these powers to include the ability to revoke someone's citizenship, to access credit reports without a subpoena, ease restrictions on "secret evidence", to secretly detain citizens, and so on. A: http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itgic/1097/ijge/gj-7.htm[^] IMO, this should be a concern to all US citizens, regardless of political affiliation. -c
Image tools: ThumbNailer, Bobber, TIFFAssembler
Chris Losinger wrote: and for the upcoming legislation nicknamed "PATRIOT II", which extends these powers to include the ability to revoke someone's citizenship, to access credit reports without a subpoena, ease restrictions on "secret evidence", to secretly detain citizens, and so on. Except this isn't true at many levels. There is no "Patriot II" act intended to do what you claim. Second, I hate defending Ashcroft since I think he's a jerk, but he wasn't responsible for the Patriot act. The Patriot act was written and enacted by the US Senate and House of Representatives. We have an election in a year and a half for all representatives, a third of the senators and the president. You do have the opportunity to change things. At the most extreme, you could run for office (I suggest starting with your state legislature, but Representative is also a possibility.) If you don't want to do that, you could volunteer to work for a candidate's election/reelection campaign. I would suggest getting your facts straight first.
-
Stan Shannon wrote: their chickens come home to roost. their chickens???? Ashcroft is, and always has been, a Republican. Stan Shannon wrote: The left long ago tossed away any right to complain about Ashcroft's antics. you put Party Politics before everything else: before your own liberties and before the solidity of the Constitution. you bitch about what one party does, but cheer when your own party does it. that's truly fucking disgusting. -c
Image tools: ThumbNailer, Bobber, TIFFAssembler
Chris Losinger wrote: their chickens???? Ashcroft is, and always has been, a Republican. After 50 years of Democrats rewritting the constitution, did you really believe the republicans would never get in on the act? Duh, maybe someone should of thought of that sooner! Chris Losinger wrote: you put Party Politics before everything else: before your own liberties and before the solidity of the Constitution. you bitch about what one party does, but cheer when your own party does it. that's truly f***ing disgusting. Yep, being made to eat your own shit is pretty disgusting, but it's still enjoyable for the chef. "My job is to protect America" George W. Bush.
-
Chris Losinger wrote: and for the upcoming legislation nicknamed "PATRIOT II", which extends these powers to include the ability to revoke someone's citizenship, to access credit reports without a subpoena, ease restrictions on "secret evidence", to secretly detain citizens, and so on. Except this isn't true at many levels. There is no "Patriot II" act intended to do what you claim. Second, I hate defending Ashcroft since I think he's a jerk, but he wasn't responsible for the Patriot act. The Patriot act was written and enacted by the US Senate and House of Representatives. We have an election in a year and a half for all representatives, a third of the senators and the president. You do have the opportunity to change things. At the most extreme, you could run for office (I suggest starting with your state legislature, but Representative is also a possibility.) If you don't want to do that, you could volunteer to work for a candidate's election/reelection campaign. I would suggest getting your facts straight first.
Joe Woodbury wrote: There is no "Patriot II" act intended to do what you claim i realize it hasn't been presented as a bill yet, but the drafts have been available for months, known as the "Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003". "patriot ii" is, as i said, a nickname. it was written by the same people and is aimed to do more of what USA PATRIOT does. Joe Woodbury wrote: Second, I hate defending Ashcroft since I think he's a jerk, but he wasn't responsible for the Patriot act. The Patriot act was written and enacted by the US Senate and House of Representatives. except that it was written by the Justice Department, led by Ashcroft. it is largely credited to Viet Dinh, who is also credited with Patriot II. and, as Ashcroft is Mr Dinh's boss, Ashcroft is responsible. it was passed by congress, with no difficulty, and very little debate. and i do blame congress for passing it. but the DOJ wrote it, and Bush rubber-stamped it. (would someone please explain what about this post makes you rate it a "1" ?) -c
Image tools: ThumbNailer, Bobber, TIFFAssembler
-
Anyone trully concerned about their constitutional rights would have been worried long before Ashcroft came along. This country richly deserves Ashcroft. I love the guy. "My job is to protect America" George W. Bush.
I've been paranoid about all politicians for many years. Ashcroft just validates my belief that politicians are the scum of the earth. Hey don't worry, I can handle it. I took something. I can see things no one else can see. Why are you dressed like that? - Jack Burton
-
Chris Losinger wrote: their chickens???? Ashcroft is, and always has been, a Republican. After 50 years of Democrats rewritting the constitution, did you really believe the republicans would never get in on the act? Duh, maybe someone should of thought of that sooner! Chris Losinger wrote: you put Party Politics before everything else: before your own liberties and before the solidity of the Constitution. you bitch about what one party does, but cheer when your own party does it. that's truly f***ing disgusting. Yep, being made to eat your own shit is pretty disgusting, but it's still enjoyable for the chef. "My job is to protect America" George W. Bush.
Stan Shannon wrote: After 50 years of Democrats rewritting the constitution, did you really believe the republicans would never get in on the act? Duh, maybe it is all clear to me now: republicans are the party of Say One Thing, Do Another. thanks for clearing that up. -c
Image tools: ThumbNailer, Bobber, TIFFAssembler
-
Chris Losinger wrote: i'm shocked, that you, one who complains about the way the government has abandoned the Constitution, would (apparently) have no problem with this. Hell, far from being shocked by it, I think its funny as hell watching all the lefties squirm as their chickens come home to roost. I thought safety and security always trumped the constitution. Isn't that what arguments against the 2nd amendment are all about? I thought the federal government could change the inherent meaning of the constitution on a whim. Isn't that what Row v Wade and the Flag Burning decision and Prayer in school, etc, etc, etc. were all about? You either respect the constitution or you don't. The left long ago tossed away any right to complain about Ashcroft's antics. "My job is to protect America" George W. Bush.
-
Stan Shannon wrote: The real question is : Why is this such a big deal to you? which part? the part that Ashcroft is a totally partisan two-faced P.O.S., or that he's responsible for the erosion of the 1st, 4th, 5th and 6th amendments? i'm shocked that you, one who complains about the way the government has abandoned the Constitution, would (apparently) have no problem with this. -c
Image tools: ThumbNailer, Bobber, TIFFAssembler
I am glad to see your renewed interest in the Constitution. Does this now mean that we can count on your support to eliminate The Brady Bill and other silly attempts to limit our ability to purchase and own firearms. There are other problems also but one at a time. Richard In Italy for thirty years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder and bloodshed but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and the Renaissance. In Switzerland, they had brotherly love; they had five hundred years of democracy and peace and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock. Orson Welles
-
Stan Shannon wrote: After 50 years of Democrats rewritting the constitution, did you really believe the republicans would never get in on the act? Duh, maybe it is all clear to me now: republicans are the party of Say One Thing, Do Another. thanks for clearing that up. -c
Image tools: ThumbNailer, Bobber, TIFFAssembler
Chris Losinger wrote: it is all clear to me now: republicans are the party of Say One Thing, Do Another. As opposed to every other party/politician/con artist? ---
Not one of them, IMO, should be called beer. Maybe malt flavored mineral water. - Jörgen Sigvardsson on Bud, Coors and Miller
-
He's just taking a piss on Chris because he's a "leftie". ;) -- In the land of the blind, be king! Some day, Dominion, some say prayers, now I say mine.
Ahh people and their spatial preoccupations. Hey don't worry, I can handle it. I took something. I can see things no one else can see. Why are you dressed like that? - Jack Burton
-
Chris Losinger wrote: it is all clear to me now: republicans are the party of Say One Thing, Do Another. As opposed to every other party/politician/con artist? ---
Not one of them, IMO, should be called beer. Maybe malt flavored mineral water. - Jörgen Sigvardsson on Bud, Coors and Miller
Shog9 wrote: As opposed to every other party/politician/con artist? well, i'm not sure the democrats even pretend to stand for upholding the constitution. -c
Image tools: ThumbNailer, Bobber, TIFFAssembler
-
Damn, it won't let me edit the above message to shorten my "name". ;P Anyway, it was, "I'm not Rohit, I'm anonymous. Honest.". :rolleyes: Whatever. <>
Regards,Rohit Sinha
...celebrating Indian spirit and Cricket. 8MB video, really cool!
-
Stan Shannon wrote: After 50 years of Democrats rewritting the constitution, did you really believe the republicans would never get in on the act? Duh, maybe it is all clear to me now: republicans are the party of Say One Thing, Do Another. thanks for clearing that up. -c
Image tools: ThumbNailer, Bobber, TIFFAssembler
No problem. I just believe in having a good time while drowning in a cess pool of hypocrisy. :) "My job is to protect America" George W. Bush.
-
Joe Woodbury wrote: There is no "Patriot II" act intended to do what you claim i realize it hasn't been presented as a bill yet, but the drafts have been available for months, known as the "Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003". "patriot ii" is, as i said, a nickname. it was written by the same people and is aimed to do more of what USA PATRIOT does. Joe Woodbury wrote: Second, I hate defending Ashcroft since I think he's a jerk, but he wasn't responsible for the Patriot act. The Patriot act was written and enacted by the US Senate and House of Representatives. except that it was written by the Justice Department, led by Ashcroft. it is largely credited to Viet Dinh, who is also credited with Patriot II. and, as Ashcroft is Mr Dinh's boss, Ashcroft is responsible. it was passed by congress, with no difficulty, and very little debate. and i do blame congress for passing it. but the DOJ wrote it, and Bush rubber-stamped it. (would someone please explain what about this post makes you rate it a "1" ?) -c
Image tools: ThumbNailer, Bobber, TIFFAssembler
(First, I think the Patriot Act is a terrible law even if it has a few good provisions and ideas. But I also believe there is a lot of misinformation floating around about it and the proposed successor.) Chris Losinger wrote: but the drafts have been available for months, known as the "Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003" But it still doesn't do what you, and others, have suggested. (There is no provision to access credit reports without a subpoena [or warrant]; in fact the drafts quite specifically require a warrant. What the government would be allowed to do is combine their own databases (which sounds good in theory, but has a host of logistic problems in reality. Still, it would solve some glaring holes in, for example, the immigration "system" (mess, bureaucracy....))) Other provisions would be removed in committee and a few would very likely be struck down as unconstitution if passed. Chris Losinger wrote: except that it was written by the Justice Department, Yes and no. Viet Dinh was the "architect" of the law, but not it's implementer. It doesn't matter anyway. You could write a law and send it to your Senator (don't laugh, I actually worked with a guy who used to do that all the time; he must have driven them nuts. In one case, on the state level, it worked! [with some changes]) What matters is that Congress is responsible for debating and passing the laws. (That Bush signed it is no suprise, the Justice Department is part of the executive branch and presumably wouldn't architect something he opposed.) BTW, forget Patriot II, if you want to be alarmed, pay attention to the recent move to make the temporary provisions of the Patriot Act permanent by repealing the sunset provisions two years early. Unfortunately, my Senator (Hatch) wrote the proposal, though this is by no means the dumbest thing he's done. Fortunately, my other Senator (Bennett) actually believes in the constitution, though he hasn't made a statement yet about Hatch's proposal.
-
Stan Shannon wrote: After 50 years of Democrats rewritting the constitution, did you really believe the republicans would never get in on the act? Duh, maybe it is all clear to me now: republicans are the party of Say One Thing, Do Another. thanks for clearing that up. -c
Image tools: ThumbNailer, Bobber, TIFFAssembler
Chris Losinger wrote: it is all clear to me now: republicans are the party of Say One Thing, Do Another. No, that's all political parties. Reminds me of a P.J. O'Rourke quote: "The Democrats are the party that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn. The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it."
-
(First, I think the Patriot Act is a terrible law even if it has a few good provisions and ideas. But I also believe there is a lot of misinformation floating around about it and the proposed successor.) Chris Losinger wrote: but the drafts have been available for months, known as the "Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003" But it still doesn't do what you, and others, have suggested. (There is no provision to access credit reports without a subpoena [or warrant]; in fact the drafts quite specifically require a warrant. What the government would be allowed to do is combine their own databases (which sounds good in theory, but has a host of logistic problems in reality. Still, it would solve some glaring holes in, for example, the immigration "system" (mess, bureaucracy....))) Other provisions would be removed in committee and a few would very likely be struck down as unconstitution if passed. Chris Losinger wrote: except that it was written by the Justice Department, Yes and no. Viet Dinh was the "architect" of the law, but not it's implementer. It doesn't matter anyway. You could write a law and send it to your Senator (don't laugh, I actually worked with a guy who used to do that all the time; he must have driven them nuts. In one case, on the state level, it worked! [with some changes]) What matters is that Congress is responsible for debating and passing the laws. (That Bush signed it is no suprise, the Justice Department is part of the executive branch and presumably wouldn't architect something he opposed.) BTW, forget Patriot II, if you want to be alarmed, pay attention to the recent move to make the temporary provisions of the Patriot Act permanent by repealing the sunset provisions two years early. Unfortunately, my Senator (Hatch) wrote the proposal, though this is by no means the dumbest thing he's done. Fortunately, my other Senator (Bennett) actually believes in the constitution, though he hasn't made a statement yet about Hatch's proposal.
Joe Woodbury wrote: is no provision to access credit reports without a subpoena http://www.dailyrotten.com/source-docs/patriot2draft.html[^] "Section 126: Equal Access to Consumer Credit Reports. In recent years, it has become increasingly apparent that law enforcement investigators need access to suspected terrorists' banking information to determine their connections to terrorist organizations, including financial ties. The current version of 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(a)(1) allows investigators to obtain a suspect's credit report-the first step in locating his banking recordsonly in response to a court order or a federal grand jury subpoena. As a result, law enforcement cannot obtain a suspect's banking information without issuing multiple timeconsuming subpoenas. In some cases, it can take a series of three subpoenas--first to the credit reporting agency, then to the suspect's creditors, then to the suspect's banks--and a period of nine to 12 weeks to learn where a suspected terrorist keeps his accounts. Perversely, the law makes it far easier for private entities to obtain an individual's credit reports; under 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(a)(3)(F), a private entity can obtain--usually within minutes--a credit report on anyone in the United States so long as it has a "legitimate business need" for the information. This provision would enable the government to obtain credit reports on virtually the same terms that private entities may. Specifically, it would amend § 1681b(a)(1) to allow law enforcement officers to obtain credit reports upon their certification that they will use the information only in connection with their duties to enforce federal law. This certification parallels the existing requirement that a private entity must have a "legitimate business need" before obtaining a credit report. In addition, to avoid alerting terrorists that they are under investigation, this provision would prohibit (absent court approval) disclosing to a consumer the fact that law enforcement has sought his credit report." while it's not exactly shocking that Uncle Sam would have the same powers as, say, your employer, to access your credit records. it is nonetheless a provision to access your credit report without warrant or subpoena, and is a significant change from the current situation. Joe Woodbury wrote: