Secret Court Ok's Wiretapping Powers

[voodooman]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...rveillance_dc_5 (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20021118/ts_nm/attack_surveillance_dc_5)


Will it end here?
I think that some of this is necessary to avoid more terror in
the USA, but I think they are just going to use this to infringe
on MORE of our liberties.

Time will tell I guess.

[PornoDoggy]

Ashcroft said the government would uphold the Constitution. "We have no desire whatever to, in any way, erode or undermine the constitutional liberties here," he said.



Forgive me if I don't feel terribly reassured by guarantees by this Admininstration reassuring me that about their respect for the Constitution.

Apparently, VADM W. Poindexter is working away in some Pentagon office, formulating a plan to compile a database on all Americans. Now, for those of you who don't know, this man is NOT a convicted felon by the sort of technicality that generally makes conservatives rant and rave about the legal system. He and his cohort, Ollie North, deliberately ran a scam out of the White House to contravene the will of Congress.

I know, I know - more liberal sour grapes because most of the public yawned at Iran-Contra, right? Just another liberal pissed because the good guys won one, huh? Nothing could be further from the truth.

Leaving aside the whole arms sales to rouge nations discussion - and gawdamitey knows this administration sure doesn't want to talk about Pappy's role in that - and leaving aside the concept of giving arms to thugs attempting to overthrow an elected government we didn't like - there is a fundamental problem with the whole scenario. If you are an American, regardless of your feelings about getting the hostages back, regardless of your feelings about fighting Communism in Central America - IF YOU ARE AN AMERICAN you cannot find what those people did admirable, or respectable, or anything but criminal actions nearly to the level of treason.

Now, if you hold to some ideology that regards democratic institutions as an annoyance, I can understand. If you believe in a system where the executive can decide what it wants to do and do so unchallenged by the other branches of government, you are free to do so. If you are driven by some form of ideaology, or if you are willing to compromise the basic principles this nation is founded on, I can understand why you might admire these men.

If you are an American who believes in the system we live under, however, I kind of think you would find the actions of the Poindexters and the Norths of this world despicable. And if you're not upset that this jackoff is now working away in a Pentagon office, you really ought to be ashamed of yourself.

[Peaches]

I can just say: Boy are they gonna be bored listening in on MY conversations :huh:

Today: made an appointment to get the oil changed on my car, called the gas company to see when the replacement part for my gas logs is going to be in, a friend called and we compared how totally unmotivated our kids are, another friend called and we discussed dogs and the 50 year old she wants to set me up with, and talked to my Mom about what I was bringing for Thanksgiving........ B)

[SykkBoy]

Originally posted by Peaches@Nov 18 2002, 10:24 PM
I can just say: Boy are they gonna be bored listening in on MY conversations :huh:

Today: made an appointment to get the oil changed on my car, called the gas company to see when the replacement part for my gas logs is going to be in, a friend called and we compared how totally unmotivated our kids are, another friend called and we discussed dogs and the 50 year old she wants to set me up with, and talked to my Mom about what I was bringing for Thanksgiving........ B)
So, you discussed the beasty content via carrier pigeon like we do, huh?

;))))

[-= JR =-]

shhh.... its not safe to talk here.
they are listening right now.

shit! .. see that guy over there in the black jacket?
he keeps looking at me.
fuck... they found me.

[Cal]

I say we start putting together the clues found in common magazines and newspapers and... wait a minute.

PD is right, while I'm no great supporter of civil rights for all at any cost, having MORE criminals in the US Goverment doesn't really thrill me any. Especially when they are in positions of seemingly unchecked power. Safire's column was probably the most-posted NY Times editorial in the recent history of the adult internet. If the moderate right is worried, you can be damn sure the ACLU is approaching meltdown status.

This administration finds itself lucky to be in the midst of a situation that has the common populace very worried. They're cashing in on the spineless Democratic party, and setting up these new 'shadow government' agencies everyone was worried about right after Sept. 11th (though those were business-as-usual in all administrations since the invention of the atom bomb.)

It concerns me once it starts to be the tool of agenda. Once someone, the wrong someone, gets into one of these positions of power and starts to promote say malicious intelligence gathering targeted at pro-choice groups, things start to become problematic. There are just as many dangerous right wingers as there are left wingers, and we need to watch all the loonies equally. Once it crosses over I can't even imagine what we'll be faced with in this new information age.

I'm sure this debate will rage on, hope anything I wrote tonight made sense.

C.

[Almighty Colin]

56 page ruling? They need to be more pithy!

If anyone has a good fair synopsis or some good quotes, please share. Yahoo just says " the U.S. government has the right to use expanded powers to wiretap terrorism suspects" which is fine with me - depending on how "suspect" is defined.

[Winetalk.com]

Colin,
it's rather simple:
"If you are not with us -
you are with terrorists"
;-)

[-= JR =-]

i think until some concerned party develops an "anti-terrorist spray" or "anti-terrorist protective suit" or a new and improved "anti-terrorist magic 8 ball there may need to be another solution (even if only temporary)

*shaking Magic 8 Ball furiously*
"will a plane be hijacked today?"....
"maybe so" says the Magic 8 Ball

all great products of course for which we can all readily use to protect ourselves, without having to resort to real surveillence to indentify, follow, pursue and capture terrorists.

people can easily buy disposable phones which cant be traced
people can easily encrypt messages and communicate anonymously
people can easily hide behind off shore companies to finance activities and move money.


people can easily do 1,000,000 things to evade and elude authorities and continue to plan to kill innocent people and blow shit up, buy Nukes on the Internet, wire money to finance people or just talk about a good old fashioned Jihad and which infidels to kill next (of course Jonboy is working steadfastly on that last one for us).

people dont stop to consider that "protecting everyones rights" to such a high degree is what makes this possible. Until people understand there must be a balance between civil rights and security, there will not be much of either.

you cant have the best of both worlds and expect to be safe. you cant say "i expect the government to know everything about the bad guys... but never have the ability to know anything about me" It cant work that way.

of course, the criticism and fear mongering is the easy part... i never hear any solutions to go along with the criticisms and doom and gloom about the end of America as we know it.



Last edited by -= JR =- at Nov 19 2002, 06:48 AM

[voodooman]

Originally posted by -= JR =-@Nov 19 2002, 05:11 AM
shhh.... its not safe to talk here.
they are listening right now.

shit! .. see that guy over there in the black jacket?
he keeps looking at me.
fuck... they found me.
JR,

Dont worry, thats not big brother, thats just the insane asylum
officials looking for you.


:P

[-= JR =-]

its ok... "insanity" will be redefined the moment Torone gets here and explains everything away as a communist plot executed through the liberal media. :unsure:

[Dianna Vesta]

Something I was wondering about... if you have a cell phone from another country, one of those world wide digital phones, our goverment can't tap of trace that, right?

There was a time when they couldn't tap cell phones. I think they can now.

I learned a long time ago to not talk on any phones. I also learned that you don't bark up the wrong trees.

[Torone]

We're already in deep trouble...Cal (obviously a Communist), Pd (a rabid Liberal) and Jr (?????) all ready to gang up on Torone. Here is the gist of it...First, if you didn't vote, shut the fuck up. Second, if you are worried about that provision, write to your Senator/Congressman and the President. Third, If an issue such as this is as important to you as it is to me, quit with the freakin' Iran/Contra stuff. Just for the record, the government of the Ayatolla Khomeni was NOT elected; but the point is, you live by attacking from the past. You seem to think that you can change the results of an election with your sour grapes shit. Get off it and write your elected representatives and let them know how you feel. Leave out the Iran/Contra crap, and tell them that you will vote/campaign against them if this bill goes through with this clause concerning the Information Awareness Office in it.

Oh, and if you are not a citizen...shut the fuck up!

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by Torone@Nov 19 2002, 07:45 AM
First, if you didn't vote, shut the fuck up.
I don't remember seeing THAT in the Constitution!

It says I may vote. It says I may speak

And I don't HAVE to do EITHER.

It also says I may "petition the government for a redress of grievances".

[-= JR =-]

http://www.pleasurelabs.com/pics/argue.gif

[Torone]

Colin,
You are the last person I would have expected to fall into THAT trap. Yeah, the 1st Amendment guarantees your freedom of speech...from CONGRESS! If I want to tell you to shut up, that's between you and me. "CONGRESS shall make no law...". My point is that people who do not bother to vote really don't care, so I would rather not hear what they have to say. Same basically for non-citizens. Now, they can challenge me one-to-one on it; but the Constitution cannot guarantee them the right to speak without guaranteeing me the right to tell them to 'shut the fuck up'.

I repeat...write your elected representatives in the House and the Senate. Write Bush. DO NOT toss in the crap about Iran/Contra, because that will target the 'round file' with your mail.

BTW, Poindexter WAS convicted of several felonies; and should not even be sweeping floors in a gov't building.

[Almighty Colin]

Torone - ok, funny. :-)

But anyway - there are many reasons why people might not vote and still choose to exercise their right to discuss it. I don't vote. I doubt I ever will vote.

For one, I think the good old US of A will be quite alright no matter who is elected. I don't think the US will fall apart due to which party has the presidency or a majprity in congress. I think the entire system is a great success and will succeed regardless of whether I vote.

And to be honest, my one vote doesn't matter. Not once in my life has it nor will it ever. And if everyone thought that way, I'd vote and choose whomever I wanted to elect. The countless cases of "this candidate only won by 7827 votes" won't change the fact that it will not come down to one vote." And if it does get that close, my driving alone could effect the election as I will undoubtebly make someone else too late to vote. That is probably more likely than a 1-vote presidential election.

[Edd]

Colin - I see the REFUSAL to vote as a way to express ones discontent with the situation. According to Torone, I HAVE NO OPTION but to pick - I must choose - and its always the lesser of two evils...

Here's one for you. I have 2 dildos. A HUGE black studded one and a tiny little pinky-sized one. Which one do you want stuffed up your ass? Edd's answer - NEITHER!!

So don't tell me if I don't vote I don't get to talk about it - my "politics" aren't YOUR BUSINESS anyway! I don't have to tell you who I voted for! :grrr:

Sorry, Torone - I just find that mindset tiresome.

[Almighty Colin]

Edd - we can put those together!

A refusal to vote may be either to express discontent OR being content with the current situation.



Last edited by Colin at Nov 19 2002, 10:33 AM

[Almighty Colin]

Edd,

In the recent Iraqo "election" , 100% of the population took the big dark dildo.

[Edd]

Yes they did, Colin - AMAZING that they had 100% turnout from their registered voters in an 8-hour timespan! Those Iraqis are some HIGHLY motivated, politically-minded people! :ph34r:

[T-Rav]

JR, once again I think your argument is contradictory. You yell and scream at the Liberals for being "paranoid" and "fear mongers", when they bring up the possibility that some of our privacies may be infinged on. Then you claim that internal security (spying on our citizens) is necessary because of the terrorists threats. That is just as paranoid. It is not logical to accuse one group of using fear and then ignore the same tactic by another group. If you truly believe passing these laws making it easier to spy on our citizens will protect us from terrorists, then say so. You can't have your cake and eat it too. You are paranoid, I am paranoid, "they" are paranoid. We are all paranoid, but for different reasons.

My opinion on this is that making it easier to spy on citizens does not make us any safer.

Now here comes the part where JR says that the terrorist threat is real. OK, lets assume that it is. That does not give the government the right to spy on our citizens. You pay a price for freedom sometimes. Some of us are willing to take the risks and pay the price. Others want complete and total security. News flash, you ain't gonna get it.

[-= JR =-]

Originally posted by T-Rav@Nov 19 2002, 10:43 AM
JR, once again I think your argument is contradictory. You yell and scream at the Liberals for being "paranoid" and "fear mongers", when they bring up the possibility that some of our privacies may be infinged on. Then you claim that internal security (spying on our citizens) is necessary because of the terrorists threats. That is just as paranoid. It is not logical to accuse one group of using fear and then ignore the same tactic by another group. If you truly believe passing these laws making it easier to spy on our citizens will protect us from terrorists, then say so. You can't have your cake and eat it too. You are paranoid, I am paranoid, "they" are paranoid. We are all paranoid, but for different reasons.

My opinion on this is that making it easier to spy on citizens does not make us any safer.

Now here comes the part where JR says that the terrorist threat is real. OK, lets assume that it is. That does not give the government the right to spy on our citizens. You pay a price for freedom sometimes. Some of us are willing to take the risks and pay the price. Others want complete and total security. News flash, you ain't gonna get it.
i dont think i am being contradictory. i am saying that people cant have it both ways. you cant demand increased security and safety and not expect it to come with a price.

you said:

"Then you claim that internal security (spying on our citizens) is necessary because of the terrorists threats. That is just as paranoid."

I dont think its paranoid to point out that terrorism is real. around 3000 people were killed on 9/11. That was a terrorist attack. those same people are trying to kill americans, french, russians, isrealis, austrailians etc etc etc. its happening right now. its nothing new. to say terrorism is not a threat is to say that these things are NOT happening.

i beleive that terrorism is real.
i beleive that the government should have the tools to deal with it.

that was a fundamental purpose of forming the Homeland Security department... to eleminate the beurocracy in information sharing and jurisdictions when it comes to these matters.

It IS paranoid to use scare tactics about "what might be" and scare people with the notion that "big brother is coming to get us".

i dont think it is the same it is a "scare tactic" to point out that our lives are in danger because terrorism is real. thats just a fact. you characterize it as a scare tactic.

i dont expect "complete and total security". i dont recall ever asking for it or demanding it.

i will say this:

there is no way to get the bad guys, without making it possible to better surveil, follow, track, detain and arrest them.

i am just one of those people that fails to understand what rights i am losing.




Last edited by -= JR =- at Nov 19 2002, 11:32 AM

[-= JR =-]

i am not the one using paranoid and inflamatory language like "spying on citizens"
:)

last i heard, they were trying to surveil, detain/arrest terrorists. not read your diary.

i think that anyone that feels that the government is going to create some sort of police state, prying into your lives is delusional.

i am still failing to understand how people suddenly feel there is a sudden disconnection between people and government and that some monster has turned against you.

i believe in the strength of the political system and the system of checks and balances. i am comfortable with the knowledge that nothing can be done that is so unpopular and yet cant or wont be undone by the next administration. the farther they push today, the more ammo they give Dems to get elected and undo it. thats how the system works.



Last edited by -= JR =- at Nov 19 2002, 11:20 AM

[T-Rav]

i am not the one using paranoid and inflamatory language like "spying on citizens"
:)

***********************************
Oh sorry, I mean surveil and detain. Is that better? Does that make sound less intrusive of our privacy? :) It was not intended to be paranoid and inflamatory...If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...It sounds like fucking spying on citizens to me...Jesus Christ...

Do you think the founding fathers/states were being paranoid when they chose not to ratify the constitution prior to including the "Bill of Rights"?

***********************************
i am comfortable with the knowledge that nothing can be done that is so unpopular and yet cant or wont be undone by the next administration.

***********************************
I also am confident in the system. That does not mean I have to like every piece of shit they put in front of me. I don't like it now, and I won't like it when it is "undone". If and when it can be undone. Once something becomes socially acceptable it is very difficult to "undue" something.

So, we can agree to disagree. I do not want more government intrusion into our lives. You are ok with it, and support laws to legislate more government into our daily lives and invade our privacy...coolio...as long as we speak clearly on the matter. I am paranoid and inflamatory. So be it...

[wig]

My personal opinion on this is that if you cannot get them without violating our rights, then we just have to take the good with the bad.

I think there is a case to be made that over time things like the patriot act and homeland security bill will evolve into something that is far more reaching than what most of us would want. It doesn't happen overnight and it certainly may be reversed. But, these things may also remain unchallenged.

Neal Boortz had this to say today which I thought was interesting...

"Not that my position means anything special … but I am now officially on the record as opposing President Bush’s Homeland Security Bill. It’s just too much, too fast.

This time last week it looked like Homeland Security was a done deal. Then the Republicans got stupid – or ambitious – and started adding provisions. They thought that the voters had given them some grand mandate to legislate almost any outrage they desired … so long as they could make some case for protecting our precious homeland.

At the last minute the Republicans added a provision protecting vaccine manufacturers from trial attorneys. Now, standing alone, that protection is a good thing. The Democrats, though, have risen to the challenge and are acting to protect their trial attorney pals … and, oddly enough, we may all be the better off for it.

You do know, don’t you, that there is not one single member of congress – neither Congressman nor Senator --- who has read the entire Homeland Security Bill. Don’t believe me? Make the call. Ask your congressmen if he has read the bill … all of it.

No. I haven’t read it either. I just know that there are provisions in the bill that make it unacceptable to my warped libertarian mind. At the top of the list is the data-mining provision inserted by the Information Awareness Office of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. We’ve talked about this proposal before. It’s the ultimate “Big Brother” experience. It would give the government the authority to gather virtually every available piece of electronic information about you and your family that can be found. Credit card transactions, ATM transactions, magazine subscriptions, pay-per-view movie purchases, library records, checking account records … you name it. The government would also have access to all records from your internet service provider. Every web site you visit, how long you stayed there, what sites you subscribe to, what articles you read … all part of the government database. The government would also have access to every e-mail you send and receive.

Republican, Libertarian, Democrat. We all care about our privacy. We are now being told that our country cannot fight terrorism while protecting the privacy of our citizens. We fought two world wars and defeated the world communist movement, but we can’t fight the Islamic Jihad without the government knowing each and every purchase you make with your credit card?

A few years ago Americans, alerted by talk radio, rose up and killed a Clinton Administration proposal known as “Know your Customer. Under that program all financial institutions would be required to build a profile on every customer based on their economic activities. Then, if the customer deviates from that profile by making more deposits than usual, or by writing some unusual checks, the financial institution would have to notify the federal government.

Well .. this Homeland Security Bill is a “Know Your Customer” program that eliminates the middleman. The government will simply collect and interpret that information itself and make its own determination as to when you start to look a bit odd or suspicious.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution had a great example today about just how this information might be used by overzealous government bureaucrats. I’ll expand on it here. Let’s say that someone in Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms decides that the government ought to get guns out of the hands of people who might have some sort of an emotional or mental problem. The grand computer gets its commands: Print out the names of all people who are (a) members of the National Rifle Association, and (B) taking an anti-depressive drug. ATF agents then fan out to visit the homes of the people on the list. Read the Declaration of Independence lately?

The Democrats are going to try today to strip some provisions from the Homeland Security Bill. No, they’re not alarmed about the snooping provisions; they’re just trying to protect their trial attorney pals. Hopefully the Republicans will dig in and the whole thing will be stalled until the 108th Congress is sworn in. Then maybe someone will read the bill before it gets passed into law."

[PornoDoggy]

Yes ... the Democrats did try to strip some provisions attached at the 11th hour to the Homeland Security Bill. You will be glad to know that Eli Lili will be safe from the terrorist parents of autistic children possibly born that way due to a defective drug, and of course their trial lawyer lackeys. The "protect the vaccine makers" defense is a pretty lame wrapping for a very nice political payoff. I know that I will sleep better knowing that a research center for Homeland Security will be in Texas. I'm eternally grateful to the Republicans for ensuring that companies so American they have seen fit to move off-shore will be allowed a piece of the Homeland Security hog.

And JR, my man, you read any recent American history? It wasn't very long ago that the FBI compiled a file on anyone they considered suspicious. They developed their suspicions by such means as copying "peace" petitions and adding the names of everyone who signed them. They took photos of people who participated in civil rights and anti-war demonstrations and added them to the files. They tracked people into the 70s because they had belonged to an organization, often as teenagers, in the 1940s or 50s considered a Communist front. And if that's not enough, consider the anti-civil rights committees and commissions that several states maintained, and the damage they did to people.

Now, you have an attorney general that describes those who criticize his actions as "aiding the terrorists." Maybe you don't see the concern - this is America, you have that right. I guess this is where the real conservatives will separate from the reactionaries and Republican apologists. A whole lot of people do see dangerous precedent here; not all of them are on the left, and very few of them are as "whacked out" as you like to portray.

And yes, I've read your post about the fact that much of the Patriot Act legislation was a Clinton proposal. So what? Do you think for one minute that I would have found this crap any more acceptable had it passed then? Granted, I don't recall Janet Reno proclaiming that those who objected to her policies as "enemies of freedom", but you really underestimate most people who fear this legislation. Democrats and liberals are far more likely to dislike things on principle, rather than on party lines. We would have screamed loud as hell then, too. Problem is, no one would have heard us over the din of Trent Lott, etc., screaming about Big Government.



Last edited by PornoDoggy at Nov 19 2002, 04:36 PM

[Cal]

I fail to see how Torone and I disagreed, guess he just wanted to get that one Commie jab in there. :awinky:

I agree with wig, the Democrats fighting 'pro business' provisions in this bill are just as scummy as the Republicans who support this IAO for whatever misguided reason. The fact that it would have passed without trouble if the Repubs hadn't tried to bait the Dems and make them look 'anti-American' by opposing these pro business provisions says a lot about where the battles are being fought in Congress.

I have never understood how Senators and Congressmen can look their public in the eye when they tack on partial-birth abortion bans onto farm aid bills and the like, and legitimately believe that it is 'law making'. This 40,000 vote mandate has already become more of a dangerous issue than I think most people had imagined. Lott himself said they didn't want to overreach their public support, oops! So much for that idea.

C.

[PornoDoggy]

:angry:

I've been demoted to mere liberal ...

[-= JR =-]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Nov 19 2002, 04:35 PM
And JR, my man, you read any recent American history? It wasn't very long ago that the FBI compiled a file on anyone they considered suspicious. They developed their suspicions by such means as copying "peace" petitions and adding the names of everyone who signed them. They took photos of people who participated in civil rights and anti-war demonstrations and added them to the files. They tracked people into the 70s because they had belonged to an organization, often as teenagers, in the 1940s or 50s considered a Communist front. And if that's not enough, consider the anti-civil rights committees and commissions that several states maintained, and the damage they did to people.

i dont think that history is as relevent as today's events. Everything needs to be looking at its proper context. it is always different times, different issues, different events, different political/social/cultural climate and everything was in an entirely different context.

You forget that you are referring to a time when the country was on the brink of a civil war. where civil disobedience and mass protests against the government were commonplace. When a massive cultural revolution was taking place with no clear direction... just rebellion against everything. when a president was assassinated in the turmoil. When Malcom X was assassinated. Bobby Kennedy was assassinated. When Martin Luther King was assassinated. Castro was setting up Soviet nuclear missiles in Cuba. When we were in the height of the Cold War and it was "two minutes to midnight"

but you guys are ignoring something again. ok.. the FBI did this and that. AND? how did it effect peoples lives today? beyond your own suspicions, paranoia and rhetoric that the end is near, that "Big Brother" is here, it was forgotton about, policies were changed and reversed. Thats how the system works when people at large dont agree with what their government is doing.

assumptions, predictions and fears are always far more impressive and awesome than the reality that follows

i am not afraid of my own government. i feel that is bizarre and rediculous. I am confident in the system. The government today is elected by the people. Apparently, their actions are supported by the majority of the people, because i dont see too many people in the streets demanding their resignation.

i dont feel that the government is out to get JR. I dont feel that the government is really going to waste its time trying to see what JR is doing. I dont care if they try because as a law abiding citizen, i have nothing to fear or hide [*note* this is where you insert your own delusional rants about Randy Weaver or someone to show why i should be afraid]

and in the end PD... where are we? after all the suspicions and paranioa of the 60's which is similar to the same rhetoric today... where are we? Are we living in a police state? are we being "kept down by the man"... did all the paraniod predictions of where were headed as a country materialize?

no.

what about the FBI files? the files on all these "suspect" people? where are they today? where is this system of keeping track of every single suspect person today?

it would seem to me that a system was created that people and politicians at some point dissagreed with and it was dismantled when it was popular to do so. thats how government works. thats part of the greater system of checks and balances that causes our government to represent the will of the people.

[Cal]

I've been promoted to a Communist. <_<

C.

[-= JR =-]

Originally posted by Cal@Nov 20 2002, 03:50 AM
I've been promoted to a Communist. <_<

C.
your not "full Communist" yet.

you are going to be put on the "Homeland Security super secret list of possible subversive and dangerous board personalities with possible Communist tendancies"

[Torone]

First, you DON'T have to vote...and not doing so does NOT deprive of your right to speak. However, As I pointed out, the Constitution protects you from the gov't. That is evidenced by the way the media hangs on everything the Libs say while pretty much ignoring the Conservatives. Your right to be heard is not protected. You cannot MAKE people listen to you...unless the media decides to put you in everyone's faces all the time.

Second, the Patriot Act WAS originally a Clinton thing. However, the same media is misreporting it as if there was no 'probable cause' requirement involved.

Third, the companies that the MEDIA is reporting will be immune from lawsuits will not be. They will still be sueable...just no 'punitive' damages; and (this is what REALLY pissed the Dems off) lawyers fees will be sharply curtailed. Also, before any suits can be filed, the gov't will make an offer to the 'injured' party or parties.

Of course, you realise that nothing is 100% foolproof. If you start administering a vaccine to 200+ million people, there are bound to be some who have an adverse reaction to it. There will also be those who CLAIM to have a bad reaction in order to play lawsuit lottery. The provision 'protecting' the drug companies merely stops the lottery players and severely curtails the actions of the ambulance-chasing trial lawyers. I look for more such tort reforms, and welcome them. When some dumb fuck gets millions for spilling coffee in his/her lap, where do you think the money comes from? From increased prices, that's where. Look within our own business. When a sponsor loses, who pays? The surfer, the affiliates, AND (of course) the sponsor. Many times, the sponsor closes up shop and their members and affiliates are left holding the (empty) bag.

Pd, I thought you WANTED the demotion.

Cal... Socialist, Communist, Californian, European...all the same. :nyanya:

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by -= JR =-@Nov 20 2002, 03:40 AM
but you guys are ignoring something again. ok.. the FBI did this and that. AND? how did it effect peoples lives today? beyond your own suspicions, paranoia and rhetoric that the end is near, that "Big Brother" is here, it was forgotton about, policies were changed and reversed. Thats how the system works when people at large dont agree with what their government is doing.


JR,

It is scary how often I read your posts and read what I was also thinking.

[wig]

Just curious, but would the FBI files the Clintons supposedly had fall under this? What about all the people who spoke up against them or said, yeah "he raped me or "showed me his penis" or "we had an affair" and then they all got audited by the IRS?

He did lie under oath. What's so hard to believe about these ppl misusing power?

Am I personally worried? NO. But, in the big picture it's like anything else with ppl in power. You always have to worry about the evolution of these things.

That's why I think that the more things change the more they stay the same and our Constitution and Bill of Rights is just as important today as it was when it was written.

JR, you may believe that it is different today and that we should look at it in a different context, but I disagree.

And, before I hear about how the Republicans did whatever, too.... this is just an example. I am no fan of any side as they all suck.

And, yes.... it is a great system. There is a self adjusting mechanism that creates balance, but it will not save us forever.

Trying to "save us" by convincing ppl of a certain ideaology is futile and naive. However, ignoring or rationalizing away the dangers of gradual decay is naive as well IMO.

In the end, we are all better served using objective observation and doing what is best to position ourselves and our families to best deal with the realities -- both good and bad.

[Cal]

Torone, I resent that! I'm born and raised in Massachusetts. So the term 'limosuine liberal' is in order here.

Jerky.

C.

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by Colin+Nov 20 2002, 05:45 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Colin @ Nov 20 2002, 05:45 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin---= JR =-@Nov 20 2002, 03:40 AM
but you guys are ignoring something again. ok.. the FBI did this and that. AND? how did it effect peoples lives today? beyond your own suspicions, paranoia and rhetoric that the end is near, that "Big Brother" is here, it was forgotton about, policies were changed and reversed. Thats how the system works when people at large dont agree with what their government is doing.


JR,

It is scary how often I read your posts and read what I was also thinking.[/b][/quote]
So ... the fear that the decrease in personal privacy - the granting of more intrusive powers to the government - somehow lacks credibility because it is not having an affect yet? Don't preempt a problem - deal with it once it becomes a problem?

Hmmm ... interesting logic. Saddam Hussein HAS USED WMD on enemies and his own people in the past, but he's not doing it today. No point in worrying about it – there is no effect today - and if he DOES do it again, we can get him then.

Pretty weak arguement, if you ask me.



Last edited by PornoDoggy at Nov 20 2002, 09:49 PM

[-= JR =-]

ok PD... i am just saying (again) that i beleive in the system. i believe in how it works. i believe in the 250,000,000 people that make it work. i dont necessarily believe in Bush, Ashcroft, Gore, Clinton or Republicans or Democrats.

"the fear that the decrease in personal privacy - the granting of more intrusive powers to the government"
-PD

i am saying that the "fear" is ALWAYS scarier than the reality. I dont have any "fears" about anything. I dont worry that the government is "intrusive" and i am not "afraid"

you believe in the end of the world, that things have never been worse and that the government is some out of control monster that has turned against you because republicans are trying to suck your soul from your body.

i happen to dissagree, thats all. something tells me that you may not have been jumping up and down screaming that the government is trying to suck your will to live when Clinton originally proposed the Patriot act.

i am not sure what Saddam Hussein has to do with an arguement about "intrusive government"... but if it adds a little color to your arguement....
:unsure: