backtop

Internet EFF: Telecom Immunity is Unconstitutional
Tom Corelis (Blog) - October 20, 2008 8:20 AM
Print 87 comment(s) - last by derwin.. on Oct 22 at 1:36 PM
Rights group files federal lawsuit to prove its point

Lawyers at the Electronic Frontier Foundation launched another attack against the FISA Amendments Act Friday, challenging the constitutionality of its telecom immunity provision in a San Francisco U.S. District Court.

The challenge is the latest in a long-running opposition to the U.S. government’s decision to give retroactive immunity from lawsuits to the nation’s telecommunications companies, for their help in setting up a nationwide, legally-questionable warrantless wiretap on U.S. communications infrastructure.

After numerous attempts – and with sunset provisions in a stopgap law rapidly approaching expiration – Congress hastily passed the FISA Amendments Act last July, where it was almost immediately signed into law by President Bush. Chiefly, the Act updates aging spying laws and modernizes the 1970s-era Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act – giving U.S. intelligence agencies a number of new abilities while adding new limitations to work under. The telecom immunity provision was added after the Bush Administration promised to veto any version of the bill without it.

“We have overwhelming record evidence that the domestic spying program is operating far outside the bounds of the law,” said EFF Senior Staff Attorney Kurt Opsah, referring to the thousands of pages of evidence (PDF) it has to support its case. “Intelligence agencies, telecoms, and the Administration want to sweep this case under the rug, but the Constitution won't permit it.”

Attorney General Michael Mukasey denied an official “content-dragnet” program in his certification to the Court; however, the EFF says he did not deny the “dragnet acquisition of the content of communications.”

“The immunity law puts the fox in charge of the hen house, letting the Attorney General decide whether or not telecoms like AT&T can be sued for participating in the government's illegal warrantless surveillance,” adds Senior Staff Attorney Kevin Bankston. “In our constitutional system, it is the judiciary's role as a co-equal branch of government to determine the scope of the surveillance and rule on whether it is legal, not the executive's. The Attorney General should not be allowed to unconstitutionally play judge and jury in these cases, which affect the privacy of millions of Americans.”

Telecom immunity is necessary, say its supporters, because many providers were staring down the barrel of a dozen or more lawsuits for complying with a special-case, 9/11-era government terror-fighting request.

Critics see the immunity provision as part of a larger, nationwide erosion of citizens’ privacy – as well as a blatant violation of U.S. wiretapping laws, which prohibit spying on most types of domestic communications without a court-ordered warrant.

The EFF filed its initial lawsuits against the program in February 2006, and frustrated ex-AT&T technician Mark Klein leaked a treasure trove of official documentation to the press later that year.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
What took them so long?
By fleshconsumed on 10/20/2008 2:31:20 PM , Rating: 5
Article 1 section 9 clearly states:

No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.




RE: What took them so long?
By Whedonic on 10/20/2008 7:41:07 PM , Rating: 2
For those of us not so familiar with legalese, could we get a translation? Thanks.


RE: What took them so long?
By DragonReach on 10/21/2008 2:22:16 AM , Rating: 2
Ex post facto is in regards to passing a law making a behavior in the past now illegal and then prosecuting. In this case he is referring to past behavior being forgiven as it is not illegal now, however it was illegal when the act was committed.

To my knowledge there is nothing in the constitution preventing the forgiveness of past crimes (presidential pardon ring a bell??)

In my opinion too many people have forgotten a simple phrase. "The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either." Some random guy said that... Ben I think was his name. Might have had a little something to do with that Constitution thing at one point.


RE: What took them so long?
By Treckin on 10/21/2008 10:13:15 PM , Rating: 2
It was actually "He who would trade freedom for security will deserve neither and loose both."


RE: What took them so long?
By MatthiasF on 10/21/2008 11:34:09 AM , Rating: 1
The government coaxed the companies to do something illegal. If the government attempted to apply criminal charges, the companies in response would claim entrapment.

This is not a case of ex post facto, because the government asked the companies to break the law. It's the government's fault the laws were broken, not the companies. The recent legislation was to cover the government's ass, not the telecommunication companies.


Bah
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 10/20/08, Rating: -1
RE: Bah
By killerroach on 10/20/2008 8:44:19 AM , Rating: 2
Where does it say in the Constitution that giving somebody legal immunity in exchange for further cooperation is unconstitutional? I think that's the basic idea behind a plea bargain...

I know, I know, it's all about the "privacy" right that the courts have ruled to be implied through the Fourth Amendment (I know one could try to make a stronger 4A claim by saying that the surveillance is an unreasonable search, but that's probably fishing at that point). Even still, I would think that their beef should be with the surveillance itself, not with the granting of immunity.


RE: Bah
By Necare on 10/20/2008 9:34:30 AM , Rating: 3
Actually it is very much like a plea bargain. That is the problem. In normal cases the judge has to approve the deal.

The executive branch basically extorted that clause out of the legislative, instead of making a motion at trial and allowing a judge to rule on it. It is a violation of separation of powers not the 4th amendment.

Their beef was with the surveillance itself, but that case was stopped by the immunity deal so they have to get that undone first.


RE: Bah
By omnicronx on 10/20/2008 9:37:12 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Where does it say in the Constitution that giving somebody legal immunity in exchange for further cooperation is unconstitutional? I think that's the basic idea behind a plea bargain...
Um what are you talking about? Telecommunications companies could have just said no, plain and simple, and if the government threatened them, they could have easily gone to the media. Your point makes no sense, because they did nothing wrong beforehand, they just laid down and let the government do something they know is illegal. If this were some small startup then I would understand, how can you mess with a big power like the government, but these are multi billion dollar companies, they have absolutely no excuse.

quote:
Even still, I would think that their beef should be with the surveillance itself, not with the granting of immunity.
And thats exactly what their beef is, and by saying the bill is unconstitutional, they can get it overturned, and the telecoms can be held liable.


RE: Bah
By bhieb on 10/20/2008 10:08:43 AM , Rating: 1
Do you even remember 9/11. It was almost Salem all over again. Yes they could have said no, but you think the media would have sided with them? Your absolutely wrong they would have been painted as pro-terrorist/anit-american and it would have hurt their bottom line.

People forget how fanatical the country was at the time, how do you think the stock price would look with NY Times headline "AT&T Harbor's Terrorists".

Do I think the law has flaws, absolutely, do I think we should chastise Telecoms for bowing to pressure, hell no anyone would have at that point in time.


RE: Bah
By TheFace on 10/20/2008 12:26:22 PM , Rating: 1
So your point is that, if the government wants you to allow them to use your services for a bunch of illegal stuff, which will make you look bad, but they will make you immune to it, they should say no. Even though it is the GOVERNMENT, the body that rules the land which your company spends MILLIONS of hard earned dollars to get favors and breaks. Also your competitors are being coerced into the same deal.

This wasn't a 'deal'. This was blackmail. The telecoms have enough competition between themselves, and they also have to deal with the cable companies. Not only that, but if they had all held out, except one single company, that company could possibly be perceived to be in better standing with the government to receive kickbacks and favors from the government. Why did AT&T and Verizon build cell towers near Cindy McCain's ranch? A safe bet that John could possibly become President, and return the favor. He's already a senator that could attempt to give back.


RE: Bah
By Lord 666 on 10/20/08, Rating: 0
RE: Bah
By omnicronx on 10/20/2008 2:51:29 PM , Rating: 5
So basically what you are saying is, as long as the government asks you to do it, even though you know it is illegal, that it is ok? I fully blame the government for what they did, and it is one of the reasons I think this bill should be deemed unconstitutional, so that we can put laws in place to stop such actions and possibly take action against those responsible.

This is just the government wiping their slate clean, as long as the telcos can't get in trouble, they won't name names.

I think the telcos were put in a very bad position, but that does not excuse them for what they have done. Its nice that they receive millions in kickbacks from the government, but that is not mine or your problem. Lack of privacy on the other hand is, especially when in all likeliness a terrorist is NEVER going to use a landline or a method of communication that can easily be intercepted, especially right after 911. This was a pointless measure, that took away the liberties of Americans that had not committed a crime.

Once again if this was just a tiny run of the mill company that was asked by the government to do its evil deeds, then I understand, what power do they have, but these telcos, regardless of your feelings did have a choice, and I do not agree with you when you say that they would have been labeled terrorists for not complying, just because congress gave away your rights and freedoms does not mean the people would have accepted any law that legally allowed the government to wiretap your home without warrant. If the government really had the goods on someone, they would get a warrant, and this process would be unneeded.

Now if someone can give me an example of a terrorists that was actually caught through this process, then my mind maybe changed, but I have yet to hear of one.


RE: Bah
By derwin on 10/22/2008 1:36:18 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
So basically what you are saying is...

So basically what you are saying is a completely bullspunk way to turn around someone's argument to fit the cracks along which you are ready to break it.

The whole idea of something being "OK" is gone out the window. These are complex issues. Throw out that biblical sense of "this is right and that is wrong."

Should telcos have done it? Maybe.

You will get no better answer to that question, and to argue otherwise you will be met with a plethora of counter arguments.

Should teclos be punished for it?
That is a legal question and really removes itself from any arguments pertaining to "should" and "ok."
quote:
but that does not excuse them for what they have done.

In whose eyes? Yours? Are you now playing judge and jury?

quote:
Now if someone can give me an example of a terrorists that was actually caught through this process, then my mind maybe changed, but I have yet to hear of one.

That is a very sharp edge to qualify this issue on.

Are you saying you would be "ok" with losing your privacy if they government could prove to you it saved a life? It protected property?
What if I told you it had a 90% chance of doing so, but just happened not to this time. Would that make it "ok?"

What if days after 9-11 I came to you and told you I think we've got a 50% shot at this helping. Then would you do it? What about 20%?

These are not easy questions.

Privacy is something that is highly valued in this country. It is one of the fundamental rights we hold so dear... all amounting to the general principle that "the government don't f$(k with our s*#t."
Well the government f*$ked with our s*#t.
Why?
So someone else wouldn't f*$k with our s*#t.

What then? What now?

The polarization on this issue is stunning. Some people claim the right to privacy preceeds everything. Some people claim the right to security preceeds everything.
To claim either side is just as absurd, and those in opposition to you recognize this clearly.

A balance must be struck between the two and I am not one to suggest where, or how. That is a job for us to collectively do.
But until we can get over our schizophrenic notion of all or nothing, there will be no middle ground to stand on. No choices but one side or the other.

Democracy was made to avoid the extreemist positions taken by one single man (as he only represented his own opinions, and perhaps those of a few trusted advisors).
But now we are just stuck in the same problem, with extreemist positions being held now not by just one man, but by the entire country. "Pro-this," "Pro-that," "anit-this," "anti-that." "Anti-american?" "Facist?" "Pro-terrorist?"
Like children we hurl these intuitively naive insults at people as if only once called a "facist," they would see the light and join us as an "anti-american."

Let us leave this behind.

We can see the futility of it.

And better yet, we can see how our staunch defense of our principles has much less effect on the realization of them as we thought. People are sane. Like it or not we are a damn intelligent species, and for the most part think clearly. Until we are threatened. Until we are forced to stand in a corner. When we are all in the middle of the room, sanity will prevail.

You need not believe that privacy rules over all to receive your fair share of privacy.

Worst of all though, we can see how with our staunch and knee-jerk holdings of principle, trumping reality with ideality, we wind up in trouble. We back our selves into a corner. Worse yet, we back our opponent into the corner too. Then we all just stand there, afraid to take a step in any direction and shout at each other from across the room.

Please, let us stop this madness.
Don't be so scared that the life you hold so dear is only a pinch on the wrong direction from ending. Republicans survived the Clinton era. You never found yourself standing in a bread line or using your government rationed wages to pay for gas. And Democrats survived Bush. Not a single person I have ever heard of has gone to jail because of government survailance.
Yeah things have gone awry. Nothing ever worked right. Shoot, god's creation failed, what say that of the efforts of man? Better yet now - the efforts of men? Let me tell you though, things work a lot better and smoother when we are not so afraid of impending doom at any false move. Give a little. Get a little.

I seem to have broken my stride, so let me end this by saying I am sorry if I have diverged and ranted for too long. I've spent a lot of time talking about political and legal issues with my roomates of late, and found myself entierly frustrated by their idealogical firmness, and their willingness to contort their perception of reality to fit what they hold to be right.


RE: Bah
By stryfe on 10/21/2008 3:56:51 PM , Rating: 2
Both businesses and individuals are sometimes faced with a choice between doing something that's easier for them or doing something that's right. Those with strong moral convictions will choose what's right while the others will take the easy way out. The telecoms have shown which group they belong to.


RE: Bah
By CountZero on 10/20/2008 9:51:28 AM , Rating: 2
What is the further cooperation we are getting though? Legally when there is a warrant they have to comply and when there isn't they shouldn't comply. Immunity basically says comply in either case, it doesn't matter.

Maybe if the immunity was being used to prosecute bigger fish than it would be worth it.

To me the immunity is vastly more important than the privacy. Privacy in the modern era barely exists if it exists at all. It is worth fighting for but you'll never win that argument against the 'I have nothing to hide' or 'its for my own good' crowd. However giving a company blanket immunity without any positive, without knowing what happened enough to even determine if the law was broken is a pretty sad practice. You can't even argue that immunity was justified because no one but the companies and those that ordered the taps even knows what was done.


RE: Bah
By Denithor on 10/20/2008 9:06:31 AM , Rating: 2
Well, the alternative seems to be 'the government' judging whether or not 'the government' is responsible for its actions.

Let's see, I don't have any problem with the government regulating its own actions with no external accountability, do you?

<Eyes glancing both ways>


RE: Bah
By Ryanman on 10/20/2008 9:06:59 AM , Rating: 2
ACLU is usually taking on racially charged cases... at least this one is the people vs. government.

I don't understand why nobody seems to care all of this is happening... even on this forum there are people who support warrentless wiertapping. Absurd.


RE: Bah
By mdogs444 on 10/20/08, Rating: -1
RE: Bah
By Ryanman on 10/20/2008 9:43:46 AM , Rating: 3
the thing is, M, both of these things are a problem.
You may not care... it may not be a major deal to you. But the constitution put the warrant requirement in there for a reason.
Think about it. Would you want a cop to come tear up your house while you were gone? Because he thought you had weed or something? It may seem different now, but it's the PRECEDENT this sets that I'm worried about.

The socialism of our economic system is a huge problem too... but look at it both ways. How much is this helping us, and how much is it hurting us. Not just in the short run, in the long run too.


RE: Bah
By omnicronx on 10/20/2008 9:53:41 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
I know that I am a fully law abiding citizen, and if they were to tap my phone, that they'd hang up with in seconds because there is nothing going on over here.
.
quote:
Just me personally, this is not an issue that I find to be concerning.
I am sure that a White middle class male will have no problem with warrentless wiretapping. Tell that to my brown friend whom recently had cops following him because he had the same first and last name of a thought to be 'terrorist'. Or perhaps my girldfriends dad (from columbia) whom 'accidentally' was mistaken for someone else with the same last name, had his bank accounts frozen while in europe, his home phone tapped, and boarder officials not believing his kids were his because they are white, all over all because his last name (which happens to be one of the most popular names in columbia). (he still gets pulled over at security checks every single time he leaves the country)

Don't think for a second that just because you live your life by the law and do nothing wrong, that the government can't take it all away in a second. I used to think like you, but then a realized the sad reality of the world we live in, and the loopholes the government can take advantage of. When the government is able to hide its wrongdoings (i.e forcing the telcos to do their bidding) then whats to stop them from throwing other rights out the window.


RE: Bah
By mdogs444 on 10/20/08, Rating: -1
RE: Bah
By omnicronx on 10/20/2008 3:48:01 PM , Rating: 5
Mdogs I never meant to offend you personally, I was merely pointing out you are part of the white demographic that probably cares less about if you are being watched, as you have no reason too.

I too am a middle class white male, I am also one of those that do not need to worry about wiretapping as long as I do nothing wrong. At the same time, I also know for a fact profiling exists, and that it does little to nothing in this situation, except the persecution of other Americans that have done nothing wrong, and other than their skin colour are no different than you and I.

And for the record, my point makes perfect sense, you just don't agree with it. And if you actually read my post you would see that I do understand your point of view, I was merely pointing out that your point of view is normal for a middle class white American, and judging by your reply, I was right on the button.

P.S I am a Jewish, white half Canadian, half American, whose girlfriend is Spanish, and whose adopted sister is black..
I am far from racist.

and the 'White Entertainment Television channel' already exists, you may know it as FOX.


RE: Bah
By HostileEffect on 10/20/2008 12:03:34 PM , Rating: 2
" When the government is able to hide its wrongdoings (i.e forcing the telcos to do their bidding) then whats to stop them from throwing other rights out the window."

Our guns.


RE: Bah
By mdogs444 on 10/20/2008 12:23:28 PM , Rating: 1
Exactly. Just like the PRO says...the 2nd amendment is the most important. Without it, we're just a bunch of unarmed slaves.


RE: Bah
By TomCorelis on 10/20/2008 1:04:54 PM , Rating: 2
You know, I'm not sure how well an armed militia of the people would fare against the military's smart weapons, tanks, and assault rifles. With the civil/revolutionary war, the militias were viable because the only thing seperating them from real troops was their lack of training, and perhaps a wider variation of quality in their weaponry.

I'd imagine standing up to the military today would look a lot like the urban combat situation in Iraq. We'd lose 10-1000 militiamen/women for every US soldier killed....


RE: Bah
By FITCamaro on 10/20/2008 1:22:50 PM , Rating: 2
You assume the military would stick by the government if it tried to control the people through the military.


RE: Bah
By PhoenixKnight on 10/20/2008 2:22:10 PM , Rating: 2
It only takes a few loyalists to drop clusterbombs on the 'insurgents'.


RE: Bah
By Spuke on 10/20/2008 3:47:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It only takes a few loyalists to drop clusterbombs on the 'insurgents'.
You forget that the "loyalists" would also have to deal with the "insurgent" part of the military. Being a former military member, the vast majority of members support the constitution, not the government.

Besides, the military is required to support and defend the CONSTITUTION of the US, not the government of the US. And unlawful orders CAN be (and have been) disobeyed.


RE: Bah
By TomCorelis on 10/20/2008 6:01:53 PM , Rating: 2
All excellent points.


RE: Bah
By FITCamaro on 10/20/08, Rating: 0
RE: Bah
By theslug on 10/20/2008 2:07:59 PM , Rating: 5
Um..I would rather they not infringe upon the liberties of others. There is no point in being safe if it means giving up rights.


RE: Bah
By FITCamaro on 10/20/2008 2:16:11 PM , Rating: 1
It is impossible to have a government that protects its citizens which does not infringe on the rights of some.


RE: Bah
By PhoenixKnight on 10/20/2008 2:45:29 PM , Rating: 2
The question that arises, though, is whether or not this actually is contributing to the safety of American citizens. We arguably had all the intelligence needed to discover and thwart the September 11 attacks, but we lacked the personnel and inter-departmental cooperation to actually analyze all the intelligence and put the pieces together.

Simply collecting more data won't help. In fact, it might hurt in that now have have so much more stuff to sort through, most of which is about normal law-abiding citizens, that we won't be able to determine which is actually relevant to national security.

While I think we should have better intelligent-gathering methods and laws prior to what we had in 2001, what we need more is people to analyze all our intelligence, better coordination between the FBI, CIA, NSA, etc., and officials at the top who actually care and are competent enough to take any potential threats seriously.

Taking away freedoms in exchange for what may simply be a false sense of security is always a bad thing. Many governments that have done that before ended up as police states and dictatorships. Having guns to fight back in the unlikely event of tyranny is nice, but having a government that can monitor you and track what you are doing, saying, and planning, gives them a huge tactical advantage.


RE: Bah
By stilltrying on 10/20/2008 2:23:11 PM , Rating: 1
your a wuss neo con shill. and no i cant stand obama or mccain. you boogeyman fear mongers scare me ten times worse than bin laden because you would take away everyones freedoms to have perceived security. wah, wah wah im scared of boogeymen, please watch over me mommy(govt). go move to europe so you can have your socialist safety net spook government to protect you and let the land of the free live how they want with absolute MINIMAL GOVT.

"Sorry but I think the inconvenience of the few is worth the safety of the many." - straight out of Karl Marxs Socialism - for the common good


RE: Bah
By FITCamaro on 10/20/2008 2:55:22 PM , Rating: 2
You can believe whatever you want about me. Where have I ever said I believe in giving the government absolute authority?

So in your mind should we do away with IDs, Passports, Social Security numbers, and every way that the government has of knowing who we actually are? I mean why have them? The government can track you by them. And I supposed should get rid of the NSA and FBI right? Since their job is to handle national matters.

I am all for a small government. But I recognize the reality of the modern world. I do believe that if not for some of the measures taken after 9/11, that we'd have had another attack by now. Since we've uncovered a number of plots to attack this country since then. I'm more concerned in making our government smaller by reducing citizens reliance on it to live their lives. It is the job of our government to keep this country safe. That's laid out in the Constitution. Welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, national health care, etc are not.

And don't ever call me a socialist.


RE: Bah
By omnicronx on 10/20/2008 3:29:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I am all for a small government. But I recognize the reality of the modern world. I do believe that if not for some of the measures taken after 9/11, that we'd have had another attack by now.
The 911 terrorists came into the U.S lived there for more than a year, and as far as law enforcement knows, they never made contact with anyone else regarding the matter. Now if you can tell me how phone tapping U.S citizens will help out when all the plans were probably made before the terrorists entered the country then you may have a point.


RE: Bah
By FITCamaro on 10/20/2008 4:26:14 PM , Rating: 2
It's impossible for us to know how they've caught guys planning stuff since then since it's not like they say "yeah we picked up a phone call they were making by doing this" or "we caught their email from our sniffing" whenever they uncover something. And luckily so.

I prefer to give them the abilities they need to do their job. Same as our troops.


RE: Bah
By omnicronx on 10/20/2008 4:58:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's impossible for us to know how they've caught guys planning stuff since then since it's not like they say "yeah we picked up a phone call they were making by doing this" or "we caught their email from our sniffing" whenever they uncover something. And luckily so.
Um.. so basically what you are saying is, that we won't hear about these cases, because not only was the wiretapping illegal, but the arrests too.. and as such kept out of the media, and sent right to G-bay.. Now I am all for justice, but if these wiretaps are now illegal, why not prosecute them as an American citizen (which obviously is not happening because we would have heard about it).

And the argument of 'oh they are not american citizens' makes no sense either, because then you are basically doing a blind wiretapping, unless there is some immigrant terrorist phone book I don't know about.

The fact is a smart terrorism cell will do all of their planning before ever entering the US, 911 was not childs play, it was well planned, done on foreign soil, and was essentially a covert operation once they reached American soil.


RE: Bah
By omnicronx on 10/20/2008 4:59:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Now I am all for justice, but if these wiretaps are now illegal,

Meant to say..

Now I am all for justice, but if these wiretaps are now legal


RE: Bah
By stilltrying on 10/20/2008 10:15:54 PM , Rating: 2
Now you are getting somewhere. Yes we should do away with the NSA and FBI. Do away with REAL ID, TWIC ID, IDS-yes, Passports-maybe, Social Security-Definitely. Best of all do away with income taxes that we did not have for the first 150 years of our republic, and which have been trumped by the Supreme Court, yet might makes right with the IRS. When you build an empire and try to maintain it, it will FAIL especially when done on FIAT currency. What the hell are they talking about behind closed doors? They can keep private things and yet the people cannot. I would rather die on my feet than to live on my knees. How many damn security branches will satisfy your fascistic needs (NSA, FBI, ATF, TSA, Homeland Security, US Marshalls, CIA, SS, Financial Czar, PRO-IP Czar, etc...). The american sheeple are slaves and they dont even know it, sad and pathetic.
Maybe your not a Socialist, more like a Fascist.


RE: Bah
By omnicronx on 10/20/2008 3:09:51 PM , Rating: 2
Yes because I am always hearing about wiretapping success stories in the news. Have they caught anyone yet? Or have you not realized that no 'real' terrorist is going to use a normal method of communication, if they communicate at all.

If this law actually was making the nation more safe from terrorism, then I would be all for it, but it does not.


RE: Bah
By PhoenixKnight on 10/20/2008 6:59:34 PM , Rating: 2
Warrantless wiretapping has caught tons of criminals and thwarted a lot of terrorist attacks. You just don't hear about it because then the terrorists would know how it worked and be more cautious, thus reducing it's effectiveness. Yeah, that's it! That's the ticket!


RE: Bah
By croc on 10/20/2008 6:22:59 PM , Rating: 1
I don't think that you understand the issues... The stated purpose of this was to capture international / US calls. AT&T said, in effect, that it was not possible to capture on international feeds, as these were not seperate from national feeds. And they were correct. W. said, (probably not him as I imagine he has no real understanding either) 'just get us the information, we don't care how', so they tapped all of their main trunks, fed that fibre bundle to some location in some location in VA. So you are, in effect being wire-tapped everytime you make a mobile, landline, SMS, etc. comms link. Take away the immunity, and the law suits will fly...

In AUS, our staff is not allowed to discuss confidential information over the phone to US. Our travel expenses have gone up. It takes a day to prep a laptop for travel into the US.

'The land of the free'? We laugh. And you just bend over and take it.


RE: Bah
By Spuke on 10/20/2008 6:49:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
'The land of the free'? We laugh. And you just bend over and take it.
People here in the US value safety above ALL else. And are willing to give up a TON of freedoms for it (why do we have all of these guns again?). Obviously, we don't all agree on this as evidenced here. I don't have sh!t to hide and I do NOT like being wiretapped without some oversight (like we had before). Now we have no oversight (unless you count the people actually doing the wiretapping). The "land of the free" is indeed a joke. Maybe we should change it to "land of the free unless my life is threatened then f&%k it".


RE: Bah
By homebredcorgi on 10/20/2008 2:46:36 PM , Rating: 2
I completely agree. Here's the thing all of you "I'm not doing anything wrong so it isn't my problem" people are forgetting: There was - and still is - a LEGAL way to wiretap someone without a warrant (you get the warrant in a secret court several days after you snooped the line). This way there is still some shred of accountability in that a judge is at least watching what you are doing or have done. Apparently that was just waaaay too much work for our current administration to handle so they went the illegal route. It baffles me why they ever did this in the first place and it baffles me why anyone would be in support of this method given the existing legal route. One route gives up those "freedoms" that the bad guys are always trying to take, the other does not.

PS, if I recall, there was a company that did the right thing and said no: Qwest.

Enter, rant:

So here we have an administration who has:
1. Illegally wiretapped its own citizens and circumvented the judicial system in the process.
2. Tortured prisoners
3. Holds prisoners in foreign countries without any charges
4. Fired (and hired) federal attorneys based on their political beliefs
5. Invaded a country based on poor/minimal/selective intelligence (or even willfully misrepresented intelligence)

We impeached a President who lied to us about having sex and yet we do absolutely nothing to the current administration. We all just hope and pray they don't do anything too stupid before they leave. What a joke.

I don't know about you guys, but I sure don't feel any safer now than I did seven years ago.


RE: Bah
By Spuke on 10/20/2008 3:53:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
We impeached a President who lied to us about having sex and yet we do absolutely nothing to the current administration.
He wasn't impeached but I understand your point.


RE: Bah
By FITCamaro on 10/20/2008 4:27:44 PM , Rating: 1
Bush has done nothing illegal. Why would he be impeached? Whether you agree with him or not, everything he has done has been at the approval of Congress.


RE: Bah
By homebredcorgi on 10/20/2008 6:14:43 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, that should have read "tried to impeach" or "held impeachment hearings."

FIT, if you really can't understand that bush allowed and authorized #1-5 on that list you either believe that he is not in charge or that #1-5 are not illegal.

To imply that Bush is in the clear because he wasn't the one doing the illegal things is ridiculous. Did Nixon break into the Watergate Complex?

I'll break it down:
1. Illegal. A constitutional lawyer would have a field day with the wire tapping fiasco. Separation of powers, anyone? But Bush cronies are in charge of the justice department and nothing is done about it (they have their own problems, see #4)
2. You could argue that these are not US citizens and are not subject to our laws. Fine. It is still against the Geneva Convention and makes us look like hypocritical nut jobs. Maybe you hold international law below US law, fine. I'll let this one go.
3. See above.
4. Hiring or firing federal workers based on their political beliefs is illegal. Covering up the fact that you did this is illegal (that is where Bush may be culpable, maybe not). Denying under oath you did this is illegal (Gonzales). We have people in the Bush administration ignoring subpoenas from congress! That is illegal. Who put all of these people in charge? Are we really supposed to believe this was just one bad egg and Bush had no idea what was going on?
5. At best, they're all incompetent. At worst they clearly lied to us and to Congress on many occasions (see Colin Powell's testimony to Congress before the war).

Congress may have authorized the Patriot Act, The Iraq War, etc. but not anything from the above list (maybe portions of #3, but not to the extent it is currently used).

Keep in mind the spirit of impeachment (carried over from the Brits) was to kick out idiots that did stupid things. In other words, you don't even have to do something illegal, it can just be something really really stupid (see Hurricane Katrina), in which case I would submit any of the above to fill that requirement.

Too bad the democrats have no spine.


RE: Bah
By Spuke on 10/20/2008 6:54:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Too bad the democrats have no spine.
They won't because it would open up their future presidents to impeachment. That's why they didn't follow through with Clinton. Otherwise, they probably would have found something on Bush.


Welcome to the new communist USA
By dickeywang on 10/20/08, Rating: -1
By Bateluer on 10/20/2008 9:26:13 AM , Rating: 1
At least they're out in November.


RE: Welcome to the new communist USA
By mdogs444 on 10/20/2008 9:33:01 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
We already have the state-owned banking system, state-owned insurance company,

Temporary stockholders. Not permanent.
quote:
secrete government with unlimited surveillance power

That's bogus. Don't be so dramatic.
quote:
doesn't need to answer any questions raised by the people

You mean like Pelosi not answering to 85%+ of the public who want off shore drilling right now...and her defense is "No, I'm going to save the planet instead". Or how Barney Frank is one of the henchmen who brought down our economy with this whole "low income people have a RIGHT to own a home" business? Cmon. Give me a break sonny. If you're going to be rash, at least be truthful.
quote:
we're in a meaningless war that most of the people in this country don't want.

If you ask the people of the country during any war, which they want to be in...the result will be the same. However, you're also looking at a higher percentage who do not want to surrender, even if they don't like the war.
quote:
it only took them 8 years to transform the once freest nation in the world into the country that we're living in today

Ahh yes. It was Bush's fault we were attacked. It was Bush's fault that the Democrats blocked initiatives TWICE to regulate and reform Fannie & Freddie to prevent this housing crisis. It was BUSH that make deregulation to give out loans to welfare queens, and Burger King workers. It was Bush that is giving $500M a year to ACORN for voter fraud efforts. It was BUSH that started his campaign in the living room of a terrorist. It was BUSH who is the claim MESSIAH of Islam. And it's BUSH that has two lawsuits pending challenging the citizenship and the right to run for presidency...only requesting a valid birth certificate to be seen by the courts...yet Obama and the DNC will not show it. Wonder why?

Cmon man. I know you're a partisan hack, but you've really got to quit believing the nonsense spewed by Media Matters & MoveOn.org. Get a brain, think logically. Don't let the media think for you...


RE: Welcome to the new communist USA
By dickeywang on 10/20/2008 9:47:30 AM , Rating: 2
Trust me, at this point I hate the DEM just as much as I hate the GOP. But you can't deny the fact that the GOP controlled the executive and judicial branch for the past 8 years, and also the house and the senate for the most of the time, it is difficult not to blame the GOP for all the mess that we have right now.
A more serious issue I think is that laws like this passed during the Bush administration would not be terminated even after they leave the white house, because laws like this give too much power to the ruler of this country(both DEM and GOP), and I don't see a new administration would have any reason not to take advantage of the benefit from laws like this for their own interests, and that is the biggest problem I believe.


RE: Welcome to the new communist USA
By FITCamaro on 10/20/08, Rating: 0
By rdeegvainl on 10/20/2008 11:13:51 AM , Rating: 2
RE: Welcome to the new communist USA
By ebakke on 10/20/2008 11:18:35 AM , Rating: 2
Hardly anything?! Oh seriously! They passed HR 847: Recognizing the importance of Christmas and the Christian faith. I can't think of anything more pressing/important in the last 2 years.

Friggin politicians. sigh.


RE: Welcome to the new communist USA
By puckalicious on 10/20/2008 12:21:35 PM , Rating: 2
... because of the republican (barely) minority that threatens "filibuster, filibuster!!" on every single democratic measure. Funny thing is when repubs were in power they wanted to REMOVE the filibuster. Cry babies.


RE: Welcome to the new communist USA
By ebakke on 10/20/2008 1:26:05 PM , Rating: 3
So replace all of them. Problem solved.


RE: Welcome to the new communist USA
By omnicronx on 10/20/2008 3:51:40 PM , Rating: 2
Ever heard of a Veto?
Mr I've veto'd 50 times more than any other president in history could have something to do with that.. don't you think?

In fact the very bill this article discusses is only an issue because bush said he would veto the bill had the immunity not been added.


By HeelyJoe on 10/20/2008 6:28:51 PM , Rating: 2
Bush has vetoed 12 times. What the hell are you talking about?


RE: Welcome to the new communist USA
By puckalicious on 10/20/2008 12:31:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You mean like Pelosi not answering to 85%+ of the public who want off shore drilling right now...and her defense is "No, I'm going to save the planet instead".


Actually its closer to 66%, still a majority. But guess what? Offshore drilling IS ALREADY ALLOWED! Any new legislation would merely allow even more give aways to Big Oil who aren't even using all of the offshore/onshore leases they already have. Do we really want oil rigs within sight of shore, leaking oil on our shoreline? (yes this will happen - every major storm that hits the gulf causes oil spills).


RE: Welcome to the new communist USA
By mdogs444 on 10/20/2008 1:01:03 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
aren't even using all of the offshore/onshore leases they already have

That liberal talking point has already been debunked. Those leases contain either no oil, too little oil to be profitable, or are located on a grid piece next to a another square already being drilled on.
quote:
Do we really want oil rigs within sight of shore

If you can see an oil rig 7 or 8 miles off shore, then consider yourself Superman. You probably don't even live on the shore. Plus, why are you so worried about that - your God, Al Gore, has said that the shore lines will keep regressing and sea levels rising. So if we drill 10miles out, in the near future, they'll be about 20 miles out.
quote:
leaking oil on our shoreline

Another already debunked liberal talking point. Natural seepage already accounts for much more of the oil in the water and shores than from oil rigs.
quote:
yes this will happen - every major storm that hits the gulf causes oil spills

And just about every fire in Cali burns down a house. Every tornado does damage. Floods cause damage. If you don't want to live there - then don't live there. No one is FORCING people to live in New Orleans 10ft below sea level. No one forces people to live on the Gulf Coast when they know hurricanes will come in. No one forces people to live in California by the brush fires. No one forces people to live in Oklahoma in Tornado Alley. Oil is a natural security issue...the view from you beach front condo is not.


By FITCamaro on 10/20/2008 1:10:51 PM , Rating: 2
Not to mention the Democrats were pushing for drilling to only be allowed 50 MILES off the coast.


RE: Welcome to the new communist USA
By omnicronx on 10/20/2008 4:18:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you can see an oil rig 7 or 8 miles off shore, then consider yourself Superman. You probably don't even live on the shore.
I guess you don't own a boat.. the entire area around the platform is off limits to the public.
quote:
So if we drill 10miles out, in the near future, they'll be about 20 miles out.
You know damn well that there is no proof of this, we will be lucky if ocean levels rise more than a few inches in 100 years.
quote:
Natural seepage already accounts for much more of the oil in the water and shores than from oil rigs.
While I know you are sourcing the former DT article, which does not source its findings. Every other place I have seen says around 47% of the oil entering the marine environment is a result of natural seepage from subsurface reservoirs. That still leaves 53% man made, which is still a giant number, and this is with offshore drilling minimized. That number can only increase if offshore drilling continues.
quote:
And just about every fire in Cali burns down a house. Every tornado does damage. Floods cause damage. If you don't want to live there - then don't live there. No one is FORCING people to live in New Orleans 10ft below sea level.
So what you are getting at, is people are stupid enough to live under sea level, or live on a tectonic plate, so why not be so stupid as to drill oil on a major hurricane route. Your logic seems kind of flawed... Just think about how much oil prices raises now, then consider what the spike will be when a good part of all domestic oil comes from that route...

I for one do believe offshore drilling is needed, but not at all expense. Drilling should be allowed only near low populated areas, where it has been deemed to have a minimal impact on society and the environment. But hearing some of your reasons makes me realize why we are in the situation we are in now. Both sides want all or nothing, and neither are willing to make an acceptable comprimise.

p.s I do agree with you that current new 'laws' of allowing certain offshore drilling will do little to nothing, as in most places the distance of at least 10 miles offshore is basically at the end of the sea bed in which oil can not be harvested. Something has to be done, but your post only makes me think we are taking a step backwards and merely playing the blame game which in turn helps nothing.


By FITCamaro on 10/20/2008 10:42:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You know damn well that there is no proof of this, we will be lucky if ocean levels rise more than a few inches in 100 years.


He was joking.

And there is plenty of oil in areas other than the Gulf. Off the coast of California. And possibly off the coast of the Carolina (where hurricanes normally don't go).


RE: Welcome to the new communist USA
By FITCamaro on 10/20/2008 9:37:39 AM , Rating: 2
Last I checked movements to nationalize the banking, insurance, and health care industries were those of Democrats.

Funny how the liberal media is playing out Palin to be a Nazi yet everything Obama spews reaks of the same type of talk that Hitler used before taking over Germany. The rich are evil. I will nationalize health care.

http://www.fanetworks.net/alstair/Hymn_to_Hitler.t...


RE: Welcome to the new communist USA
By mdogs444 on 10/20/2008 9:40:54 AM , Rating: 2
Obama is nothing more than an articulated version of Chavez. Eventually we'll be a country of all middle class people...with no rich people to hire us. Then we'll all work for companies owned by other countries...or all owned by our government.

What a joyous day!


RE: Welcome to the new communist USA
By eyebeeemmpawn on 10/20/2008 12:47:21 PM , Rating: 2
Oh yeah, it's much better now in our system I like to call Feudalism 2.0. I can't wait till they start lowering the minimum wage, and lengthening the work day. Maybe then all the government housing that 95% of us will have to live in won't seem so bad.

If the middle class keeps disappearing, we will end up back in the dark ages...Serfs and Lords, slaves and rich business owners. Think of all those poor rich people.


RE: Welcome to the new communist USA
By FITCamaro on 10/20/2008 1:17:32 PM , Rating: 3
Yes because we're indentured to work for our employers. It's not like if we don't like our job we can go somewhere else. Or start our own business.

It's idiots like you who hate the rich who provide all the jobs that are the threat to the American middle class. You talk about the middle class disappearing but you're going to cause it. If you stop restraining businesses from doing business, they can hire more people.

But idiots like you and Obama demonize businesses. All those greedy business owners. It's all their fault. How dare they make money off their investments. They should be giving more of that money away to welfare recipients who have three kids from three different fathers or mothers.

If liberals spent even half the energy they spent on complaining about the wealthy on actually trying to get wealthy, they'd be a lot better off.


RE: Welcome to the new communist USA
By nolisi on 10/20/2008 1:52:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
How dare they make money off their investments. They should be giving more of that money away to welfare recipients who have three kids from three different fathers or mothers.


The money provided to mothers with three kids with different fathers will always pale in comparison to the money provided to corporate America.

quote:
It's idiots like you who hate the rich who provide all the jobs that are the threat to the American middle class.


A rich person does not create jobs, nor will he ever. Jobs are created when a rich person cannot produce, develop, or effectively market his product of business on his own. Jobs are created as a byproduct of necessity in order to expand wealth.

Rich people don't go out to "create jobs". Creating jobs on its own is not profitable. In fact, their goal is to create as few jobs as possible in order to save costs.

The only thing that creates jobs is a ban on slavery by the government.

quote:
But idiots like you and Obama demonize businesses.


Let me ask you, from a conservative stand point- what do you do with an employee that doesn't produce and is generally a financial drain on your company?

So, if the case is that you fire him, why do we still reward CEO's who just tanked their banks? And no, I'm not talking about the spa treatments for the CEO's that Obama is talking about; in general CEO's are still being given large payout packages. Just read up on what happened with the latest two CEOs of Washington Mutual who tanked the company, the last CEO only lasted three weeks before the JP Morgan buyout, and yet are taking away millions.

If Obama and others demonize the rich, it is because the rich protect each other and it is publicly evident.

We have welfare for the rich in this country and capitalism for everyone else. There is no other reason for failed CEO's to leave a company with no responsibility for tanking the businesses.

In doing what these people did, they actually took away jobs, not created them.


RE: Welcome to the new communist USA
By FITCamaro on 10/20/2008 2:22:55 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
A rich person does not create jobs, nor will he ever. Jobs are created when a rich person cannot produce, develop, or effectively market his product of business on his own.


You can look at it however you want. But the fact is the wealthy create jobs.

quote:
Just read up on what happened with the latest two CEOs of Washington Mutual who tanked the company, the last CEO only lasted three weeks before the JP Morgan buyout, and yet are taking away millions.


You obviously haven't heard of this thing called a contract. Which these executives had. If you should be mad at anyone, it should be the board of directors who gave these contracts to the CEOs. I don't like seeing these guys reap millions either. How do you stop it? Own stocks and vote out members of the board.

And maybe you should be mad at Obama then who helped get and kept the guys at Fannie and Freddie there.


RE: Welcome to the new communist USA
By nolisi on 10/20/2008 4:06:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You can look at it however you want. But the fact is the wealthy create jobs.


No... *you* can look at it however you want. The typically wealthy people themselves do not go out to "create jobs". This does not happen. There are few corporate mission statements whose objective includes "to create jobs." Job creation has rarely if ever been an objective of business; it is only a byproduct. When you look at the fact that every business engages in cost reducing activities, which many times includes culling the workforce, you begin to understand how ridiculous it is to claim that any rich person who creates a business is doing it for the purposes of job creation. If your objective is wealth expansion, then creating jobs is simply a necessity of that.

The other fact you must consider is that most jobs are created by small to mid size businesses than are created by the rich who sit on the executive level of enterprises.

To claim that the rich create jobs is simply looking at it the way you want to. Not every rich person creates jobs. Not every business creates jobs either, which is evidenced by the fact that when one business buys another, jobs are usually culled. Job creation only occurs when a business needs more human resources to produce and push products/services out to the market.

quote:
You obviously haven't heard of this thing called a contract. Which these executives had. If you should be mad at anyone, it should be the board of directors who gave these contracts to the CEOs.


Yes I have, and I am displeased that shareholders would create contracts that would not work to their own interests. But when you consider that at the executive/shareholder level is mostly and mainly an intermingling of the rich to begin with. CEO's also tend to be shareholders in other companies, etc.

The effect is that contracts at the executive level are designed to protect CEO's. One hand ends up washing the other.

quote:
I don't like seeing these guys reap millions either. How do you stop it? Own stocks and vote out members of the board.


That would be a great solution, except it takes a whole lot of money to own enough stocks to have that kind of an effect. Guess who has all the money and continually buys stocks in their own company to maintain majority shareholder status.

quote:
And maybe you should be mad at Obama then who helped get and kept the guys at Fannie and Freddie there.


Who says I'm not mad at Obama? The truth is that at the time when bills regarding establishing oversight on F&F were killed in a republican controlled senate which goes a lot farther in keeping the establishment running.

There are much larger issues at work here such as the corporate/wealth welfare system that keeps the rich in place meanwhile the advocation of capitalism at every other level of society. The other issue is this idea that we should keep deregulating business because even the most basic oversight is considered communism.


RE: Welcome to the new communist USA
By barclay on 10/20/2008 9:49:56 PM , Rating: 2
> "When you look at the fact that every business engages in cost reducing activities, which many times includes culling the workforce, you begin to understand how ridiculous it is to claim that any rich person who creates a business is doing it for the purposes of job creation."

You are absolutely correct -- businesses do not implicitly seek the creation of jobs. In fact, the main drive of capitalism is the push for ever greater labor saving devices and methods, which can very easily make certain jobs redundant. For example, a hospital that switches from paper charts to EMR can reduce their secretarial staff dramatically -- job reduction.

However, this is a myopic view of economics. The costs saved by greater efficiency initially flow to executives and shareholders and eventually (depending on the level competition in the specific market) the savings are passed on to the consumer. All of these individuals who finds themselves with greater effective income will either purchase additional goods that they would not have previously or increase their savings. Both of these activities will create jobs. The first shifts the demand curve which will push up supply. The second increases available capital, which in turn reduces the cost for starting up new businesses.

While it is unfortunate in the short term for the individuals who were made redundant, the process results in a net gain for the entire population.

> "There are much larger issues at work here such as the corporate/wealth welfare system that keeps the rich in place meanwhile the advocation of capitalism at every other level of society."

I completely agree -- the hypocrisy of supposed "free marketers" who favor corporate bail outs is irksome. However, with our current system it is inevitable. Corporations are able use their wealth to influence politicians to pass laws that benefit them at the expense of potential competitors, consumers, and tax payers. On the flip side, the masses are able to use their numbers to push for laws that benefit them at the expense of the rich. Unfortunately, instead of canceling each other out, they both end up with their share of special perks to the detriment of the whole.


RE: Welcome to the new communist USA
By nolisi on 10/20/2008 11:34:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
However, this is a myopic view of economics.


Actually, I believe it's the other way around. The theory of trickle down economics is very myopically focused on, you guessed it, the upper echelon of wealth.

It turns out trickle down economics is wonderfully efficient if you already have resources, however, it's efficiency diminishes the economy as a whole due to it's myopic focus on the top.

When computing power is evenly distributed, you find that the architecture benefits in both stability and efficiency. It is the same with buildings. Strong and evenly distributed foundations need to be built to support large structures.

Efficiency can be had in the same way with economics. If you build a strong middle and lower class, the economy as a whole benefits from stability and efficiency. What we have seen recently is that we weakened the base economically, through bad loans, low wages, rising overall costs, and the economic structure began to collapse and everyone, including the upper most echelons suffered.

When wealth was more evenly distributed (IE when the rich weren't as rich), the economy had overall greater stability and efficiency.

While trickle down economics has a myopic view of short term gains that benefit the bottom line of the top, distributed economics keep the economy more stable longer term. The rich may not get as rich as fast, but in general, the overall populace gains. The government sees more tax revenue because more people have more money, which translates into more resources to reinvest.

The dirty secret is that the rich would get richer anyway, because the lower in middle classes will only spend more with the greater disposable income. Currency will continue to be upwardly mobile, as it always has. Everyone in the economy will be able to contribute to a greater degree. This is the big reason why we can't have a flat tax in the United States, there is no way a flat tax could replicate the revenues that this country makes with the current system. They just wouldn't be able to get enough from the larger distribution of people in the lower and middle classes with the current distribution of wealth.

This is the very reason why you distribute your investments in the stock market. You can't focus all your wealth in one stock and expect/trust it to be perpetually stable. When you spread out your investments, you attain a much stronger portfolio that is better able to adapt to market fluctuations.

quote:
On the flip side, the masses are able to use their numbers to push for laws that benefit them at the expense of the rich.


It would be nice if this were the case, but it is much easier to unite the few powerful/rich people than it is to unite everyone underneath. The rich are able to convince enough of the lower/middle class that their ideology is the correct way, keeping the lower and middle classes from being able to effectively unite. That is, until the upper class screws up so completely that it upsets a solid majority.

This is the case where I think you and I find our common ground, barclay, it does end up canceling one another out and it leads to the detriment of the whole.


RE: Welcome to the new communist USA
By barclay on 10/21/2008 8:54:38 AM , Rating: 2
I am not sure how we got into a debate about trickle down economics. My argument was simply that jobs lost due to efficiency gains are positive. Society is better off when a job that use to take 2 people to accomplish now only takes 1. The fact that those benefits "trickle down" to the consumer is economic reality.

"Trickle down economics" refers to government policies that specifically attempt to give more money to the wealthy in the belief that they will spend it more efficiently than the broader populace or the govt. While there are arguments for and against, I choose to abstain from that debate at this time.

> "This is the case where I think you and I find our common ground, barclay, it does end up canceling one another out and it leads to the detriment of the whole."

While I hate to trounce our common ground... I specifically said that they do not end up canceling out. The corporations are able to get their tax loop holes, protective tariffs, and anti-competitive regulations. The populace is able to get its numerous entitlement programs and progressive tax code.


RE: Welcome to the new communist USA
By Spuke on 10/20/2008 4:02:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If liberals spent even half the energy they spent on complaining about the wealthy on actually trying to get wealthy, they'd be a lot better off.
What cracks me up is that they're all wealthy! LOL!


By PhoenixKnight on 10/20/2008 7:22:32 PM , Rating: 2
Wasn't the Bail-Out plan, which would nationalize the massive debt of private companies, first proposed by President Bush who, last time I checked, isn't a liberal?


RE: Welcome to the new communist USA
By AntiM on 10/20/08, Rating: -1
Ah ok
By FITCamaro on 10/20/08, Rating: -1
RE: Ah ok
By mdogs444 on 10/20/08, Rating: 0
RE: Ah ok
By blowfish on 10/20/2008 10:07:14 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
The EFF can suck my balls. And suck them hard


.....but you don't have any you sad bastard


RE: Ah ok
By FITCamaro on 10/20/08, Rating: 0
RE: Ah ok
By Ryanman on 10/20/2008 11:00:23 AM , Rating: 2
I thought when it came to ball sucking, a slight pressure was all that was applied, along with a little bit of tongue.

IMO, "hard sucking" would hurt like all get out. Just a minor point.


RE: Ah ok
By Rhaido on 10/20/2008 11:23:07 AM , Rating: 4
The EFF is on the right side of this issue. Someone needs to stand up against tyranny. Too many people in the USA allow the federal government to increase its power and abuse its power. And both political parties are guilty of abuse.

Hillary Clinton had hundreds of FBI files of political enemies sent to the White House. The Clintons were obviously looking for dirt or looking for a way to manipulate or punish opponents.
http://www.judicialwatch.org/filegate.shtml

Bush had the NSA set up who-knows-how-many Narus STA 6400 across the country which could monitor every bit of communication. Imagine a President, his wife, or a political party using this system to destroy their opponents.
http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006...

http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/att/Mark%20Klein...


RE: Ah ok
By FITCamaro on 10/20/2008 2:24:08 PM , Rating: 2
I'm glad at least one person actually addressed what I actually said.


"Game reviewers fought each other to write the most glowing coverage possible for the powerhouse Sony, MS systems. Reviewers flipped coins to see who would review the Nintendo Wii. The losers got stuck with the job." -- Andy Marken











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki