|
| Posted by: Baldwin
- [4261155] Sat, May 25, 2002, 18:29
Many of you wonder why I repeatedly harp on the issue of objective reality vs subjective reality.
The time is rapidly approaching when it will be a question you need to ask yourself whenever you look at a picture or view a newsclip.
Look at these clips and see the future of political manipulation.
Already the weak minded swim in a sea of altered subjected reality swallowing whole manipulated reality 'National Enquirer' style.
I quote once again from the book '1984'...
He accepted everything. The past was alterable. The past never had been altered...He remembered remembering contrary things, but those were false memories, products of selfdeception. How easy it all was! Only surrender, and everything else followed. It was like swimming against a current that swept you backwards however hard you struggled, and then suddenly deciding to turn round and go with the current instead of opposing it. Nothing had changed except your own attitude: the predestined thing happened in any case. He hardly knew why he had ever rebelled. Everything was easy, except!
Anything could be true. The so-called laws of Nature were nonsense. The law of gravity was nonsense. 'If I wished,' O'Brien had said, 'I could float off this floor like a soap bubble.' Winston worked it out. 'If he thinks he floats off the floor, and if I simultaneously think I see him do it, then the thing happens.' [the pentagon floated don't you know - B] Suddenly, like a lump of submerged wreckage breaking the surface of water, the thought burst into his mind: 'It doesn't really happen. We imagine it. It is hallucination.' He pushed the thought under instantly. The fallacy was obvious. It presupposed that somewhere or other, outside oneself, there was a 'real' world where 'real' things happened. But how could there be such a world? What knowledge have we of anything, save through our own minds? All happenings are in the mind. Whatever happens in all minds, truly happens.
The tools to control what happens in all minds and thus of subjective reality itself is approaching and the time to take a stand in defense of truth and objective reality is upon us.
|
| | | 1 | Baldwin
ID: 4261155 Sat, May 25, 2002, 19:22
|
One more for the toolbox...
Robots to track you wherever you go and however you try and shake them off.
|
|
| | | 2 | Baldwin
ID: 4261155 Sun, May 26, 2002, 21:55
|
I love this site called disinformation which is predominantly of a liberal bent but runs into amazing info just the same. Gotta keep an open mind. 8] In fact I bought this huge book they have out.
|
|
| | | 3 | Baldwin
ID: 4261155 Sun, May 26, 2002, 23:13
|
Whole countries are being forced to kneel and kiss the ring of the IMF/World Bank. As powerful as it is the press has done an incredibly bad job of explaining it. I can't even say I have wrapped my mind around these guys and what they are about but here is an interesting place to start.
"look, the IMF and the World Bank is 51% owned by the United States Treasury. So the question becomes, what are we getting for the money that we put into there? And it looks like we are getting mayhem in several nations. Indonesia is in flames. He was telling me, the Chief [Nobel Prize winning] Economist, Stiglitz, was telling me that he started questioning what was happening. You know, everywhere we go, every country we end up meddling in, we destroy their economy and they end up in flames. And he was saying that he questioned this and he got fired for it. But he was saying that they even kind of plan in the riots. They know that when they squeeze a country and destroy its economy, you are going to get riots in the streets. And they say, well that's the IMF riot. In other words, because you have riot, you lose. All the capital runs away from your country and that gives the opportunity for the IMF to then add more conditions."
Why has the media done such a bad job explaining the IMF/World Bank?
This might partially explain it. A reporter who had debriefed Stiglitz, had received IMF documents and understood the IMF better than most...was supposed to be on CNN with the head of the World Bank Jim Wolfensen and he said he would not appear on CNN ever if they put me on. And so CNN did the craziest thing and pulled me off.
From a third world or second world perspective Jim Wolfensen might as well be Big Brother these days.
Is there any limit to the size of things that can slip under the radar?
|
|
| | | 4 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 1832399 Tue, May 28, 2002, 09:42
|
Baldwin Off topic (but no, not a diversionary tactic). Is there something you change in Guru's "insert a link" function that causes your links to replace the Rotoguru page? Your's consistantly do this while mostly everyone else's open in a new window. Just a minor inconvenience, but if it is something you're able and willing to change at the request of those who read your posts, I would appreciate your links opening in a new window. Or is there some technical or convenience-related reason why your links work this way?
Great thread, by the way. Thanks for the links.
|
|
| | | 5 | Baldwin
ID: 4261155 Tue, May 28, 2002, 11:14
|
No one has ever asked me to do it that way tho it is simple. Years of habit doin it my way will prolly mean I will slip and do it my way often.
|
|
| | | 6 | Baldwin
ID: 4261155 Tue, May 28, 2002, 11:18
|
I don't use the insert a link feature, I just type in the html.
|
|
| | | 7 | Baldwin
ID: 4261155 Fri, May 31, 2002, 14:05
|
This next tool could be good or could be bad depending on how the program developes I guess but we do have a history of totalitarian governments with a government snitch in every block and apartment building.
ALEXANDRIA, Va. (May 30, 2002 4:40 p.m. EDT) - The Justice Department launched a program Thursday to encourage more people to volunteer their time to local police departments.
The Volunteers in Police Service program, known as VIPS, is part of the Citizen Corps proposed by President Bush in his State of the Union address in January. Citizen Corps encourages Americans to become more involved in domestic defense.
|
|
| | | 8 | Seattle Zen Donor
ID: 554192913 Fri, May 31, 2002, 14:29
|
Baldwin
I KNEW you would eventually find Disinfo.com. I have both of their books, fun reading.
|
|
| | | 9 | Baldwin
ID: 4261155 Fri, May 31, 2002, 16:38
|
Now see a close minded conservative would have avoided them but you knew I wouldn't be afraid to look at things from their perspective. 8]
|
|
| | |
| | | 11 | Baldwin
ID: 4261155 Wed, Jun 05, 2002, 18:53
|
If you would just be less dense everything would be better. That's why we need organizations like 'Planned Parenthood' and VHEMT.
|
|
| | | 12 | Bungers Leader
ID: 15411129 Wed, Jun 05, 2002, 20:14
|
I hope all the membership of VHEMT decides to go first. After all, once they're dead they won't have such "earthy" matters weighing on their little skulls. Poor suicidal bastards. :)
|
|
| | | 13 | Baldwin
ID: 4261155 Fri, Jun 14, 2002, 08:59
|
A retired professor of journalism and freelance journalist has been jailed in solitary confinement and ordered to stay there until he complies with an order to erase his internet documentation of official HUD misconduct. It is not clear just how he is to do this considering he has no access to the outside world let alone computer access. Also noteworthy is that he is jailed for what he is saying on an website hosted outside this country.
The big brother toolbox aspect of this is that it looks like manufactured charges of harrassment are all it takes to eliminate your freedom of speech and have you jailed indefinately.
I don't know what it is about HUD but there is a very scary fascist streak to that organization. This is not the first time they have had critics jailed! Perhaps they are too used to having undue power over poor tenants?
Other wierd HUD conduct...
In 1993, HUD launched a Fair Housing Act investigation against three Berkeley residents for opposing a planned homeless shelter in their neighborhood, threatening each with fines up to $100,000 and a year in jail if they did not turn over all their records, including lists of their coalition's members. HUD subsequently disclosed similar investigations around the country, aimed at suppressing what Heather MacDonald, writing in the Wall Street Journal, described as "textbook examples of petitioning the government for a redress of grievances."
After widespread publicity, HUD's Achtenberg backed down, conceding that the "Berkeley citizens' acted within their First Amendment, free-speech rights." She pledged that "every attempt is being made to ensure that HUD's inquiries ... do not have a chilling effect on political activity or the exercise of free speech." But, warned Achtenberg, 'We can anticipate more cases of this kind."
In January 1994, HUD established "cultural diversity" performance standards for managers and supervisors, evaluating them on such criteria as "speak[ing] favorably about minorities, women, persons with disabilities and others of diverse backgrounds"; "participat[ing] as an active member of minority, feminist or other cultural organizations"; and "participat[ing] in EEO and Cultural Diversity activities outside of HUD."
In other words HUD made it mandatory that it's managers be minority activists both on and off the job.
I would have expected you rain-soaked Washington State gurupies to have brought up Paul Trummel's case by now. hmmm
|
|
| | | 14 | James K Polk
ID: 13516513 Fri, Jun 14, 2002, 13:08
|
Trummel's may turn out to be an interesting case, but, obviously, it's not necessarily as blatant as his supporters say. He's been in conflict with his apartment building for years. Here's a Seattle Weekly story on the whole thing. And here's a story from the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.
First of all, it's questionable whether he should fall under the category of "journalist." He publishes a personal newsletter and has a website, neither of which he's paid for. Regardless of whether he's a real journalist or just calls himself one, he's got First Amendment protections ... so then you've got to look at what the speech was that's being censored. According to the SW story, the judge "ordered Trummel to delete accusations and personal attacks from his Web site." Personal attacks such as depicting his Jewish landlord Stephen Mitchell as a "turbaned terrorist."
My opinion: Sounds like the guy probably did uncover some bad HUD stuff, but was a jackass in his presentation of it. Some of his free speech definitely could be construed as harassment, and it sounds like the judge was fairly specific in asking him to target that specific language. From a WIRED story: "Doerty ordered Trummel to remove from his website the home phone numbers, addresses and other personal data on employees at Council House, and imposed fines of $100 a day for failing to comply. Trummel also was ordered to remove a picture making administrator Stephen Mitchell resemble Osama bin Laden."
Now it's become a battle of wills. (And Trummel was asked to have a second party take the information offline; he's refused.) If Trummel truly has evidence of mistreatment of residents, I suspect that at some point he'll decide that simply getting that information out is more important than saying it in his cantankerous style.
|
|
| | | 15 | biliruben Sustainer
ID: 3502218 Fri, Jun 14, 2002, 14:22
|
I'd read a bit about this guy, but wrote him off as a mean, old crank or nutcase, based on the numerous neighbors who portrayed him as such.
I don't agree with how the judge is basing the definition of journalist as one who recieves monetary compensation for his work, however. Some news investigations may be very important, yet not necessarily worth anything on the monied market.
That doesn't give this guy a licensed to mercilessly attack individuals without facts to back them up, however.
|
|
| | | 16 | James K Polk
ID: 13516513 Fri, Jun 14, 2002, 14:27
|
I'd agree with you that payment isn't necessarily inherent in being a journalist. My wife probably would tell you the same thing :)
|
|
| | | 17 | Seattle Zen Donor
ID: 554192913 Fri, Jun 14, 2002, 14:45
|
This case is quite confounding, I must say. I support the cantankerous old fart and don't think he should be in jail, but the judge doesn have a point about private citizen's desires not to have their contact information flaunted on the Web. However, in a society that can't even agree that Arthur Andersen is criminally liable for their evil deeds, should this guy be in jail? Ridiculous.
|
|
| | | 18 | biliruben Sustainer
ID: 3502218 Mon, Jun 17, 2002, 16:58
|
The latest on Trummel. Released and given a until Friday to remove the personal info the Judge considers harrasment.
---- In his opinion this morning, Doerty said the case is not really about free speech. It's about a "mean old" man, he said.
---- Supporters of Trummel say it doesn't matter who he is or where he has been. They believe the issue should be his freedom to speak his mind and post information on his Web site, even if he is a little eccentric.
"I have no idea if what he's saying is true," said Joe Harkins, an official with the National Writers Union. "That's irrelevant to me."
----
The reporter also checked on claims of his prior professorships, with mixed results.
|
|
| | |
| | | 20 | Baldwin
ID: 4261155 Mon, Jun 24, 2002, 07:03
|
If the right people complain bitterly enuff they can take your first amendment rights, get you fired, maybe get you put in prison, just for listing the names of people providing a legal service. I guess those people really have something shameful to hide.
|
|
| | | 21 | Baldwin
ID: 4261155 Mon, Jun 24, 2002, 07:25
|
Ever since the evil queen Hillary suggested the internet needed censoring I have been wondering what mechanism they would use. This may well be it. You should ask yourself how ISP's can cope with this without employing censors. Say goodbye to the days of a free wheeling internet.
|
|
| | | 22 | Baldwin
ID: 4261155 Mon, Jun 24, 2002, 08:32
|
Here's a real tool.
When it comes time to reform and clean house who ya gonna call? Thomas A. Kelley
The official in charge of ferreting out information about the FBI for a joint congressional intelligence panel allegedly obstructed a Justice Department probe of the bureau two years ago.
As the FBI's deputy general counsel, Thomas A. Kelley was the bureau's point of contact for special counsel John C. Danforth's inquiry into the 1993 Waco debacle in which 75 Branch Davidians died in a fire after a 51-day standoff.
Kelley, who has since retired from the FBI, heads the intelligence panel's probe of the bureau's role in tracking terrorists before the Sept. 11 attacks.
According to a December 2000 internal FBI memo, Kelley "continued to thwart and obstruct" the Waco investigation to the point that Danforth was forced to send a team to search FBI headquarters for documents Kelley refused to turn over. "This non-cooperative spirit was at the specific direction of [deputy general counsel] Kelley," the memo states.
The memo, written by an agent in the bureau's Office of Professional Responsibility, is cited in a letter sent to the intelligence committee leadership by Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa). The letter was obtained yesterday by The Washington Post.
"I am concerned that Mr. Kelley is part of this review," Grassley wrote.
The letter says that even when Kelley's supervisor recused him from dealing with the Waco investigators, Kelley "continued to insert himself into the Waco inquiry."
The memo says Kelley should have been investigated for alleged "unprofessional conduct, poor judgment, conflict of interest, hostile work environment and retaliation/reprisal" related to his role in the Waco investigation. Grassley's letter says Kelley retired "before an OPR investigation could proceed."
This guy who was responsible for stonewalling Danforth is now going to ferret out information for this congressional committee? Yeah as soon as monkeys fly from my butt.
You wonder why reform never happens and why investigations of higher ups never seem to go anywhere?
|
|
| | | 23 | Baldwin
ID: 4261155 Mon, Jun 24, 2002, 08:58
|
Not a good sign of things to come. The bill creating a new 'Homeland Security Department' has removed whistleblower protection. A provision allows the director of the proposed agency to waive all employee protections in Title V, including the Whistleblower Protection Act. The act protects government employees from retaliation or losing employment for speaking out on waste, fraud and abuse.
Other provisions include an exemption from the Freedom of Information Act.
Don't bother to ask who will be watching the watchmen. The answer will be no one.
|
|
| | | 24 | Perm Dude Leader
ID: 22347210 Mon, Jun 24, 2002, 11:30
|
Holy cow, Baldwin, good find! It really irritates me how government often excempts itself from laws imposed on others. I love Grassley's comment: "Whistleblowers are key to exposing a dysfunctional bureaucracy." I agree.
I'm not sure that FOIA would apply to them anyway. I recall certain executive areas as being considered off-limits to FOIA, but will have to dig for the exact information. The White House, for example, if off-limits, since it is not considered an "agency."
pd
|
|
| | | 25 | Madman
ID: 21020124 Mon, Jun 24, 2002, 20:06
|
Good find? Are you sure?
Audrey doesn't tell us where in what bill what she is talking about goes into effect. Therefore we are left to guess. A good bet is the following, taken from HR 4660, section 108 "Savings Provisions", part f:
(2) EMPLOYEE RIGHTS-
(A) IN GENERAL- The Department or a subdivision within the Department shall not be excluded under section 7103(b)(1) of title 5, United States Code, from coverage under chapter 71 of that title unless the President determines that a majority of employees within the Department or applicable subdivision have, as their primary job duty, intelligence, counterintelligence, or investigative work directly related to terrorism investigation.
(B) NATIONAL SECURITY POSITIONS- Employees transferred under this title shall not be considered to perform work which directly affects national security within the meaning of section 7112(b)(6) of title 5, United States Code, unless their primary job duty involves intelligence, counterintelligence, or investigative duties directly related to terrorism investigation. All employees transferred under this title who are not in the counterterrorism positions described in the preceding sentence shall continue to be afforded the full rights and protections under chapter 71 of title 5, United States Code.
So what the heck is section 7103, Title V? It's an article that specifically delineates covered employees. A statute, by the way, that specifically exempts the CIA and FBI from Title V's definition of a governmental agency.
check here if you don't believe me.
This is the definition used in section 7112 (located at the Cornell site, as well).
Thus, we now must return to Aubrey's "excellent work" to deduce whether this is consistent with her description of events.
She describes Title V as The act protects government employees from retaliation or losing employment for speaking out on waste, fraud and abuse.
Hmmm. Except for the intelligence agencies, yes???
Her next paragraph states that FBI agent Rowley testified before Congress. Interestingly, she does NOT state that there is any logical linkage between the two assertions. She IMPLIES that Rowley was protected by Title V, but doesn't say it. Was she?
I can find no evidence to that effect. Rowley received statements of support and protection from her FBI director as well as various Congressmen. I can't find references to suggest that it was their legal duty to provide her with such protection.
Thus, this may be an example of "slick Audrey" journalism.
Furthermore, she states that HR 4660 or one of it's clones "contains a provision allowing the director of the proposed agency to waive all employee protections in Title V".
Clearly, this means that my aforementioned quote from 4660 is not sufficient. Explicit in 4660 was the limitation of the Title V exception to various intelligence personnel, concurrent with the actual language and text of Title V itself.
Even more shockingly, without even talking about HR 4660 and whatever it says, Grassley has gone on record to re-write Title V and make it apply to all intelligence agencies, according to this article. "Sen. Charles E. Grassley, Iowa Republican, sent a letter Wednesday to Tom Ridge, White House homeland security adviser, asking that the administration guarantee full application of the act to employees of the proposed department."
The CIA is in the new department, yes? Yet the CIA has not now nor ever was covered under Title V!
Did Grassley know this? Or did he get duped by an unsuspecting and clever journalistic trick?
Lastly, I should note that the section referred to in 4660 is from the SAVINGS piece. This is clearly designed to preserve the status quo in various agencies who already enjoy Title V exemptions. Thus the name "SAVINGS", I would imagine, yes? Read through some of the bill immediately before the passage in question, and I think you'll see what I mean.
This further corroborates my interpretation from the plain language of Title V as cited in my previous link.
Bottom line, this piece, IMO, is either middle-school journalism run-amuck and thereby accidentally ignorant of the law OR it is a clever, politically motivated bit designed to raise a ruckus and actually get Title V re-vamped and couching that argument under a discussion of the new Homeland Security Department.
Either way, I would hardly classify it as a "good find". Maybe if you are looking for an example of lousy, biased journalism . . . ------------------------
For the record, I might be wrong. There might be another provision in 4660 that she is referring to. Or, Title V might be broader than it reads to me. I just did this in a 20 minute Thomas.gov and USSC search and read-through.
Unfortunately, I don't think Audrey did a similar amount of homework to verify her story here.
The problem is that Audrey didn't even provide us, the casual public, with enough evidence to determine what bill she's talking about, what provision she was referring to, or why that provision was there in the first place. She leaves all those questions UNANSWERED.
Craftily, by leaving the big questions unanswered, I think she paints a picture of a bill where the President was attempting to get unusual authority to clamp down on whistle-blowers like Rowley.
Whereas, from my arguments above, the President may have been attempting to preserve the status quo, which has nothing to do with whistle-blowers like Rowley.
Thus, the real damnation of the piece by Audrey is not in what it might mistakenly say. The real damage of the piece is in the fact that it doesn't even bother to investigate and pin down important corroborative facts. I think she just ASSUMED what the lay of the land was and went on her happy, naive and biased view of the world.
Thus, I would argue, even if I am somehow misreading Title V, her article was a piece of crap because it doesn't even bother to provide us with enough evidence to be completely sure that we even know what's she's talking about here.
|
|
| | | 26 | Baldwin
ID: 4261155 Mon, Jun 24, 2002, 21:07
|
Rowley specifically applied for whistle-blower protection when she submitted her memo. I would think she would know whether she was covered.
|
|
| | | 27 | Madman
ID: 21020124 Mon, Jun 24, 2002, 21:53
|
Rowley "applied" for whistle-blower protection?
You do know that other FBI agents do not feel similarly safe.
Interesting -- was Rowley covered by Title V?
The National Whistle-blowers association is unclear. They did have this to say about the FBI in general in this letter to Mueller
"Other cultural issues have not yet been addressed by the committee, but need to be examined and addressed during upcoming hearings. These include the following: 1) sending FBI whistleblowers for psychiatric evaluation as a prelude to termination; 2) the FBI's failure to hold senior managers accountable for poorly managed cases; 3) the absence of effective whistleblower protections for legitimate disclosures of wrongdoing; etc., etc.
This letter was sent regarding Mueller's confirmation.
More circumstantial evidence to the contrary . . . Employees of other agencies in sensitive positions, such as the FBI and the CIA, may not have whistle-blower protection because of the sensitive nature of their work, but other avenues of appeal are open to them.
A description of the Whistle-blower protection act:
Thomas Devine is the legal director of the Government Accountability Project and had this to say in an interview, 2000:
"Mr. Pitts: Are there any categories of federal workers that are excluded from the law?
Mr. Devine: Yes, employees of intelligence agencies or the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) are outside the protections of the Whistleblower Protection Act, as are congressional and judicial staff.
Mr. Pitts: Why were those categories excluded?
Mr. Devine: The boundaries for the law match the scope of the civil service system and the due process rules which have existed since the 1880s for federal employees with the equivalent of tenure in the career service. Employees at the judicial and legislative branches traditionally have been excluded from Civil Service Commission rules and regulations.
But in my opinion, all of those workers should be added to the scope of coverage under the Whistleblower Protection Act because their public service duties are just as strong or even more compelling than staff at federal agencies. But that is the legal boundary at the moment.
By the way, I've added the emphasis in each of these quotes . . . -------------------
I think the scope is clear -- the FBI and CIA are NOT directly covered under Title V. They never have been. Therefore, Audrey's implication that they were is simply false.
This is not to say that they enjoy no protection whatsoever. But it is to say that the FBI and CIA have general exceptions that HR 4660 simply repeats.
What was Rowley trying to say in her request for protection under the Whistle-blower Act? Probably she was requesting that her criticisms be treated under whatever processes and rules govern the treatment of whistle-blowers within the FBI. Almost certainly, she wasn't referring to chapter 71, Title V, since I don't think that applies at all.
|
|
| | | 28 | Madman
ID: 21020124 Mon, Jun 24, 2002, 21:56
|
Actually, perhaps the most plausible explanation for Rowley's last sentence in her memo was that she was just confused. Wouldn't surprise me.
|
|
| | |
| | | 30 | biliruben Sustainer
ID: 3502218 Wed, Jun 26, 2002, 13:53
|
LOL...Ulp...Shudder.
|
|
| | | 31 | Baldwin
ID: 4261155 Wed, Jun 26, 2002, 14:54
|
"No disassemble...Johnny 5 is alive!"
|
|
| | |
| | | 33 | Baldwin
ID: 4261155 Mon, Jul 01, 2002, 17:53
|
Products for the discriminating eavesdropper.
|
|
| | |
| | | 35 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 1832399 Mon, Jul 22, 2002, 12:20
|
FCC's contentious ruling gives 'affiliated' parties default access to customer data, requires opt-in for others.
The unclear definition of "corporate affiliates" that can access customer data invites abuse, Copps says. Consumers might find their phone companies "selling to the highest bidder personal and detailed information...as long as these companies use it for some 'communications-related' purpose and have some undefined murky affiliation," he says.
...This battle is an old one, with a series of changing decisions along the way. The FCC originally required companies to obtain consumer's consent before releasing private information to anyone. However, that ruling was overturned in 1999 when a federal appeals court said the commission did not have enough evidence to justify the rule's infringement on corporate speech.
"We've argued pretty vehemently that the networks have misused proprietary consumer information to win back customers," says Jonathan Askin, general counsel for the Association for Local Telecommunications Services.
The FCC was forced to carve a compromise that passed judicial scrutiny and balanced corporate and consumer interests, commissioners noted.
"Despite the laudable efforts of the parties to generate such an empirical record, not to mention our own efforts, no more persuasive evidence emerged that would satisfy the high constitutional bar set by the court," says FCC Chairman Michael Powell. He adds that states can set their own requirements.
However, Condon says the court ruling will likely be used as precedent in the states, discouraging any change from the FCC's new rule. States are "pretty much guaranteed litigation" if they require consumer consent, she says.
|
|
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | | 39 | James K Polk
ID: 13516513 Tue, Aug 06, 2002, 14:07
|
Every time I see a Krugman column, though, I cringe. He's the poster boy for not owning up when he gets things wrong.
|
|
| | | 40 | Baldwin
ID: 4261155 Tue, Aug 06, 2002, 14:40
|
OMG I am crushed sorta. I just found out that not only was Krugman a large recipient of Enron largess but my own dear Peggy Noonan was at the trough as well. Arghhhhh
|
|
| | | 41 | Madman
ID: 21020124 Tue, Aug 06, 2002, 15:32
|
Baldwin -- Noonan wrote an article, but she was very up-front with her Enron connections immediately, IIRC. Working for Enron doesn't necessarily besmirch anyone, IMO.
JKP 39 No kidding. There's no reason to believe this based upon my posts to this forum, but I actually used to have a lot of respect for Krugman... even through a large number of his editorials. However, this last year he has, IMO, stunk. His work has gotten sloppy; he seems to be writing off his reputation rather than actually doing good work.
biliruben 38 I just don't understand that article at all. First off, There is at least this one case where Bush said something very similar during the campaign. And I found that with just 3 minutes of web searching.
''This is not only no new taxes, this is tax cuts, so help me God,'' Bush said, though he later admitted he might have to raise taxes in a time of war.
''If I ever commit troops, I'm going to do so with one thing in mind, and that's to win,'' Bush said.
''And spend what it takes?'' asked the moderator, NBC's Tim Russert.
''Absolutely,'' Bush replied, ''if we go to war.''
The only bit about raising taxes was in the words of the author of the article. Bush himself said that he was going to cut taxes, and in case of war, he was going to spend what it takes.
Furthermore, if there is one thing that he has demonstrated, it's that he's dogmatically learned the lessons of econ 101 (in the summer of 2001, he even applied them in places they shouldn't have been); and thus the notion of raising taxes in time of recession would be rather silly. In fact, if you recall, Democrats were lambasting Cheney and Bush for going around and talking about how their tax cut might help avert the impending recession. This was going on while Clinton was still President. Hmmm. They were advocating tax cuts in the face of recession. What do you think will happen to the deficit?
Did Bush ever say explicitly that he would bend his promise to keep the budget in surplus in case of war, recession or national emergency? Almost certainly not in one sentence. But virtually made this assertion with respect to war, and it was a logical consequence of his arguments for recession.
More critically, I am troubled by the tenor of this sort of attack. First and foremost, Bush's obligation is to good governance. Avoidance of recessions and winning of wars are his first priorities; any President who would argue "well, I technically didn't make caveats for those things in my campaign promises, so I better not win the war or try to get us out of recession" should be immediately impeached. Those sorts of caveats should be assumed. Everyone knew that Bush's (and everyone else's) projections were based on those things NOT HAPPENING. When those things did happen, why should a President be forced to stick by the results of the no-longer-applicable-projections rather than do what he thinks is best for the country?
Krugman is a smart man. I have to assume that his partisan blinders are not allowing him to see these most basic of arguments. He should stick to arguing the proposals on the merits rather than trying to play "gotcha" politics. It does the nation no service.
|
|
| | |
| | | 43 | yankeeh8tr
ID: 43791418 Wed, Aug 28, 2002, 18:24
|
Serendipidous? For your review and in keeping with the spirit of Delawares finest (a la the last post from JKP) The New Republic had this essay...
|
|
| | | 44 | Seattle Zen Donor
ID: 554192913 Wed, Aug 28, 2002, 19:01
|
Excellent article. I HATE Delaware, too, so it was so gratifying to read someone else feels the same.
Delaware is simply a cancerous boil upon the gorgeous ass that is Maryland.
Of course, Blue Hen is from Delaware.
|
|
| | | 45 | Myboyjack Leader
ID: 29742022 Wed, Aug 28, 2002, 21:07
|
Never been to Delaware. I hear it's easy to miss though.
|
|
| | | 46 | James K Polk
ID: 23754811 Mon, Sep 09, 2002, 22:50
|
Good grief. Forget the toolbox. Big Brother's already done a major overhaul at this L.A. school.
As Mike Brooder pulls into the student parking lot outside West Hills High School, wireless cameras record his face and license plate--doing the same to every car that follows.
The cameras then track the 17-year-old senior as he walks up a concrete path, studies his schedule, scratches his chin, waves to friends and then wanders to class.
Nearly every move Brooder makes--and every move of his 2,300 classmates--is captured and stored in the campus' database.
By Christmas, four more cameras will be installed, and hall monitors will carry wireless computers that can pull up a student's school picture and class schedule.
School officials are considering whether to expand the SkyWitness surveillance system by adding facial recognition software that will allow a computer to filter out who should--and who should not--be on campus.
|
|
| | | 47 | James K Polk
ID: 23754811 Mon, Sep 09, 2002, 23:10
|
BTW, if you don't want to register to read the LA Times story, just log in with ...
User: metafilter99 Pass: metafilter99
|
|
| | | 48 | Baldwin
ID: 4261155 Fri, Oct 11, 2002, 18:39
|
...the League of Nations' founding document mentioned drug control as a major concern for globalists back in 1919. Ditto for the United Nations 29 years later. As global government has grown, the efforts to link these laws into a web of international control have been like steroid shots for Leviathan.
"Drug prohibition has been part of what I think it is appropriate to call the 20th century's 'romance with the state,'" says Levine.
Drug prohibition grants the state increased military and police powers. It has allowed individual governments greater strength within their own borders over their populaces, and it has also beefed up the strength of other nations, such as the U.S., outside their borders in something akin to "pharmaceutical colonialism," whereby they set policies for other nations because of a drug problem at home they continually fail to fix.
|
|
| | | 49 | Seattle Zen Donor
ID: 554192913 Fri, Oct 11, 2002, 19:11
|
While I enjoyed the article, Baldwin, I have to take issue with his argument. Yes, international treaties regarding drug prohibition are invideous invasions of one's privacy. However, this guy seems to think that it is guys like Chirac and Kofi Annan behind a conspiracy to dictate their totalitarian impulses upon Americans when the truth is that it us, the AMERICANS, that are imposing our misguided policies accross the globe.
Americans, starting with Harry Ainslinger, the force behind the The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937, went to the UN to force every country on the planet to pass similar laws.
In short, I'd take Chirac's drug policy here in America any day rather than the crap Bush/Ashcroft/Walters/Hutchinson have been spewing.
|
|
| | | 51 | Baldwin
ID: 4261155 Fri, Oct 11, 2002, 19:20
|
I have to reiterate my oft stated position that the drug pushers and the drug prohibitionists are the very same people behind the scenes at the highest levels [it drives the price up and allows them to prosecute their competition] and they are by no means exclusive to the USA.
|
|
| | | 52 | James K Polk
ID: 23754811 Fri, Oct 25, 2002, 17:06
|
Holy crap! Apparently Big Brother has poster-printing machines in his toolbox :)
|
|
| | | 53 | Baldwin
ID: 4261155 Thu, Nov 14, 2002, 06:20
|
"Information Awareness Office" another fine John Poindexter production
When George W. Bush was running for president, he stood foursquare in defense of each person's medical, financial and communications privacy.
"We're just as concerned as the next person with protecting privacy," [Poindexter] blandly assured The Post.
Well maybe not...
In the past week John Markoff of The Times, followed by Robert O'Harrow of The Washington Post, have revealed the extent of Poindexter's operation, but editorialists have not grasped its undermining of the Freedom of Information Act.
...he has been given a $200 million budget to create computer dossiers on 300 million Americans.
He heads the "Information Awareness Office" in the otherwise excellent Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, which spawned the Internet and stealth aircraft technology. Poindexter is now realizing his 20-year dream: getting the "data-mining" power to snoop on every public and private act of every American.
Every purchase you make with a credit card, every magazine subscription you buy and medical prescription you fill, every Web site you visit and e-mail you send or receive, [every echelon intercept, every recorded phonecall - B] every academic grade you receive, every bank deposit you make, every trip you book and every event you attend — all these transactions and communications will go into what the Defense Department describes as "a virtual, centralized grand database."
To this computerized dossier on your private life from commercial sources, add every piece of information that government has about you — passport application, driver's license and bridge toll records, judicial and divorce records, complaints from nosy neighbors to the F.B.I., your lifetime paper trail plus the latest hidden camera surveillance — and you have the supersnoop's dream: a "Total Information Awareness" about every U.S. citizen.
This is not some far-out Orwellian scenario. It is what will happen to your personal freedom in the next few weeks if John Poindexter gets the unprecedented power he seeks.
The Latin motto over Poindexter"s new Pentagon office reads "Scientia Est Potentia" — "knowledge is power." Exactly: the government's infinite knowledge about you is its power over you.
|
|
| | | 54 | yankeeh8tr Donor
ID: 381011148 Thu, Nov 14, 2002, 09:26
|
Blah, blah, blah, baldwin. More of the same old alarmist claptrap nonsense from yet another liberal media puppet who just wants to undermine King George II's sterling record on Fatherland Sekurity.
Next thing you know, that commie pinko bast@rd Safire will come out in favor of tinkering with the Patriot Act, he's so anti-conservative values. Like Congress was under duress when that Act was passed in record time. Please - they're just good Amerikans, and after all, if you've got nothing to hide...
Just make sure you're a member of the Inner Party or the Outer Party, and not a prole.
But while we're at it I've got a good idea for a motto to be emblazoned on the outside of the Information Awareness Office building.
War is Peace.
Ignorance is Strength.
Freedom is Slavery.
|
|
| | | 55 | jjura
ID: 381011148 Thu, Nov 14, 2002, 09:36
|
In response to 9/11, the US government, also known as the "Leaders of the free world" has written several anti terrorism acts/bills. They are all very long bills and they all sound very similar in effect - abandonment of the rule of law and the cessation of civil liberties. They are in various stages of acceptance in their respective houses of senate and congress and are passing more or less unanimously with the majority of politicians admitting they haven't read the bill prior to giving approval.
Another common feature of the anti terrorism bills is that none of them define the word "terrorist". They all leave that WIDE OPEN for the obvious reason that they want to be able to substitute the word "terrorist" with anything or anyone according to their wont or whim.
"Terrorism" has become (borrowing from Orwell)..."the essential crime that contains all others in itself".
To completely get straight in your mind what they've done, substitute the word "terrorist" with "dissident" every time you read or hear it. [The definition of "dissident" is: a person who disagrees; thinks differently; expresses a different opinion from others.]
And in trying to understand what is meant by the oft repeated statement:
"You're either WITH us or you're AGAINST us",
imagine it to mean:
You're either WITH us OR you're a terrorist.
or as I heard it expressed regarding a country that balked at handing over citizens under indictment by a foreign nation:
"If you don't meet our demands, YOU WILL BE CONSIDERED AN ENTITY THAT SUPPORTS TERRORISM."
|
|
| | | 56 | Myboyjack Leader
ID: 108231015 Thu, Nov 14, 2002, 10:12
|
Wow. I have to admit that in my naivte about the state of affairs - I thought you guys were just silly alarmists when you said things like They are all very long bills and they all sound very similar in effect - abandonment of the rule of law and the cessation of civil liberties.
and Just make sure you're a member of the Inner Party or the Outer Party, and not a prole.
Then I saw this alrming article and it woke me up to just how far we've gone down the road to outlawing political dissent. In fact, come to think of it, I haven't seen any of those 100,000 who participated in the Ant-War rally a couple of weeks ago - they're all off in some gulag no doubt. You guys are right - dissent has been outlawed - in fact, I shouldn't even be posting this, I've got a wife and kids, after all.
|
|
| | | 57 | Baldwin
ID: 4261155 Thu, Nov 14, 2002, 12:57
|
MBJ
I am surprised that as a lawyer you have no inckling just how dramatically these bills could be abused. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Just because it doesn't happen overnight doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
|
|
| | | 58 | Seattle Zen Donor
ID: 554192913 Thu, Nov 14, 2002, 13:07
|
I simply can't believe that John Poindexter has a job in this Administration. What he did to our country was unpardonable. How can Jim Traficant can run out on a rail because he had some staffers paint his boat on government time, yet when John Poindexter is guilty of five felonies, he rises like a fungus a mere 14 years later?
|
|
| | | 59 | Perm Dude Leader
ID: 87192619 Thu, Nov 14, 2002, 13:10
|
Baldwin, these bills don't even have to be abused--they are at times pretty up-front with how they enlarge law enforcement's powers and curtail certain liberties.
One of the ironies of these laws is that it is the liberals who are against the expansive role of government at the expense of the individual, while most conservatives are remaining silent through it all (apparently believing this is the price of freedom). Maybe. Generally it's been the conservatives who are on guard against such obvious expansion of government.
pd
|
|
| | | 60 | Myboyjack Leader
ID: 108231015 Thu, Nov 14, 2002, 13:15
|
Baldwin - I 've posted numerous times that there is reason to be concerned about abuses of the powers grated in the Patriot Act, etc. However, the shrillnes of the opposition - the ridiculous claim the "all dissent has been stifled" does no credit to the serious concerns regarding these bills.
|
|
| | | 61 | Baldwin
ID: 4261155 Thu, Nov 14, 2002, 13:27
|
Ok then why not ignore the frivilous and counterproductive stuff and let's address the serious stuff?
This is one of those cases where the left/right dichotomy is worse than useless.
|
|
| | | 62 | yankeeh8tr Donor
ID: 381011148 Thu, Nov 14, 2002, 13:35
|
mbj - kind of like the shrillness of the NRA when any mention of gun control or registration is raised?
For the record, I'm not of the impression that all dissent has been stifled (nor am I for a national gun control policy, it's just to illustrate my point) but most of the legal groundwork is there in the "Patriot" Act. And it's so goddam ambiguious.
|
|
| | | 63 | Baldwin
ID: 4261155 Thu, Nov 14, 2002, 13:39
|
I can tell you that federal law enforcement already thinks people who quote the founding fathers are for all intents and purposes terrorists. I am also positive in a year from now every post we have ever posted here will be organized and filed in our individual dossiers. Think of the mischief and twisting they can do connecting different posts to reach extreme conclusions...we live in interesting times.
|
|
| | | 64 | Perm Dude Leader
ID: 87192619 Thu, Nov 14, 2002, 15:23
|
Safire's column of today:
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/14/opinion/14SAFI.html?ex=1038299056&ei=1&en=49cf0d22cc019ae
Good to see that at least one conservative is keeping the faith.
pd
|
|
| | | 66 | Baldwin
ID: 4261155 Sat, Nov 16, 2002, 03:33
|
And now comes the mother of all Orwellian proposals...Homeland Security bill has hidden within this trojan horse every last unconstitutional power needed to end the constitutional government we have had for over a hundred years.
For starters [and this isn't even the tyranical part] this bill allows the government to force you to take a smallpox vaccination. Forget the only thing I and abortion rights people agreed on, that the government does not have the right to force a medical procedure on anyone which is a long accepted principle. You can also scratch the 'lose your job or lose your life thread' now.
Now for the dangerous part...emergency means anything the administration says it means and they will now have the power to 'quarantine' anyone they want without due process. They also have the legal right to extend emergency powers forever without any check whatsoever.
Google search operation cable splice and operation garden plot and see that they are well prepared to 'quarantine' a great many people indeed.
Maybe this site was onto something hmm?
We will now be in the same legal boat as 'persons of interest' detained in Guantanamo.
Enjoy this happy notice that preceded the HSB which reads...
Congress of the United States March 24, 1997
"Enclosed is the information you requested pertaining to the Army's policy and guidance for establishing civilian inmate labor programs and civilian prison camps on Army installations. This information has not yet been published (it is currently at the printers), however, it has been funded, staffed, and does reflect current Army policy."
-- Bill Hefner Member of Congress
I can see why they would want to rush the HSB thru in a lame duck session without a single hearing.
Oh and in case you were wondering, don't worry George Bush is a major shareholder of the company making smallpox vaccine so you can be sure he is a disinterested party in the forced vaccination provision.
I'd tell you I feel a good deal less secure now than before I read the fine print in the homeland security bill but in fact I have been anticipating these provisions and predicting them for a good long time.
|
|
| | | 67 | Baldwin
ID: 4261155 Sun, Nov 17, 2002, 05:27
|
Send a signal clear and strong that jackbooted thug conduct is expected and rewarded.
...the FBI "suffered and still suffers from a strong, and not unreasonable, perception among employees that a double standard exists." - The Justice Department's Office of the Inspector General
bonuses and promotions went to former FBI Deputy Director Larry A. Potts, later demoted and suspended for improper oversight of the deadly siege; and E. Michael Kahoe, a senior FBI executive sentenced to prison for destroying a critical Ruby Ridge document.
Other cash awards and promotions, the report said, went to Danny O. Coulson, former deputy assistant director who worked for Mr. Potts; and three senior FBI executives, Charles Mathews, Robert E. Walsh and Van A. Harp, accused of not conducting proper after-the-fact investigations to determine what happened at Ruby Ridge.
"While a presumption of innocence is usually appropriate while a subject is under investigation, rewarding a subject who is later found to have committed misconduct can result in adverse consequences," the report said. "The FBI should be mindful of the message it sends to both the investigators in a particular case and the rest of the FBI when subjects of an investigation are promoted or receive bonuses or awards while under investigation.
The rewards of running an operation that deliberately killed an innocent woman with baby in arms?
Meaningless letters of censure just for public consumption while everyone gets promotions and cash awards.
Mr. Potts and Mr. Coulson, who directed the siege from Washington
Mr. Potts was named acting deputy director in 1994, prior to the completion of an internal FBI investigation.
Mr. Potts named deputy director four months after recieving a letter of censure over Ruby Ridge, I guess that showed him.
Mr. Coulson was promoted to agent-in-charge in Baltimore in April 1993 while still a focus of the FBI's internal Ruby Ridge investigation.
Mr. Coulson was named to lead the FBI's Dallas office in September 1994, the report said, before recommendations regarding discipline in Ruby Ridge had been completed.
three senior FBI executives, Charles Mathews, Robert E. Walsh and Van A. Harp, accused of not conducting proper after-the-fact investigations to determine what happened at Ruby Ridge
Mr. Walsh received a cash award of 5 percent of his salary while under investigation by the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility
Mr. Walsh named agent-in-charge of the FBI's San Francisco field office in December 1996 while he was the focus of a separate criminal probe of Ruby Ridge by U.S. Attorney Michael Stiles in Philadelphia. Mr. Harp, now head of the Washington field office, was named agent-in-charge in Cleveland after OPR began an investigation into the inadequacy of his after-the-fact Ruby Ridge probe
Mr. Harp was given a cash bonus of $8,099 in November 1997 while under investigation in the Ruby Ridge matter and a $14,208 bonus in October 1998 while that inquiry continued
Mr. Mathews was promoted to the FBI's Senior Executive Service (SES) in July 1995 after the OPR had begun its investigation into accusations that a separate internal Ruby Ridge inquiry he headed was inadequate.
Mr. Mathews, served as a top assistant to Mr. Coulson in Portland, Ore., from 1988 to 1990
Mr. Mathews promoted to agent-in-charge in New Orleans in June 1997 while the OPR investigation continued.
Mr. Kahoe got a cash award of $7,126 in November 1993 during the initial Ruby Ridge investigation and was named agent-in-charge in Jacksonville, Fla., in June 1994 while still under investigation. He pleaded guilty in October 1996 to obstruction of justice and was sentenced to 18 months in prison. Mr. Kahoe destroyed a November 1992 after-action report that referred to "problems" in the FBI's conduct during the Weaver siege.
Never again?
|
|
| | | 69 | Baldwin
ID: 4261155 Sun, Nov 17, 2002, 07:50
|
When you read the Homeland Security Bill post #66 about unlimited powers of internment and post #53 about 'Total Informational Awareness I suggest you put on cut #8 from the 'Bladerunner' CD. Sad, haunting, prophetic...then listen to cut #9 for the spooky foreshadowing of things to come and the excuse by which we will arrive at them.
|
|
| | | 70 | Baldwin
ID: 4261155 Sun, Nov 17, 2002, 09:17
|
I will never listen to my favorite CD the same again.
Cut #8 - Sorry but we will need unlimited powers of internment and emergency powers indefinately...cut ends with the rise of Total Information Awareness
Cut #9 - Fatwa
Cut #10 - FBI rushes to analyse tape of OBL humming
Cut #11 - Big Brother Rising...or John Poindexter Rides to the Rescue
Cut #12 - Your old men will see visions and your young men will prophesy...trudging off to the internment camp
Cut #2 - It seems you feel our work is of no benefit to the public
Cut #3 - You've seen my files...my longevity...would you hurt me?
Cut #4-#7 - Goodbye to sweetness beforehand
|
|
| | | 71 | Madman Donor
ID: 21020124 Sun, Nov 17, 2002, 18:27
|
I'd tell you I feel a good deal less secure now than before I read the fine print in the homeland security bill ... Have you actually read the fine print, or are you relying on the interpretation of World Net Daily?
|
|
| | | 72 | Baldwin
ID: 4261155 Mon, Nov 18, 2002, 03:54
|
Madman
Have I read and understood every single 'line 6 in paragraph 4 should read whereas instead of therefore' and understood exactrly what every line meant? No of course not altho I made a pretty good stab at it. No one who has had this bill sprung on them has read and digested the whole 480 pages of legalese. I have read language that says to my untrained legal eyes, that the director of this new department has the right to make up any law he damn well feels like and no one can review it or take him to court over it. Now there is a lot of room in there for modifying language that I may have missed.
What I do know is that doctors groups have insisted there is a forced vaccination program in there that I missed in my first reading. I also know that this bill is similar to a model bill proposed for states that grants governors jaw-dropping powers. It is also similar to the Patriot act which removes huge tracts of rights out from under us. I have read a great many takes on this bill, not just WND and they all agree that the devil in them thar details has really really big teeth. More later, unfortunately Monday is going to be busy so I am not sure if I will have much quality time to flesh this out.
|
|
| | | 73 | Baldwin
ID: 4261155 Mon, Nov 18, 2002, 04:08
|
Here is another review of the sweeping powers being sought.
Even the issue of your personal health is no longer yours to determine. Throughout this year, state legislatures were asked by the Bush administration to enact the Model State Emergency Health Powers Act (MSEHPA) that would authorize state officials to forcibly inject anyone with a drug, vaccine, or other treatment. If you refused, health officials would be authorized to remove you and your family from your home and have you quarantined. It would grant authority to seize and destroy your property without compensation. It would permit the rationing of medical supplies, food, and fuel in a declared public health emergency. Most states refused to pass the most egregious elements of MSEHHPA or even vote on the proposed legislation. What is more fundamental to your personal freedom than the right to determine what medical treatment you will accept?
And what is more fundamental to a free society than that its citizens not be required to carry and produce a National ID card on demand? The Homeland Security bill, however, will initiate this hallmark of authoritarian governments. The President´s National Strategy for Homeland Security (NSHS) program will convert everyone´s driver´s license into a National ID card. It does so with the vaguely worded recommendation for the coordination of "suggested minimum standards for state driver´s license."
It gets worse. The NSHS also recommends a plan for "military support to civil authorities." The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 was passed to protect Americans against a President—any President—who would use the nation´s military to enforce the law against civilians.
I also know the military has in place ready facilities for 'civilian labor camps' as I have documented in post #66.
|
|
| | | 74 | Baldwin
ID: 4261155 Mon, Nov 18, 2002, 04:28
|
Perhaps a congressman writing...
the Army's policy and guidance for establishing civilian inmate labor programs and civilian prison camps on Army installations...it has been funded, staffed, and does reflect current Army policy.
Perhaps that doesn't strike you as odd Madman? Perhaps it strikes you as so odd that it can be dismissed as an internet hoax out of hand. I spose most will ignore it but there it is.
|
|
| | | 75 | biliruben Sustainer
ID: 5310281417 Mon, Nov 18, 2002, 15:25
|
Appeals court reverses spy-court's limits on Wiretaps Reagan appointed appeals court reverses spy-court's limits on wiretaps.
Its May 17 ruling was the first-ever substantial defeat for the government on a surveillance issue, and its unprecedented, declassified public opinion issued in August documented abuses of surveillance warrants in 75 instances during both the Bush and Clinton administrations.
The Justice Department had argued before the appeals panel that the spy court had ``wholly exceeded'' its authority and that Congress clearly approved of the greater surveillance authority when it passed the Patriot Act a month after the Sept. 11 terror attacks.
The changes permit wiretaps when collecting information about foreign spies or terrorists is ``a significant purpose,'' rather than ``the purpose,'' of an investigation. Critics at the time said they feared the government might use the change as a loophole to employ espionage wiretaps in common criminal investigations.
The spy court had concluded that Ashcroft's proposed rules under that law were ``not reasonably designed'' to safeguard the privacy of Americans.
But the three-judge panel overturned that, saying the new law's provisions on surveillance ``certainly come close'' to meeting minimal constitutional standards regarding searches and seizures. The government's proposed use of the Patriot Act, the judges concluded, ``is constitutional because the surveillances it authorizes are reasonable.''
|
|
| | | 76 | Seattle Zen Donor
ID: 554192913 Mon, Nov 18, 2002, 15:36
|
Ashcroft said he believes there are adequate safeguards in the act to ensure the government does not overstep its bounds in gathering information.
``We have no desire whatsoever to in any way erode or undermine constitutional liberties,'' he said.
Whew, I feel much better now.
|
|
| | | 77 | biliruben Sustainer
ID: 5310281417 Mon, Nov 18, 2002, 20:05
|
This probably belongs in the give up your job/life thread, but that's too monstermungus to open.
A new comic is coming out from Marvel. Probably not good timing given the country's current foam-at-the-mouth patriotism, but on the other hand, it might be just the right time to reflect on what happens when we trust our government too much:
Red, White and Black.
|
|
| | | 78 | Baldwin
ID: 4261155 Fri, Nov 22, 2002, 19:59
|
Advice: "Concede no powers to your friends that you would not give to your enemies. If you are a Republican, the Law can be applied in the following form: give no powers of surveillance to the Bush administration that you would not be comfortable seeing in the hands of Hillary Clinton." - Volokh blogspot
|
|
| | |
| | |
| | | 81 | Seattle Zen Donor
ID: 554192913 Mon, Nov 25, 2002, 19:47
|
That was by SENATOR Ashcroft. He has changed colors considerably. He is so short sighted and smug that he will scream bloody murder when a Liberal suggests something, but if he were in control of Internet traffic, then everything will be peachy. We just have to trust him.
Puke
|
|
| | | 82 | biliruben Sustainer
ID: 5310281417 Mon, Nov 25, 2002, 19:54
|
Interesting stuff, MBJ. That was 5 years ago, however. You sure it wasn't just a shot at Clinton? Do you have anything from him recently reaffirming this view?
Did you make the movie on time? See the mountains and sun Sunday?
|
|
| | | 83 | biliruben Sustainer
ID: 5310281417 Mon, Nov 25, 2002, 20:00
|
The administration's interest in all e-mail is a wholly unhealthy precedent, especially given this administration's track record on FBI files and IRS snooping. Every medium by which people communicate can be subject to exploitation by those with illegal intentions. Nevertheless, this is no reason to hand Big Brother the keys to unlock our e-mail diaries, open our ATM records, read our medical records, or translate our international communications.
This is precisely what Bush is currently attmepting to do. Has he spoken up?
|
|
| | | 84 | biliruben Sustainer
ID: 5310281417 Mon, Nov 25, 2002, 20:15
|
Hmmm... Apparently not:
On May 30 (2002) John Ashcroft also gave the FBI expanded authority for its agents to monitor Internet chat rooms, Web sites, and commercial databases in search of clues to suspected terrorist activities; and to initiate inquiries at libraries and other public places without a warrant or even the need to show that a crime was committed. The new guidelines allow the FBI to send undercover agents to any event “open to the public”—including political gatherings and places of worship—to look for signs of terrorist or criminal activity. The agency will also be able to collect information on consumers through magazine subscriptions, book purchases, charitable contributions, and travel itineraries.
Sticking to his guns?
|
|
| | | 85 | Myboyjack Leader
ID: 14826271 Mon, Nov 25, 2002, 20:29
|
Post 80 - I thought the sarcasm was apparent. He's done a complete 180
|
|
| | | 86 | biliruben Sustainer
ID: 5310281417 Mon, Nov 25, 2002, 20:31
|
I was wondering.
|
|
| | | 87 | Myboyjack Leader
ID: 14826271 Mon, Nov 25, 2002, 20:50
|
bili- Saw the movie twice. It was awesome. Had a great time all the way around.
BTW, I forgot to leave that DVD with Zen. Let me know if you want it. Be glad to mail it too you. Heard you had a big time Friday night. ;)
|
|
| | | 88 | Perm Dude Leader
ID: 1310102117 Mon, Nov 25, 2002, 20:56
|
Of course he's stuck to his guns. And they are usually trained on the Democrats.
pd
|
|
| | | 89 | biliruben Sustainer
ID: 5310281417 Mon, Nov 25, 2002, 21:46
|
DoD briefing of Poindexter's (and it turns out it really is his) Total Information Awareness (TIA) program.
Q: There are two things that bother a lot of people -- one, the "Big Brother" aspect, and if you can talk about possible checks and balances -- the second thing is the choice of the man to lead it. I mean, Admiral Poindexter was under a cloud. You know, he was a convicted felon, even though the conviction was overturned on appeal, for lying to the Congress. Is he the kind of guy you'd really want in a situation like this, who has a record of lying and handling untruths?
Aldridge: I'll repeat, again, that what John Poindexter is doing is developing a tool. He's not exercising the tool. He will not exercise the tool. That tool will be exercised by the intelligence, counterintelligence and law enforcement agencies. So --
Q: Why choose him? There are lots of people available who could have run that organization.
Aldridge: John Poindexter has a passion for this project. He's a Ph.D. in physics. He has an enthusiasm for the project. He came to us with the project after September the 11th and volunteered it to DARPA. That was briefed -- Tony Tether, the director of DARPA, came over with John and briefed it to me, and I thought it was a project worthy of the pursuit of the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency. And you want an enthusiastic leader. Once the tool is developed and -- John will not be involved. But it's his enthusiasm and his volunteering of this idea which is why we developed and started to fund it.
----
Q: Every time they use a telephone, that call enters the database. And if it is voice recognition, for example, then that enters the database, hypothetically, right?
Aldridge: Hypothetically, yes.
Q: How is this not domestic spying? I don't understand this. You have these vast databases that you're looking for patterns in. Ordinary Americans, who aren't of Middle East origin, are just typical, ordinary Americans, their transactions are going to be perused.
Aldridge: Okay, first of all --
Q: And do you require search warrants? I mean, how does this work?
Aldridge: First of all, we are developing the technology of a system that could be used by the law enforcement officials, if they choose to do so. It is a technology that we're developing. We are not using this for this purpose. It is technology. Once that technology is transported over to the law enforcement agency, they will use the same process they do today; they protect the individual's identity. We'll have to operate under the same legal conditions as we do today that protects individuals' privacy when this is operated by the law enforcement agency.
|
|
| | | 90 | Perm Dude Leader
ID: 1310102117 Mon, Nov 25, 2002, 22:00
|
It's got a good beat, Dick. You can really dance to it.
pd
|
|
| | | 91 | yankeeh8tr Donor
ID: 2510392619 Tue, Nov 26, 2002, 21:04
|
Admittedly, insisting that the public's business be done in public isn't a popular cause these days. Recent surveys show that many Americans are willing to trade significant chunks of their First Amendment rights for the promise of greater security in the war on terrorism. Such surveys must gladden the hearts of Bush administration officials who presumably unintentionally undermine measures such as the Freedom of Information Act.
Consider just three examples from the past year: Section 204 of the White House's original proposal to establish a Department of Homeland Security, White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card's March 2002 directive that agencies restrict access to "sensitive but unclassified" information and the administration's claim of executive privilege to keep secret information regarding President Clinton's infamous midnight pardons.
The administration's Section 204 proposal exempted from Freedom of Information disclosure any information "provided voluntarily by non-federal entities or individuals that relates to infrastructure vulnerabilities or other vulnerabilities to terrorism." One need not be a Harvard law graduate to see that, without clarification of what constitutes such vulnerabilities, this loophole could be manipulated by clever corporate and government operators to hide endless varieties of potentially embarrassing and criminal information from public view.
Subsequent negotiations in the Senate with the White House resulted in compromise language that takes care of some of the major problems, but in the rush to final passage, the Senate has accepted the House version of the legislation, which, being virtually identical to the administration's original version, remains deeply flawed in this regard.
The Card memo was issued when public anger over the Sept. 11, 2001, massacre was still intense. Although the memo failed to define what constitutes "sensitive but unclassified" information, agencies responded by removing thousands of previously public documents from Freedom of Information disclosure. The Pentagon, for example, estimated recently that approximately 6,000 Defense Department documents were removed from public view. Who now outside of government can verify that any of those documents contained information that could help terrorists?
Few would argue that the Section 204 proposal and the Card memo do not address legitimate national security needs in the war against terrorism. But to date, nobody has produced a single example of vital information that could not have been properly exempted from disclosure under the current Freedom of Information Act, which is backed by 25 years of detailed case law. Instead, the administration offers vague language that invites abuse.
Finally, there are those pardons, which provoked a national outcry when first reported. President Clinton had pardoned 140 people, including his Whitewater partner Susan McDougal, his brother Roger (convicted on cocaine-related charges) and international fugitive Marc Rich, wanted by the Justice Department for allegedly conspiring with the Iranian government in 1980 to buy 6 million barrels of oil, contrary to a U.S. trade embargo.
It is doubtful that the full facts behind the pardons will ever be known as long as the administration refuses to disclose nearly 4,000 pages related to the former president's actions. The Bush administration has taken a similar position on documents related to former attorney general Janet Reno's controversial decision not to appoint a special counsel to investigate possible Clinton administration campaign finance illegalities.
There was a time when at least one senior Bush administration official thought the Freedom of Information Act essential because "no matter what party has held the political power of government, there have been attempts to cover up mistakes and errors." That same official added that "disclosure of government information is particularly important today because government is becoming involved in more and more aspects of every citizen's personal and business life, and so access to information about how government is exercising its trust becomes increasingly important."
So spoke a young Illinois Republican congressman named Donald Rumsfeld, in a floor speech on June 20, 1966, advocating passage of the Freedom of Information Act, of which he was a co-sponsor
|
|
| | | 92 | Baldwin
ID: 4261155 Tue, Nov 26, 2002, 22:53
|
I have never examined the FOIA very closely. What in the original act would have allowed the government to withold information on vulnerabilities of dams, water supplies, power transmission etc?
|
|
| | | 93 | Perm Dude Leader
ID: 1310102117 Tue, Nov 26, 2002, 23:55
|
Y, as I mentioned in #24, the FOIA specifically applies to "public agencies" which does not include the White House. Clinton's pardons, and the paperwork which accompanied those decisions, are not subject to a FOIA request.
Regarding the Homeland Security suddenly becoming their own arbitors of information, it stands to reason that they would use the highest standards regarding information while putting together the Brown Shirt Department. Perhaps the "secret court" of the "shadow government" can issue an "amber" ruling on this issue.
pd
|
|
| | | 94 | biliruben Sustainer
ID: 5310281417 Wed, Nov 27, 2002, 11:55
|
MBJ- glad you had a good time. No biggie on the DVD. Seen it, and can burn it from Zen and save the postage!
Friday night...mmmm.
|
|
| | | 95 | Baldwin
ID: 4261155 Fri, Nov 29, 2002, 16:13
|
Americans are now actually being charged and imprisoned for upwards of seventy years under the amazing charge of 'Paper Terrorism'.
If the fatherland doesn't like the accusations made by angry Americans, if it doesn't like the charges leveled at government officials they aren't calling it free speech anymore. They are hauling you off forever.
This is actually happening now.
|
|
| | | 96 | James K Polk
ID: 23754811 Fri, Nov 29, 2002, 16:40
|
This reminds me of the old "telephone game" where each person whispers a message in the ear of the person next to them, and you see how much the message has changed by the time it gets to the end.
Baldwin, no one has been "imprisoned for upwards of seventy years." The guy was convicted on seven counts of criminal slander of title, which each carry a maximum sentence of 10 years and $10,000 fine. Adds up to a possibility of 70 years, but when the judge sentences him about a month from now, what are the odds he gets the max sentence? I'm betting pretty low.
Also, your WND article links to a brief version of this story. If you'd like to see the full version, which describes what Mr. Magritz actually did, go here. I'll paste in a couple relevant grafs:
Among the documents Magritz filed were liens for $15 million against about 36 county officials, including the seven officially identified as victims.
He also tried to file 36 involuntary federal bankruptcy petitions against county officials.
A federal bankruptcy judge quashed that effort, but not before the liens led to problems for county officials. Some found that their credit cards had been canceled, others found that their credit ratings had been impaired and, in one case, a house sale was held up.
So, you would say these activities fall under Mr. Magritz's free speech rights?
The WND wants to hold this particular case up as an example of government attack on a poor, misguided, abused citizen (which is full of crap). And it wants to hold it up as proof of anti-terrorism law being twisted for nefarious purposes (which I fear could happen too, but don't think this is a good example of it). Reason being, the laws against criminal slander have been on the books for a long time, and lunatic tax protestors who have engaged in these tactics have been prosecuted for a long time as well. Just happens that responsibility for this prosecution was centralized under the new "Domestic Security" agency. Other than that, there's nothing new about this story.
|
|
| | | 97 | Toral Sustainer
ID: 2111201313 Fri, Nov 29, 2002, 16:51
|
An interesting issue, Baldwin. I am looking into it. The first question is where the phrase "paper terrorism" came from. It's in the Milwaukee paper's story, but who used the phrase in this case? My guess is a prosecutor before the jury, but that's just a guess.
The harassment approach used by the accused has been a problem for years. Here's the ADL's take on this. What happens is that a kook anti-tax or conspiracy-theorist theorist files a nutty lawsuit against government officials who have been administering some governmental action against him (usually something to do with tax evasion, but sometimes zoning offences, anti-noise statutes, etc.). The kook ususally asserts that the government action is illegitimate because the state is using unconstitutional powers (often under the "Posse Comitatus" theory, under which the freemen of the county are the basic legitimate unit of government.) (Sometimes the allegation is that the true legitimate government has been taken over by the Zionist International Conspiracy, which is why the ADL gets involved.) So far, no problem; we have only nuisance lawsuits, which can be handled by civil means, or if they can't, that's a civil law problem that needs to be remedied there. But the kook then uses the authority of the filed lawsuit to drop liens on any real property owned, personally, by the governtment officials involved. MBJ might come home and find that someone has put a lien on his house because he prosecuted someone for something, for example. My understanding is that it is an expensive nuisance for the people harassed to get these liens removed, that they show up on credit reports, etc.
Now whoever first called these activities "terrorism" was wrong. "Harassment" is a better word. The law used here, as far as I can figure out, is not new -- it's criminal slander of title. But there are legitimate questions why Wisconsin's Domestic Security Unit is involved. And now is a good time to start withdrawing the use of the word "terrorism" in inappropriate contexts. Before it was just rhetorical overkill and inelegance; now it could have more serious consequences.
To sum up, it's wrong to use anti-terrorism laws or institutions as a vehicle for unrelated pork (per pd) or for a government's very necessary need to protect its employees (often minor bureaucrats) against harassment.
So you may have a principled point or two here, Baldwin. But basically we have here Baldwin's 442nd cry of "Wolf!" this year. You going for a record or something?
Toral
|
|
| | | 98 | Perm Dude Leader
ID: 710162916 Fri, Nov 29, 2002, 17:16
|
An important point, Toral. Well put. We'll never win a "War on Terrorism" if we keep expanding the definition.
pd
|
|
| | | 99 | Toral Sustainer
ID: 2111201313 Sat, Nov 30, 2002, 00:00
|
James K. Polk This reminds me of the old "telephone game" where each person whispers a message in the ear of the person next to them, and you see how much the message has changed by the time it gets to the end.
I think you're being too kind to Baldwin, Mr Prez. This is more like a "telephone game" where the second recipient uses the anticpiated distortion of the story to insert a whopper.
Baldwin! I keep telling you. Stop disgracing the conservative cause with ridiculous stuff like this!
You make us look like idiots, and I for I am nor going down happily with your ship.
Toral
|
|
| | | 100 | Toral Sustainer
ID: 2111201313 Sat, Nov 30, 2002, 02:13
|
James K. Polk This reminds me of the old "telephone game" where each person whispers a message in the ear of the person next to them, and you see how much the message has changed by the time it gets to the end.
I think you're being too kind to Baldwin, Mr Prez. This is more like a "telephone game" where the second recipient uses the anticpiated distortion of the story to insert a whopper.
Baldwin! I keep telling you. Stop disgracing the conservative cause with ridiculous stuff like this!
You make us look like idiots, and I for one am not going down happily with your ship.
Toral
|
|
| | | 101 | Baldwin
ID: 4261155 Sat, Nov 30, 2002, 02:29
|
I henceforth forever disassociate myself from the, what a grand olde country we live in and it could never happen here brand of conservatism Mr Toral belongs to.
I am not surprised the 'conservatives' in his country have been such pushovers.
|
|
| | | 102 | Toral Sustainer
ID: 2111201313 Sat, Nov 30, 2002, 03:02
|
Baldwin I henceforth forever disassociate myself from the, what a grand olde country we live in and it could never happen here brand of conservatism Mr Toral belongs to.
I am not surprised the 'conservatives' in his country have been such pushovers.
LOL! Are there any other brands of conservatism you wish to officially disassociate yourself from? Many types of conservatism aspire to appeal to rational people, and I am sure would appreciate an official Baldwin-disassociation notice -- it would be a kind of Brand of Approval, that one is adhering to a type of conservatism that is intellectually advanced beyond Grade Seven, that would never take worldnetdailyorwhatever as a serious source of news.
Toral
|
|
| | | 103 | Baldwin
ID: 4261155 Sat, Nov 30, 2002, 04:08
|
This coming from the guy who also thinks my music disqualifies me from serious thot.
Undies in a bunch again? Don't take it out on me.
|
|
| | | 104 | Baldwin
ID: 4261155 Sat, Nov 30, 2002, 04:15
|
BTW Toral, the phrases "eternal vigilence is the price of delusional paranoia" and "they haven't made any real music since Lawrence Welk and Mitch Miller" are not conservative positions. They are ostrich positions.
|
|
| | | 105 | Toral Sustainer
ID: 2111201313 Sat, Nov 30, 2002, 05:43
|
Laff. Actually I'm retracting my music positions, and this is as good a time as any to do it. I was thinking of starting a new thread, but instead I'll announce it here.
I confess that I'm as much affected by music -- even popular, vulgar music -- as anyone. And 2 interesting things have happened recently. 1) 1050 CHUM (www.1050chum.com), the rock station in Canada in the 50s, dropped its sports format, went back to its oldies format, and not has -- pause -- every single CHUM chart of all time available on its website. 2) I've learned how to download MP3s.
So, I now propose to go thorugh the whole history of rock (say, 1964-1975 for starters) and pick, for each year, The Retorspective Torals. Actually the main thing I am interested in is Best Lyrics (best written song) for each year. We could also pick best recording, best male vocal, best female vocal, best arrangement, etc., but that would depend on the level of interest -- which I would expect to be none.
BTW, you people are really slow. When I spassed on people who had an epiphany from music etc., did it occur to none of you to point out that I was the person who started a thread on the best television theme songs of all time? Apparently not. You people are weak! God, this would be a much better continent if the Whigs hadn't been in power and the American Revolution had been suppressed!
I propose to start in 1964 -- this is a pop thing, so to be eligible you must have been on the CHUM Chart durng that year.
Toral
|
|
| | | 106 | biliruben Sustainer
ID: 5310281417 Mon, Dec 02, 2002, 19:18
|
Funny stuff.
|
|
| | | 107 | Baldwin
ID: 4261155 Tue, Dec 10, 2002, 16:40
|
Big Brother may just have found an end-around of the first amendment protection of American internet sites.
This ruling allows foreign citizens living outside the USA to sue American internet sites.
While you might think that the decision makes sense in defamation cases, what happens when they start suing us using their more restrictive laws. Many countries are enacting PC speech code laws which outlaw free speech. Are these laws also to be applied to Americans who can now be sued in foreign courts?
|
|
| | | 108 | Myboyjack Leader
ID: 14826271 Tue, Dec 10, 2002, 20:00
|
The case doesn't make sense, even in defamation cases...if you are in any way attached to the 1st Amendment. This is a big deal for the free flow of info over the internet.
|
|
| | | 109 | biliruben Sustainer
ID: 5310281417 Wed, Feb 12, 2003, 15:52
|
The good news:
Poindexter's Total information awareness takes a beating in Congress.
Representative John P. Murtha of Pennsylvania, the senior Democrat on the subcommittee, said of the program, "Jerry's against it, and I'm against it, so we kept the Senate amendment." Of the Pentagon, he said, "They've got some crazy people over there." --
The Defense Department had already begun to discuss the use of the system with the F.B.I. and perhaps other agencies. Now, without a new law specifically authorizing its use and a new, specific appropriation to pay for it, the program could not be used against United States citizens. But it could be employed in support of lawful military operations outside the United States and lawful foreign intelligence operations conducted wholly against non-United States citizens.
The negotiators did agree to extend from 60 to 90 days the time the Defense Department would have to provide a detailed report to Congress, including its costs, goals, impact on privacy and civil liberties and prospects for successes against terrorists. Unless that report was filed, all further research on the project would have to stop immediately. But President Bush could keep the research alive by certifying to Congress that a halt "would endanger the national security of the United States."
Senator Wyden's curb on the program slid through the Senate with no overt opposition, and among the House-Senate negotiators it has found no vocal opposition, either, making it an almost incidental decision in a conference fighting over billions of dollars for thousands of programs.
Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, the senior Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, said today, "If there is one thing that should unite everybody, from the very conservative member to the very liberal member, it is a concern that our own government should not spy on law-abiding citizens."
Publicly, most of the criticism of Total Information Awareness has come from Democrats. Except for Senator Grassley, Republicans have been silent in public, unwilling to attack a project of a Republican administration. But as Senator Wyden noted today, no one from either party has been ready to speak up in its favor.
|
|
| | |
| | | 111 | Baldwin
ID: 4261155 Wed, Feb 12, 2003, 19:36
|
Wow, they can now [or soon as this passes] declare you personally a foreign power.
Anyone refusing to cooperate with an order allowing phone taps can be prosecuted simply for refusing to install the tap [or flipping the switch or whatever the mechanism].
They can now [soon as this passes] order you to silence about your having been served a subpoenas! [pp.10] This is America?
Local court ordered limits on large cities that barred spying on citizens will be lifted. Also consent decrees limiting domestic spying will be torn up.[18]
Private parties who volunteer information obtained illegally about potential terrorists, will be protected from prosecution. [19] You can't sue them for violating your privacy.
Something I did not know...there are currently 70 countries with which the US does not have extradition treaties so that the USA in effect becomes a safe haven for foriegn criminals. [20]
|
|
| | | 112 | yankeeh8tr Donor
ID: 541252016 Thu, Feb 20, 2003, 21:22
|
DISGUSTING. Why aren't we talking more about this draft? It's easy to understand why Ashcroft would want this legislation to have as little time for exposure to Congressional and public scrutiny as possible before it's rammed into law. Exposed to sunlight, this thing starts stinking in a hurry.
|
|
| | | 113 | Baldwin
ID: 4261155 Mon, Mar 24, 2003, 13:04
|
The USA Government has a utility called 'Active Lantern' whereby they can use your computer in some way for surveillance purposes. I don't know the specifics, whether it is just retrieving files or if it can actually keep track of keystrokes realtime or even get signals from any devices such as cameras or microphones attached. The thing that chills me is that they have managed to censor any mention of this program from web search engines.
|
|
| | | 114 | Baldwin
ID: 4261155 Mon, Mar 24, 2003, 13:16
|
Oops, my bad. It's called 'Magic Lantern' and there is some info that can be found on this enhancement of the 'Carnivore' program.
|
|
| | | 115 | Madman Donor
ID: 398591212 Mon, Mar 24, 2003, 13:34
|
didn't read the whole thing...
Anyone else have thought about the credit provision of Patriot II?
The bill suggests that the government should have equal access to a person's credit report that a private party does ...
Which sounds nice. But government wants to put you in jail; private parties are simply trying to figure out if they want to do business with you. A "legitimate" business need for a company is totally different than a "legitimate" business need for a government.
Furthermore, that is the role of the court -- to determine whether the government has a legitimate business need ... this seems to be unreal.
|
|
| | | 116 | Tree, also @ work Donor
ID: 599393013 Mon, Mar 24, 2003, 13:57
|
i think the credit part is the least of our worries about Patriot 2 (not at all to dismiss your points - all very valid). being stripped of your citizenship should be a bigger concern.
peace, Tree
|
|
| | | 117 | Madman Donor
ID: 398591212 Mon, Mar 24, 2003, 14:05
|
Tree -- I was just commenting on the small bits of the actual bill that I have read so far. I haven't gotten to the citizenship stuff. Care to enlighten me on specifics?
|
|
| | | 118 | Tree, also @ work Donor
ID: 599393013 Mon, Mar 24, 2003, 15:50
|
well, it would just be paraphrasing, without knowing the exact wording - i'll have to do some research - if i am wrong, someone correct me without yelling at me. :o)
as best as i understood it, from an article i read in USA Today, essentially, you can be stripped of your U.S. Citzenship, EVEN IF YOU WERE BORN HERE, for a number of reasons, including but not limited to, contributing money to a terrorist organization.
one of the provisions is that - let's say you gave money to a group called "United Citizens of the World for Peace". as it turns out UCWP was a front, and was funneling money to "Crazy Terrorists who want to Kill Americans".
even though you had no idea the money was going to CTWWKA, you could still face losing your citizenship.
i'm at work now. tonight, i will work to find more info when i get home this evening...
peace, Tree
|
|
| | | 119 | Baldwin
ID: 4261155 Tue, Mar 25, 2003, 17:24
|
KGB General Yevgeni Primakov, has been hired as a consultant by the US Department of Homeland Security.
|
|
| | | 120 | Baldwin
ID: 4261155 Sun, Apr 20, 2003, 04:08
|
'Potential witnesses' getting worse treatment than if they had actually been accused of crimes.Hawash is being held as a "material witness" under a 1984 law that the Justice Department believes should let the government detain American citizens at will for an arbitrary length of time. A well-researched Washington Post article from last fall said the Justice Department has imprisoned at least 44 people, including seven U.S. citizens, under the same law, with some held for many months and possibly for more than a year.
The odd thing about this law, through which Congress intended to prevent the flight of possible witnesses to a crime, is how backward it is: If Hawash had been accused of a violent crime, he would have been out on bail weeks ago. Instead, he is serving time in what the Bureau of Prisons calls "FCI Sheridan," a federal institution where Hawash is permitted one 10-minute phone call and one visit from his family a week.
Hawash's career is a typical geek success story: Born in the West Bank municipality of Nablus in 1964, he graduated from the University of Texas with bachelor's and master's degrees in electrical engineering. A naturalized American citizen, he worked for Compaq, helping to port Windows NT to the company's line of personal computers, and then joined Intel's Multimedia Software Technology Group.
As a lead engineer on Intel's MMX software team, Hawash worked on the MMX technology emulator and MPEG decoders. In 1997, Addison-Wesley published a book that Hawash co-authored titled "DirectX, RDX, RSX and MMX Technology: A Jumpstart Guide to High Performance APIs."
It remains unclear why Hawash was arrested. His friends speculate that it might be because he made two donations totaling about $10,000 to the Global Relief Foundation, an Islamic charity whose assets were frozen last year after the Bush administration alleged that it had links to terrorism. A second Oregon man targeted for his close ties to the organization pleaded guilty last month to federal fraud charges.
What's unusual is that nobody with any real knowledge of the situation can talk about it. The U.S. Attorney's office has steadfastly refused to discuss the case, and Hawash's attorneys are subject to a gag order. His wife, Lisa, has been served with a subpoena to testify before a grand jury and has been advised by her lawyer not to talk to the press.
|
|
| | | 121 | Baldwin
ID: 4095714 Fri, Oct 01, 2004, 07:16
|
BUTT
|
|
| | | 122 | Baldwin
ID: 23915186 Mon, Oct 18, 2004, 08:28
|
Soma discovered.
It's a Brave New World.The experiments -- detailed in the journal Nature Neuroscience this month -- involved blocking the effect of a gene called D2 in a particular part of the brain. This cut off the link between the rhesus monkeys' motivation and reward.
Instead of speeding up with the approach of a deadline or the prospect of a "treat," the monkeys in the experiment could be made to work just as enthusiastically for long periods. The scientists say the identical technique would apply to humans.
"Most people are motivated to work hard and well only by the expectation of reward, whether it's a paycheque or a word of praise," said Barry Richmond, a government neurobiologist at the U.S. National Institute of Mental Health, who led the project. "We found we could remove that link and create a situation where repetitive, hard work would continue without any reward." 8/
|
|
| | | 123 | Mattinglyinthehall Leader
ID: 01629107 Thu, May 11, 2006, 09:48
|
USA Today: NSA endeavors to make a record of every single phone call made in America.
The National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth, people with direct knowledge of the arrangement told USA TODAY. The NSA program reaches into homes and businesses across the nation by amassing information about the calls of ordinary Americans — most of whom aren't suspected of any crime. This program does not involve the NSA listening to or recording conversations. But the spy agency is using the data to analyze calling patterns in an effort to detect terrorist activity, sources said in separate interviews.
"It's the largest database ever assembled in the world," said one person, who, like the others who agreed to talk about the NSA's activities, declined to be identified by name or affiliation. The agency's goal is "to create a database of every call ever made" within the nation's borders, this person added.
For the customers of these companies, it means that the government has detailed records of calls they made — across town or across the country — to family members, co-workers, business contacts and others.
The three telecommunications companies are working under contract with the NSA, which launched the program in 2001 shortly after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the sources said. The program is aimed at identifying and tracking suspected terrorists, they said.
The sources would talk only under a guarantee of anonymity because the NSA program is secret.
===============================================================================
Last year, Bush said he had authorized the NSA to eavesdrop — without warrants — on international calls and international e-mails of people suspected of having links to terrorists when one party to the communication is in the USA. Warrants have also not been used in the NSA's efforts to create a national call database.
In defending the previously disclosed program, Bush insisted that the NSA was focused exclusively on international calls. "In other words," Bush explained, "one end of the communication must be outside the United States."
As a result, domestic call records — those of calls that originate and terminate within U.S. borders — were believed to be private.
Sources, however, say that is not the case. With access to records of billions of domestic calls, the NSA has gained a secret window into the communications habits of millions of Americans. Customers' names, street addresses and other personal information are not being handed over as part of NSA's domestic program, the sources said. But the phone numbers the NSA collects can easily be cross-checked with other databases to obtain that information.
===============================================================================
The White House would not discuss the domestic call-tracking program. "There is no domestic surveillance without court approval," said Dana Perino, deputy press secretary, referring to actual eavesdropping.
She added that all national intelligence activities undertaken by the federal government "are lawful, necessary and required for the pursuit of al-Qaeda and affiliated terrorists." All government-sponsored intelligence activities "are carefully reviewed and monitored," Perino said. She also noted that "all appropriate members of Congress have been briefed on the intelligence efforts of the United States."
===============================================================================
Among the big telecommunications companies, only Qwest has refused to help the NSA, the sources said. According to multiple sources, Qwest declined to participate because it was uneasy about the legal implications of handing over customer information to the government without warrants.
Qwest's refusal to participate has left the NSA with a hole in its database. Based in Denver, Qwest provides local phone service to 14 million customers in 14 states in the West and Northwest. But AT&T and Verizon also provide some services — primarily long-distance and wireless — to people who live in Qwest's region. Therefore, they can provide the NSA with at least some access in that area.
===============================================================================
The usefulness of the NSA's domestic phone-call database as a counterterrorism tool is unclear. Also unclear is whether the database has been used for other purposes.
The NSA's domestic program raises legal questions. Historically, AT&T and the regional phone companies have required law enforcement agencies to present a court order before they would even consider turning over a customer's calling data. Part of that owed to the personality of the old Bell Telephone System, out of which those companies grew.
Ma Bell's bedrock principle — protection of the customer — guided the company for decades, said Gene Kimmelman, senior public policy director of Consumers Union. "No court order, no customer information — period. That's how it was for decades," he said.
The concern for the customer was also based on law: Under Section 222 of the Communications Act, first passed in 1934, telephone companies are prohibited from giving out information regarding their customers' calling habits: whom a person calls, how often and what routes those calls take to reach their final destination. Inbound calls, as well as wireless calls, also are covered.
===============================================================================
The NSA's domestic program began soon after the Sept. 11 attacks, according to the sources. Right around that time, they said, NSA representatives approached the nation's biggest telecommunications companies. The agency made an urgent pitch: National security is at risk, and we need your help to protect the country from attacks.
The agency told the companies that it wanted them to turn over their "call-detail records," a complete listing of the calling histories of their millions of customers. In addition, the NSA wanted the carriers to provide updates, which would enable the agency to keep tabs on the nation's calling habits.
The sources said the NSA made clear that it was willing to pay for the cooperation. AT&T, which at the time was headed by C. Michael Armstrong, agreed to help the NSA. So did BellSouth, headed by F. Duane Ackerman; SBC, headed by Ed Whitacre; and Verizon, headed by Ivan Seidenberg.
With that, the NSA's domestic program began in earnest.
AT&T, when asked about the program, replied with a comment prepared for USA TODAY: "We do not comment on matters of national security, except to say that we only assist law enforcement and government agencies charged with protecting national security in strict accordance with the law."
In another prepared comment, BellSouth said: "BellSouth does not provide any confidential customer information to the NSA or any governmental agency without proper legal authority."
Verizon, the USA's No. 2 telecommunications company behind AT&T, gave this statement: "We do not comment on national security matters, we act in full compliance with the law and we are committed to safeguarding our customers' privacy."
Qwest spokesman Robert Charlton said: "We can't talk about this. It's a classified situation."
===============================================================================
The domestic and international call-tracking programs have things in common, according to the sources. Both are being conducted without warrants and without the approval of the FISA court. The Bush administration has argued that FISA's procedures are too slow in some cases. Officials, including Gonzales, also make the case that the USA Patriot Act gives them broad authority to protect the safety of the nation's citizens.
The chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., would not confirm the existence of the program. In a statement, he said, "I can say generally, however, that our subcommittee has been fully briefed on all aspects of the Terrorist Surveillance Program. ... I remain convinced that the program authorized by the president is lawful and absolutely necessary to protect this nation from future attacks."
The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., declined to comment.
===============================================================================
One major telecommunications company declined to participate in the program: Qwest.
According to sources familiar with the events, Qwest's CEO at the time, Joe Nacchio, was deeply troubled by the NSA's assertion that Qwest didn't need a court order — or approval under FISA — to proceed. Adding to the tension, Qwest was unclear about who, exactly, would have access to its customers' information and how that information might be used.
===============================================================================
Trying to put pressure on Qwest, NSA representatives pointedly told Qwest that it was the lone holdout among the big telecommunications companies. It also tried appealing to Qwest's patriotic side: In one meeting, an NSA representative suggested that Qwest's refusal to contribute to the database could compromise national security, one person recalled.
In addition, the agency suggested that Qwest's foot-dragging might affect its ability to get future classified work with the government. Like other big telecommunications companies, Qwest already had classified contracts and hoped to get more.
Unable to get comfortable with what NSA was proposing, Qwest's lawyers asked NSA to take its proposal to the FISA court. According to the sources, the agency refused.
The NSA's explanation did little to satisfy Qwest's lawyers. "They told (Qwest) they didn't want to do that because FISA might not agree with them," one person recalled. For similar reasons, this person said, NSA rejected Qwest's suggestion of getting a letter of authorization from the U.S. attorney general's office. A second person confirmed this version of events.
|
|
| | | 124 | Motley Crue Dude
ID: 439372011 Thu, May 11, 2006, 09:59
|
Very interesting stuff, MITH. This story of course discusses only calls billed on customers' landlines, I assume.
Not that it's not a huge issue of invasion of privacy by the Government. I am simply pointing out that there are many mobile phone customers probably making as many if not more calls than people with landlines these days.
And the terrorists (if there are any) are certainly using cell phones. Duh.
|
|
| | | 125 | Mattinglyinthehall Leader
ID: 01629107 Thu, May 11, 2006, 10:07
|
This story of course discusses only calls billed on customers' landlines, I assume.
Linked in the USA Today article: Questions and answers about the NSA phone record collection program Q: Does the NSA's domestic program mean that my calling records have been secretly collected?
A: In all likelihood, yes. The NSA collected the records of billions of domestic calls. Those include calls from home phones and wireless phones.
|
|
| | | 126 | Motley Crue Dude
ID: 439372011 Thu, May 11, 2006, 10:49
|
Yes, but aren't there many other networks besides those mentioned, especially in the world of mobile telephony?
I suppose Verizon and AT&T own the vast networks. Hmmm.
Well, that sounds like thy've got their hands on a lot of data there. Jeez.
|
|
| | | 127 | Pancho Villa
ID: 519522811 Thu, May 11, 2006, 10:50
|
I will never blast Qwest again, as they provide my bundle - cell phone(mine and my 11 year-old daughter's), home phone, business phone and DSL connection.
I'm somewhat amused at White House Deputy Press Secretary Dana Perino's comment:
"all appropriate members of Congress have been briefed on the intelligence efforts of the United States."
Who decides what members of Congress are appropriate? Obviously the White House, which seems to be a blatant attempt to subvert the separation of powers demanded by the founding fathers.
It's too bad the ACLU has discredited themselves by backing so many whacko positions. If ever there were a time in our nation's history when there was a dire need for a legitimate American Civil Liberties Union, this is it.
|
|
| | | 128 | sarge33rd
ID: 2511422414 Thu, May 11, 2006, 13:09
|
So when will our nations prosecutors grow a pair, and charge shrub and company with violations of the US Constitution, Dereliction of Duty, Violating the Oath of Office, etc etc etc.
|
|
| | | 129 | Boxman
ID: 2630259 Thu, May 11, 2006, 13:17
|
Don't forget Military Law like we discussed in the other thread, but I believe that stench only goes as high as Rumsfeld perhaps. I doubt W micromanges armor thickness on humvees (amoungst other negligent issues on military equipment that lead to soldiers deaths).
I have Verizon. Geeeeesh.
Just curious what the NSA turnaround time is on analyzing calls. Just how fast can they get it done? For instance, if Atta made a call 30 minutes before getting on his plane, could this have stopped him?
|
|
| | | 130 | Mattinglyinthehall Leader
ID: 01629107 Thu, May 11, 2006, 13:22
|
Boxman
if Atta made a call 30 minutes before getting on his plane, could this have stopped him
As far as we know, they're not listening to or recording the calls, just keeping records of the source, destination and start and end times of every call.
|
|
| | | 131 | Boxman
ID: 2630259 Thu, May 11, 2006, 13:41
|
The President comments on the issue today.
"First, our intelligence activities strictly target al Qaeda and their known affiliates. Al Qaeda is our enemy, and we want to know their plans."
They do? So in other words, the NSA knows the phone numbers of all Al Qaeda operatives in the country. They limit their search to just those phone numbers? If that is so, why are they still on the loose and not in Guatanamo? Why haven't we brought it to the enemy in a time of war and get them? Why are we risking another 9/11 to play Peeping Tom with their phone calls? We know their phone numbers, track them down and place a hollow point in their brain (preferably at high speed) after a thorough interrogation has been conducted.
""Second, the government does not listen to domestic phone calls without court approval."
Third, the intelligence activities I authorized are lawful and have been briefed to appropriate members of Congress, both Republican and Democrat."
"Fourth, the privacy of ordinary Americans is fiercely protected in all our activities. We're not mining or trolling through the personal lives of millions of innocent Americans. Our efforts are focused on links to al Qaeda and their known affiliates.""
Again, why aren't we arresting them then? They are the enemy and we are at war. If you will not arrest them then please have the decency to create a terrorist list like we do for child perverts and rapists. We're supposed to feeeeeeel protected, remember? If all we are doing is specifically listening to Al Qaeda phone conversations, how did we get their numbers in the first place and why are they still on the street?
"So far, we've been very successful in preventing another attack on our soil."
Don't you dare jinx that by saying it publicly over and over again, almost as if you are daring the enemy. Brag about your record when it is over and their heads are on pikes. Eyes and feet forward and move it, mouth closed. And then what happens if it does happen again? Do we do an about-face or tap more things?
"As a general matter, every time sensitive intelligence is leaked, it hurts our ability to defeat this enemy. Our most important job is to protect the American people from another attack, and we will do so within the laws of our country.""
Oh, so feeeeeeeelings are hurt now? First off, intelligence was not leaked. I did not hear a phone call from an Al Qaeda operative in Chicago speaking to one in Calcutta on the evening news. That is leaking intelligence. If so, find and eradicate the traitor who did it. What was leaked is our method, slightly different in my opinion.
|
|
| | | 132 | Perm Dude Dude
ID: 030792616 Thu, May 11, 2006, 13:50
|
First of all, Boxman, you would sound soooo much smarter if you just retired that "feeelings" argument. It's tiresome, at best.
Second, the government does not listen to domestic phone calls without court approval
It looks like the government has grown so comfortable with lying that it has taken to doing so out loud. Did they think we would just forget that just a few months ago the President made his position clear that he didn't feel he had to obtain judicial approval to do this?
According to the original report, information on tens of millions of calls are being stored. Has the enemy grown so large under Bush's watch?
|
|
| | | 133 | Boxman
ID: 2630259 Thu, May 11, 2006, 13:56
|
"First of all, Boxman, you would sound soooo much smarter if you just retired that "feeelings" argument. It's tiresome, at best."
First, I don't take myself too seriously. I believe what I believe, but I'm not out in the front yard with a 50 cal and sandbags....yet. ;)
Second, I want some damn objectivity for once. I'm tired about hearing about feelings. I want what's right done. I don't want us to feeeel safe, I want us to BE safe. That applies to a host of issues.
|
|
| | | 134 | Mattinglyinthehall Leader
ID: 01629107 Thu, May 11, 2006, 14:19
|
I missed the connection. What did the President Bush excerpt that preceded your comment have to do with feelings?
|
|
| | | 135 | Boxman
ID: 2630259 Thu, May 11, 2006, 14:22
|
Does it make you feel safer knowing what they're doing?
|
|
| | | 136 | biliruben Leader
ID: 589301110 Thu, May 11, 2006, 14:24
|
I just assumed he was a huge Morris Albert fan.
|
|
| | | 137 | Mattinglyinthehall Leader
ID: 01629107 Thu, May 11, 2006, 14:31
|
I'm not trying to be hostile -- but I'm still not getting it. Where does Bush refer to or imply anything about feeling anything? As far as I can tell you're the one who brought up any issue about feelings and then expained your mocking by telling us that you're tired of hearing about feelings.
But you're the one who brought it up.
To be honest with you I don't know what you're talking about most of the time when you write "feeeeelings". But you use it an awful lot - sometimes seemingly at random. Really trying not to be confrontational, here... what am I missing?
|
|
| | | 138 | Boxman
ID: 2630259 Thu, May 11, 2006, 14:50
|
"I'm not trying to be hostile" Oh, OK. Seriously.
"But you use it an awful lot - sometimes seemingly at random. Really trying not to be confrontational, here... what am I missing?"
Truth be told, in my line of work a lot of improvements and whatnot that would benefit my clients does not get done because of a lack of objectivity (in fact I get brought in because there IS a lack of objectivity), because "feeeeeelings" would get hurt, politics, office/operational BS. It drives me frantic and prevents me from doing my best work. So therefore, when I see an excuse that is in line with what I view as being "feeeeeeling" related and not objective related, it gets my goard.
|
|
| | | 139 | Mattinglyinthehall Leader
ID: 01629107 Thu, May 11, 2006, 14:55
|
when I see an excuse that is in line with what I view as being "feeeeeeling" related and not objective related, it gets my goard.
OK... but what was the "feeeeeling related" "excuse" from Bush that got your gourd? I'm willing to accept the liklihood that some of the disconnect between us is on me - please show me what I'm missing.
|
|
| | | 140 | Boxman
ID: 2630259 Thu, May 11, 2006, 15:04
|
Because the American people are supposed to "feeeeeeel" safe because the NSA is tapping our phones (like we're safer now because we have no privacy), we're allegedly safe because 3,000 people didn't burn alive in a tall building because of a terrorist attack this year. We're supposed to trust him, another "feeeeeeeeling".
|
|
| | | 141 | sarge33rd
ID: 2511422414 Thu, May 11, 2006, 18:50
|
reread posts 75 and 76 dtd Nov 2002. Then the recent revelation re datamining phone company records, then combine with the previously disclosed warrantless wiretaps, mix in the blatant lies told repeatedly by this administration (Bush declaring that only calls between foreign points and domestic etc etc, when the recent revelation makes clear that they are looking at all calls)....
and my question in 128 stands. WHEN will this criminal, be charged and tried?
|
|
| | | 142 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 4923198 Thu, May 11, 2006, 18:51
|
Andrew Sullivan:Who needs the law when you're the King? Some of us have long been worried by the Bush administration's contempt for the rule of law in its legitimate efforts to protect Americans from terrorism. And we've been dismissed and criticized for it. But the more you know, the more troubling it gets. In all this, trust in the president's word is important. That's gone. For good reason. You don't abandon limited government, enable torture, declare the executive above the law, pile up countless signing statements to undermine the Congress ... and then take pains to protect Americans' privacy. This monarch, already eager to perpetuate a dynasty, needs more scrutiny. It may require voting Democrat this fall to give it to him.
|
|
| | | 143 | Perm Dude Dude
ID: 030792616 Thu, May 11, 2006, 18:59
|
AG Gonzalez lied about the program.
He tried to weasel around it, but a denial is a denial. And when it's wrong, it's a lie.
|
|
| | | 144 | Boxman
ID: 23421115 Thu, May 11, 2006, 19:07
|
Above, Pancho Villa mentioned the ACLU. For kicks I went to their website and found this PDF file. Please click on it as my conservative monitor will likely die after venturing into the den of liberalism. ;)
It details ten myths about the program.
|
|
| | | 145 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 4923198 Thu, May 11, 2006, 19:31
|
Jack Cafferty on CNN today:The President rushed out this morning in the wake of this front page story in USA Today and declared the government’s doing nothing wrong, and all this is just fine. Is it? Is it legal? Then why did the Justice Department suddenly drop its investigation of the warrant-less spying on citizens? Because the NSA said Justice Department lawyers didn’t have the necessary security clearance to do the investigation. Read that sentence again. A secret government agency has told our Justice Department that it’s not allowed to investigate it. And the Justice Department just says, okay, and drops the whole thing. We’re in some serious trouble here, boys and girls." Can anyone more familiar chime in on the accuracy of that?
|
|
| | | 146 | sarge33rd
ID: 2511422414 Thu, May 11, 2006, 20:01
|
from post 123;
Unable to get comfortable with what NSA was proposing, Qwest's lawyers asked NSA to take its proposal to the FISA court. According to the sources, the agency refused.
The NSA's explanation did little to satisfy Qwest's lawyers. "They told (Qwest) they didn't want to do that because FISA might not agree with them," one person recalled.
IOW...we'd be happy to get warrants, if we could. But we dont think we can, so we're just trying to bully our way into getting you to give us the data.
Does it really require any further explanation as to just how deeply this administration believes itself to be the law? Define for me, the difference between the actions of a King and those of this president.
|
|
| | | 147 | Toral
ID: 541029611 Thu, May 11, 2006, 20:01
|
143 The quote in the link refers to warrantless surveillance of calls. This programme revealed today has nothing to do with surveillance of calls.
Toral
|
|
| | | 148 | Perm Dude Dude
ID: 030792616 Thu, May 11, 2006, 20:25
|
The AG was testifying as to the NSA program details (that is, specifically on the NSA terrorist surveillance program, of which the database is a part).
Indeed, the Administration has said they are exempt from oversight because it is part of their terrorist terrorist surveillance program.
You might be right that he has talking only about listened-in conversations (as the definition of "surveillance.") I'd like to see that clarified a bit, and will root around.
I don't think we can limit the term "surveillance" to listened-in conversations.
|
|
| | | 149 | sarge33rd
ID: 2511422414 Thu, May 11, 2006, 20:29
|
re 148...lacking probable cause, under what guise does the governement hold the "right" to know even..who I called, when, for how long we talked and from where the call originated and to where did the call go?
I'll agree, that with "probable cause" provided by an ongoing investigation, a warrant can be obtained and that data and more, can be had. Lacking however, ANY evidence or cause, thus lacking utterly the ability to obtain a warrant, I fail to see ANY justifiable rationale for allowing the government to shit all over the Constitution and our Bill of Rights.
|
|
| | | 150 | sarge33rd
ID: 2511422414 Thu, May 11, 2006, 20:29
|
sorry...that should read: re 147 (Torals post)
|
|
| | | 151 | Myboyjack
ID: 5354818 Thu, May 11, 2006, 20:43
|
I don't think we can limit the term "surveillance" to listened-in conversations.
Getting records of phone calls from a company is not surveillance.
|
|
| | | 152 | Perm Dude Dude
ID: 030792616 Thu, May 11, 2006, 20:45
|
It is when you survey the calls for particular numbers. They aren't just throwing these numbers into a large bin for storage.
Your point is too narrow: It's like saying that obtaining bank tapes isn't surveillance.
|
|
| | | 153 | Myboyjack
ID: 5354818 Thu, May 11, 2006, 21:15
|
Your point is too narrow: It's like saying that obtaining bank tapes isn't surveillance.
I'm not sure what you mean by "obtaining bank tapes", but if you mean obtaining bank records then that's right - it's not surveillance either.
Are you sure you're not confusing the word "surveillance" with the word "search"? It's as if you're using them interchangably.
Not every surveillance is a search (in the 4th Amendement meaning of the word) and not every 4th Amendment search is surveillance.
Surveillance, as it has been used in every single warrant I've ever reviewed conotes an active contemperaneous, gathering of actions or speech of the subject.
Whether the gathering of phone company was illegal without a warrant doesn't depend on whether it is surveillance or not. That's just a question for the Gotcha Gang. I think it would be clear to any objective person involved in law enforcement that Gonzalez would not consider the gathering of phone company records when describing surveillance.
|
|
| | | 154 | Perm Dude Dude
ID: 030792616 Thu, May 11, 2006, 21:22
|
Well, in reading what the President is saying isn't he using the term to describe the narrowly-focused actions of the very kind you are talking about. His first point is that "our intelligence activities strictly target al Qaeda and their known affiliates."
I understand (I believe) the distinction you are making here, but the President isn't being very picky. He's calling his wide-ranging gathering of intelligence (in any form) a strictly-targeted operation.
|
|
| | | 155 | sarge33rd
ID: 2511422414 Thu, May 11, 2006, 22:12
|
And if gathering my phone logs,
1) who I called 2) when I made the call 3) how long the call lasted 4) pt of origin for the call 5) destination of the call
doesnt constitute "active contemperaneous, gathering of actions"....then what preciselt does it constitute?
|
|
| | | 156 | Myboyjack
ID: 5354818 Thu, May 11, 2006, 22:26
|
Since getting records from phone companies is neither active nor contemporaneous, with the phone calls, I'd say it's something other than surveillance, dontchathink?
You, I guess, like PD, would call virtually every investigatory act "survellience. That's not the meaning of the language.
PD, what Bush says? All I was addressing was the "Gonzalez lied" because "gathering phone records=survellince" meme. I not defending the program or Bush.
|
|
| | | 157 | Perm Dude Dude
ID: 030792616 Thu, May 11, 2006, 22:29
|
MBJ, I'm not attacking your point. Merely trying to understand it in terms of how it is being described by the Administration.
I've got no reason to think you aren't 100% correct in your points. I'm just saying that the descriptions of the programs are at odds with your points (which leads me to believe that the Administration is wrong).
|
|
| | | 158 | Boxman
ID: 23421115 Fri, May 12, 2006, 06:17
|
From Dictionary.com , the meaning of the word "surveillance".
"sur·veil·lance (sr-vlns) n.
1. Close observation of a person or group, especially one under suspicion. 2. The act of observing or the condition of being observed. 3. The collection, collation, analysis, and dissemination of data. 4. A type of observational study that involves continuous monitoring of disease occurrence within a population."
I would certainly say that #2 and #3 applies in this case. #1 is debatable depending on what micro or macro level one considers "close observation".
Perm Dude: "His first point is that "our intelligence activities strictly target al Qaeda and their known affiliates.""
Again I would like to know how the NSA is strictly targeting Al Qaeda and why are we using that information for intelligence gathering and aren't just sweeping them off the streets and into a dark hole.
|
|
| | | 159 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 4923198 Fri, May 12, 2006, 06:23
|
I agree the traditional or layman's definitions apply. I think MBJ refers specifically to its use in criminal justice jargon.
|
|
| | | 160 | Perm Dude Dude
ID: 030792616 Fri, May 12, 2006, 06:26
|
The Administration seems to be wanting to use a legal version of the definition, but only when it suits their purposes and, at times, their descriptions appear to be going against their excuses.
I don't know if we can say which definition "applies" but I think that when it comes to privacy issues we will find that the political fallout (if any) will hinge upon the layman's definitions. I think the thing fails on its own terms, however.
|
|
| | | 161 | Myboyjack
ID: 5354818 Fri, May 12, 2006, 07:45
|
don't know if we can say which definition "applies" but I think that when it comes to privacy issues we will find that the political fallout (if any) will hinge upon the layman's definitions. I think the thing fails on its own terms, however.
I'm talking only about Gonzalea' use of the word - and whether or not he lied to Congress.
When it comes to privacy issues and the adminstration - I agree - the public won't give a fig about whether domestic "survelience" was present.
The important issue is whether the Administration engaged in illegal warrantless searches of Americans. Whether they lied or fudged about it later is very much secondary. Getting into a semantics battle over Gonzalez' testimony and breaking out Webster's would seem to be unimportant compared to that larger issue; in fact, it would seem to be exactly the kind of shiftin attention which an embattled Administration would love to get everyone concerned involved in.
|
|
| | |
| | | 163 | Myboyjack
ID: 5354818 Fri, May 12, 2006, 08:52
|
From Toral's link: FISA distinguishes between “electronic surveillance,” which collects the substantive content of electronic communications, and “pen registers,” which collect only the addressing information of electronic communications
If FISA itself distinguishes between “electronic surveillance,”, and the data-mining that PD in post 143 declared pinned Gonzalez with a felony perjury charge, well........
|
|
| | | 164 | Stuck in the 60s Dude
ID: 274132811 Fri, May 12, 2006, 09:27
|
We can spend our time debating the difference between dictionary definitions and legal precedents or we can stop to consider Sarge's point, which has yet to be countered.
This president, whose approval ratings are approaching Nixonian levels, has unilaterally decided to ignore both the Constitution and the law. NSA's reason for ignoring FISA: they might not agree! My God, that's the same reason teens give for not asking their parents permission to attend a rave.
The more often Bush and his administration are shown to have been wrong in their analysis of practically everything they've touched, the more intransigent they become, often hiding behind national security as a reason not to explain themselves.
And to the extent that Congress ignores or forgets to explicitly condemn Shrub's end run around the Constitution, his outrageous behavior will set a precedent for the systematic and criminal abuse that will follow in the wake of his anti-democratic crusade.
Don
|
|
| | |
| | | 166 | Toral
ID: 541029611 Fri, May 12, 2006, 17:36
|
This president, whose approval ratings are approaching Nixonian levels, has unilaterally decided to ignore both the Constitution and the law.
Evidence please, not low slander.
The proof of ignoring the Constitution and the law exists only in Liberals' imaganations.
Toral
|
|
| | | 167 | Perm Dude Dude
ID: 030792616 Fri, May 12, 2006, 18:19
|
You mean the whole "don't need court approval" thing is just in "liberal's" imaginations?
|
|
| | | 168 | Toral
ID: 541029611 Fri, May 12, 2006, 18:22
|
I mean that you don't know that it is unConstitutional or otherwise illegal. It hasn't been so found yet, by any Court.
Toral
|
|
| | | 169 | Perm Dude Dude
ID: 030792616 Fri, May 12, 2006, 18:45
|
That's awfully ironic. The NSA refused to turn over records to the Justice Department because members of the Justice Department doing the investigation didn't have security clearance.
But fair enough. Until a court finds a member of the Administration broke the law, we'll assume that their actions are legal.
Might be just a matter of time.
With regard to that last link, note that the NSA tried to strongarm Qwest with being cut out of future government contracts. Illegal? I guess we'll wait for for the verdict, eh?
|
|
| | | 170 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 4923198 Fri, May 12, 2006, 19:10
|
The NSA refused to turn over records to the Justice Department because members of the Justice Department doing the investigation didn't have security clearance.
USA Today "We have been unable to make any meaningful progress in our investigation because OPR has been denied security clearances for access to information about the NSA program," OPR counsel H. Marshall Jarrett wrote to Hinchey. Hinchey's office shared the letter with The Associated Press.
Jarrett wrote that beginning in January, his office has made a series of requests for the necessary clearances. Those requests were denied Tuesday.
"Without these clearances, we cannot investigate this matter and therefore have closed our investigation," wrote Jarrett. How far could this be from how Orwell imagined it would begin?
|
|
| | | 171 | Toral
ID: 541029611 Fri, May 12, 2006, 19:15
|
I hate gratuitous and uninformed Orwell references. I often whether the people making them have read the book, tried to understand it, or have the capacity for doing so.
If the Justice Department investigators had been killed, you have an Orwell comparison.
Toral
|
|
| | | 172 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 4923198 Fri, May 12, 2006, 19:23
|
Well it has been a long time. Re your post 166:
The proof of ignoring the Constitution and the law exists only in Liberals' imaganations.
If true, they must be some hard-core liberal mofos over at Quest if the company was willing to risk future lucritive government contracts for refusal to participate in a program that the public was never supposed to learn about.
NY Times The telecommunications company Qwest turned down requests by the National Security Agency for private telephone records because it concluded that doing so would violate federal privacy laws, a lawyer for the telephone company's former chief executive said today.
In a statement released this morning, the lawyer said that the former chief executive, Joseph N. Nacchio, made the decision after asking whether "a warrant or other legal process had been secured in support of that request."
Mr. Nacchio learned that no warrant had been granted and that there was a "disinclination on the part of the authorities to use any legal process," said the lawyer, Herbert J. Stern. As a result, the statement said, Mr. Nacchio concluded that "the requests violated the privacy requirements of the Telecommunications Act."
|
|
| | | 173 | Toral
ID: 541029611 Fri, May 12, 2006, 19:38
|
Quest took its position. It may be proven right, who knows? The law in the area is unclear.
If Quest's position is evidence that the Administration broke the law, aren't the other companies' positions 3x evidence that the Administration didn't break the law?
That Quest's refusal is accepted is evidence that the NSA wasn't using strongarm tactics.
I salute Nacchio and his counsellors for having balls. If it should turn out that Quest's position is viewed as incorrect by the courts, I wouldn't denounce him as "having ignored the law". In areas where the law is uncertain, people have to act according to the best judgment they can arrive at, and sometimes they (whether the Administration, or private citizens/bodies) will be wrong.
Toral
|
|
| | | 174 | Perm Dude Dude
ID: 030792616 Fri, May 12, 2006, 19:53
|
Toral, the Qwest problem is two-fold: They were asked to provide phone records, and then they were threatened with retaliation if they did not do so.
The fact that they still refused doesn't mean that the strongarm tactics were legal. It's like saying that a bribe wasn't accepted so the attempt was just fine. The fact that other companies caved before they were threatened isn't an indication either.
|
|
| | | 175 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 4923198 Fri, May 12, 2006, 19:54
|
If Quest's position is evidence that the Administration broke the law, aren't the other companies' positions 3x evidence that the Administration didn't break the law?
3x? Certainly not. The US Government is a very wealthy client that hands out very lucritive contracts. Surely you wouldn't argue that ethics are the primary factor in all 4 telecos considering whether to participate.
That Quest's refusal is accepted is evidence that the NSA wasn't using strongarm tactics.
I don't know how you can make this claim either. The specified tactics referred to the consideration of future government contracts. Do you have evidence to suggest that Quest continues to get the same consideration for these deals that it did before 9/11 - or that it deserves?
|
|
| | | 176 | Toral
ID: 541029611 Fri, May 12, 2006, 20:05
|
Could you provide the link to evidence of "strongarm tactics" again? I assume it's in 1 of pd's 4, but 2 had nothing to do with this NSA issue and one, I don't know, maybe pro wrestling or something. It's difficult enuf to make sense of what you guyz are saying when you're trying to be clear.
Toral
|
|
| | | 177 | biliruben Leader
ID: 589301110 Fri, May 12, 2006, 20:08
|
As an aside, I was listening to the local news and the radio. They were interviewing a woman. She was proud that she had just switched from Tele-Tracker Inc. to Qwest, in support of their stance.
Of course, in the middle of the interview, her call was dropped in mid-sentence. I laughed. And laughed.
I love what Qwest has done, but it wouldn't surprise me one bit if part of the reason for them not complying was that they probably lost most of the records and couldn't produce them even if they wanted to.
It is the most incompetent company I've ever had to deal with. I tried for 8 1/2 years, over and over, to simply get my name on our phone bill. I was promised at least 3 times it was done. Never was. I finally just had to just impersonate my first roommate, who hadn't lived there for 6 years. Track that, Georgie.
They would randomly switch my service around with no logical basis. They would drop my long distance, then add back a different company the next month, or just start charging all long distance as collect. It was truly bizarre, and finally just had to live with whatever they did, because no matter how many assurances I would recieve that they would fix it, they would invariably do more harm than good.
|
|
| | | 178 | Perm Dude Dude
ID: 030792616 Fri, May 12, 2006, 20:08
|
In addition, the agency suggested that Qwest's foot-dragging might affect its ability to get future classified work with the government. Like other big telecommunications companies, Qwest already had classified contracts and hoped to get more.
link
|
|
| | | 179 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 4923198 Fri, May 12, 2006, 20:12
|
The last link in PD's post is the same USA Today piece that broke the story, also linked and posted (in excerpts) in post 123. From that article:In addition, the agency suggested that Qwest's foot-dragging might affect its ability to get future classified work with the government. Like other big telecommunications companies, Qwest already had classified contracts and hoped to get more.
|
|
| | | 180 | Perm Dude Dude
ID: 030792616 Fri, May 12, 2006, 20:18
|
I think it's also worth noting who headed the NSA at the time: Gen Michael Hayden. Think this'll come up in his confirmation hearings?
pd
|
|
| | | 181 | Toral
ID: 541029611 Fri, May 12, 2006, 20:20
|
That's it? That's the whole thing? That's the evidence of "strongarm tactics"?
Geez these NSAers are pretty soft.
Toral
|
|
| | | 182 | Perm Dude Dude
ID: 030792616 Fri, May 12, 2006, 20:23
|
That's your response? That's it?
Intellectual softie.
|
|
| | | 183 | biliruben Leader
ID: 589301110 Fri, May 12, 2006, 20:26
|
If they didn't cut off his ears and feed him his children on toast with a bit of marmoulade, they're pussies.
|
|
| | | 184 | Toral
ID: 541029611 Fri, May 12, 2006, 20:27
|
I'm sure it will come up in his confirmation hearings and I'll be very interested in what he has to say about it. I'm not pronouncing him guilty in advance, though.
Toral
|
|
| | | 185 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 4923198 Fri, May 12, 2006, 20:33
|
Geez these NSAers are pretty soft.
You were anticipating broken fingers? So I guess you don't find that at all troubling. Interesting.
Anyway, I'm curious about how you feel about the program, aside from legal issues. You haven't weighed in.
Also notable from the NYT article linked in post 172:The law on data-mining activities is murky, and legal analysts were divided Thursday on the question of whether the N.S.A.'s tracing and analysis of huge streams of American communications data would require the agency to use subpoenas or court warrants.
Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies, said, "If they don't get a court order, it's a crime." Ms. Martin said that while the F.B.I. might be able to get access to phone collection databases by using an administrative subpoena, her reading of federal law was that the N.S.A. would be banned from doing so without court approval.
But another expert on the law of electronic surveillance, Kenneth C. Bass III, said that if access to the call database was granted in response to a national security letter issued by the government, "it would probably not be illegal, but it would be very troubling."
"The concept of the N.S.A. having near-real-time access to information about every call made in the country is chilling," said Mr. Bass, former counsel for intelligence policy at the Justice Department. He said the phone records program resembled Total Information Awareness, a Pentagon data-mining program shut down by Congress in 2003 after a public outcry.
==================================================
Mr. Specter said in an interview that he would press for information on the operations of the N.S.A. program to determine its legality.
"I don't think we can really make a judgment on whether warrants would be necessary until we know a lot more about the program," he said.
|
|
| | | 186 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 4923198 Fri, May 12, 2006, 20:48
|
Considerable too is that Nacchio has been federally indicted since Qwest denied the NSA's request. Please don't take that as any kind of accusation but it's certainly worth mention.
More from the NYT linkMr. Nacchio, who left Qwest in 2002 amid allegations of fraud at the company, was indicted in December on 42 charges of insider selling. Prosecutors say Mr. Nacchio did not make investors aware of warnings from his managers that the company's revenue and profit forecasts were too optimistic. They say Mr. Nacchio kept this information to himself yet also sold 2.5 million shares of Qwest stock over five months in 2001 that netted $100 million. The case could go to trial later this year. More on Nacchio: Former Qwest chief executive Joe Nacchio was a key industry adviser to the White House on issues of network security. He was cleared by the Department of Defense to handle top-secret information.
He met regularly with top White House staff, including a meeting in March 2001 with then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and special adviser Richard Clarke. They discussed the potential of building a government, nonpublic network.
But at the same time, Nacchio was fighting off an effort by the National Security Agency to hand over information on phone calls made by Qwest customers, according to a report in USA Today.
|
|
| | | 187 | Toral
ID: 541029611 Fri, May 12, 2006, 21:25
|
Anyway, I'm curious about how you feel about the program, aside from legal issues.
Aside from legal issues, it's obviously a good idea. If you find out someone is connected to Al-Qaeda, you can eavesdrop on him with a warrant, but just as importantly you want to look at his past phone calls for a pattern. To do that you need a data base of his past phone calls.
The idea that the NSA is going to, to -- well, what is it exactly that the opponents fear? I'm not clear. Do they think that the NSA is going to reveal calls to the mistress to the wife? Figure out somehow that the caller is cheating on his income tax? Use his diala-phone-sex calls to blackmail him? The fears seem very ethereal to me -- aside from legal issues, as you stipulated. If it's not legal, it shouldn't have been done. Whether it is legal or not is unclear.
Toral
|
|
| | | 188 | Perm Dude Dude
ID: 030792616 Fri, May 12, 2006, 21:29
|
You seem to think that it is ethical as long as it is legal. Is that right?
|
|
| | | 189 | Toral
ID: 541029611 Fri, May 12, 2006, 21:36
|
Unless there's a trick in there I missed, the answer is yes.
Toral
|
|
| | | 190 | Perm Dude Dude
ID: 030792616 Fri, May 12, 2006, 21:38
|
No trick. It is what I thought, but you weren't being clear before.
|
|
| | | 191 | Toral
ID: 541029611 Fri, May 12, 2006, 21:41
|
So, now you can explain to me why it is unethical.
Toral
|
|
| | | 192 | Perm Dude Dude
ID: 030792616 Fri, May 12, 2006, 21:45
|
Well, I didn't say it was, did I?
:)
|
|
| | | 193 | biliruben Leader
ID: 589301110 Fri, May 12, 2006, 21:54
|
I wouldn't have nearly the problem with this if this administration didn't have done so much convince me that they are completely untrustworthy.
I don't suffer under too many allusions that there is any semblance of privacy anymore. I'm sure that the government knows when my undies have trackmarks before I do, or at least I try to operate under that general assumption these days.
The trouble is that this administration has shown that they would leak it to the Wall Streak Journal if they thought it would somehow get them a vote or a dollar, the pathetic wankers.
|
|
| | | 194 | Toral
ID: 541029611 Fri, May 12, 2006, 22:01
|
Now if the Administration leaked this information, other than for genuine counter-terrorism purposes, that would be unethical, even if technically legal.
Toral
|
|
| | | 195 | biliruben Leader
ID: 589301110 Fri, May 12, 2006, 22:03
|
You trust Karl Rove not to leak info on a political enemy?
|
|
| | | 196 | Toral
ID: 541029611 Fri, May 12, 2006, 22:09
|
If he knows it's classified, or otherwise unethical to leak, yes.
More importantly, I don't think Karl will get any closer to this NSA data than you or I will.
Toral
|
|
| | | 197 | biliruben Leader
ID: 589301110 Fri, May 12, 2006, 22:13
|
I suppose I used to have that sort of naive and innocent outlook. Six years of Bush has made my hardened and paranoid. I wouldn't put anything past that hive of despicable scum in the White House these days.
|
|
| | | 198 | Toral
ID: 541029611 Fri, May 12, 2006, 22:34
|
Quite possibly I am naive. I would probably still cry watching Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.
But looking into all the various crimes alleged against Bush et. al., it's amazing how when a politician becomes unpopular and the hysteria begins, people will believe any sort of charge, even if contradicted by the facts, logic and common sense.
I remember a few years ago you tried to convince me that Rove was a bad person. The evidence was a quote from a journalist who had heard him, in a phone call, use the f-word about a person and say something like "we will get that person". Hell, all political organizers talk like that. My campaign manager talked like that when I ran for Student Council representative in Grade 5 against Linda Vanderbilt. (I think she creamed me, but my scrutineer told me I lost "by 1 vote") I'm sure leftist organizers speak like that.
The Plame investigation, as against Rove has been a huge waste of money investigating a probable non-offense. Rove has just been the lightning-rod for partisan opposition, which has degenerated into hatred.
Toral
|
|
| | | 199 | sarge33rd
ID: 2511422414 Fri, May 12, 2006, 22:45
|
...t's amazing how when a politician becomes unpopular and the hysteria begins, people will believe any sort of charge, even if contradicted by the facts, logic and common sense.
The allegations I have levelled regarding "Dereliction of Duty" and "Gross Negligence" (resulting in the deaths of American service personnel)...were made long before shrubs popularity plummetted.
Remember the Letter to the Editor I wrote immediately following the re-coronation of king georgie? In it, I stated that the American Constitution, had just become a doormat and that the Patriot Act (a piece of legislation that kicks hell out of many Constitutional safeguards), would soon find itself expanded.
No Toral...the crimes shrub has committed, were identified long before the remainder of America had even begun to realize how asleep and hallucinatory they had to have been, on that particular fateful day.
|
|
| | | 200 | Toral
ID: 541029611 Fri, May 12, 2006, 22:50
|
You were clearly in the vanguard, sarge. Why your revelations about Bush being a War Criminal are still being repressed by the Mainstream Media, even to this day.
Toral
|
|
| | | 201 | sarge33rd
ID: 2511422414 Fri, May 12, 2006, 22:55
|
The mere fact that you disagree with me, certainly doesnt make me wrong.
|
|
| | | 202 | Toral
ID: 541029611 Fri, May 12, 2006, 22:59
|
With that comment I can agree, and wish you a hearty good night.
Toral
|
|
| | | 203 | Perm Dude Dude
ID: 030792616 Fri, May 12, 2006, 23:00
|
The Plame investigation wasn't against Rove in particular, though he was checked out (as the President said). Maybe that's why you consider it such a non-starter.
However, the fact that the Administration was willing to secretly declassify some internal memos for the purpose of leaking it to the press in order to smear a political opponent should, at the very least, give one pause about the Administration's ethics. Particularly in light of Bush's public "We'll get to the bottom of this" charade.
|
|
| | | 204 | sarge33rd
ID: 2511422414 Fri, May 12, 2006, 23:09
|
Here are a few quick Articles which I believe shrub to be guilty of violating:
897. ART. 97. UNLAWFUL DETENTION Any person subject to this chapter who, except as provided by law, arrests, or confines any person shall be punished as a court- martial may direct.
898. ART. 98. NONCOMPLIANCE WITH PROCEDURAL RULES Any person subject to this chapter who-- (1) is responsible for unnecessary delay in the disposition of any case of a person accused of an offense under this chapter; or (2) knowingly and intentionally fails to enforce or comply with any provision of this chapter regulating the proceedings before, during, or after trial of an accused; shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
907. ART. 107. FALSE STATEMENTS Any person subject to this chapter who, with intent to deceive, signs any false record, return, regulation, order, or other official document, knowing it to be false, or makes any other false official statement knowing it to be false, shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
908. ART. 108. MILITARY PROPERTY OF UNITED STATES-LOSS, DAMAGE, DESTRUCTION, OR WRONGFUL DISPOSITION Any person subject to this chapter who, without proper authority-- (1) sells or otherwise disposes of; (2) willfully ore through neglect damages, destroys, or loses; or (3) willfully or through neglect suffers to be lost, damaged, sold, or wrongfully disposed of; any military property of the United States, shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
909. ART. 109. PROPERTY OTHER THAN MILITARY PROPERTY OF UNITED STATES - WASTE, SPOILAGE, OR DESTRUCTION Any person subject to this chapter who willfully or recklessly wastes, spoils, or otherwise willfully and wrongfully destroys or damages any property other than military property of the United States shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
As I was unable to quickly ID the section of UCMJ referencing Dereliction of Duty, I'll turn to Wikipedia for abit of assistance there:
Dereliction of duty is a specifical offence in military law. It includes various elements centred around the avoidance of any duty which may be properly expected.
In the US Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) it is contained within the regulations governing the failure to obey an order or regulation. It means that one willfully, through negligence or culpable inefficiency fails to perform one's expected duties. Ineptitude is a defence against the charge. The maximum penalty in the US is a bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of pay and six months confinement. Acts which are derelict may be charged under more specific offences such as missing movement, noncompliance with procedural rules, misbehaviour, malingering, self-injury with intent to avoid service, or straggling. .
Civilian dereliction is usually classed in common law as criminal or civil negligence, recklessness or malpractice.
(Numerous links are contained on the wikipedia page from which I copy/pasted. That page is
linked here for your convenience.)
|
|
| | | 205 | Boldwin
ID: 49626249 Sat, May 13, 2006, 10:05
|
907. ART. 107. FALSE STATEMENTS Any person subject to this chapter who, with intent to deceive, signs any false record, return, regulation, order, or other official document, knowing it to be false, or makes any other false official statement knowing it to be false, shall be punished as a court-martial may direct. - Sarge
Beyond the fact that you could impeach every politician all the way back thru time, do you really expect to be taken seriously with this? You would of course apply this to Clinton in equal measure? Oh really?
|
|
| | | 206 | Perm Dude Dude
ID: 030792616 Sat, May 13, 2006, 11:34
|
Clinton was punished.
|
|
| | | 207 | sarge33rd
ID: 2511422414 Sat, May 13, 2006, 22:04
|
shrubs falsifications, led to a war which caused the deaths of multiple US citizens. It led to the false internment, of who knows how many people.
There is a measure of severity here. As for every politician....not every politician, is also Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces. Thus, not every politician is subject to UCMJ.
|
|
| | | 208 | sarge33rd
ID: 2511422414 Sat, May 13, 2006, 22:05
|
Further, I doubt the defense, "Well, he did it too.", would go very far in MBJ's courtroom for example.
|
|
| | | 209 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 4923198 Sun, May 14, 2006, 09:14
|
LA Times WASHINGTON — While Capitol Hill debated the issue Friday, many lawyers voiced surprise that three major telephone companies had agreed to make available to the National Security Agency the phone records of tens of millions of Americans.
That's because Congress made it illegal 20 years ago for telephone companies and computer service providers to turn over to the government records showing who their customers had dialed or e-mailed.
=================================================
"I would not want to be the general counsel of one of these phone companies," said Orin S. Kerr, a law professor at George Washington University and a former Justice Department lawyer who has worked on electronic surveillance.
=================================================
The law doesn't make it illegal for the government to ask for such records. Rather, it makes it illegal for phone companies to divulge them.
The Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 was passed when cellphones and the Internet were emerging as new forms of communication. Section 2702 of the law says the providers of "electronic communications … shall not knowingly divulge a record or other information pertaining to a subscriber or customer … to any government entity."
Companies that violate the law are subject to being sued and paying damages of at least $1,000 per violation per customer.
The first such lawsuit was filed Friday against Verizon in New Jersey.
"It is simply illegal for a telephone company to turn over caller records without some form of legal process, such as a court order or a subpoena," said James X. Dempsey, a lawyer for the Center for Democracy and Technology.
The 1986 law "was Congress' effort to create a comprehensive privacy right and to apply it to all forms of electronic communications," said Dempsey, who at the time of the law's passage was a counsel to the House Judiciary Committee.
Both Kerr and Dempsey said it was hard to analyze the legal situation since neither the Bush administration nor the phone companies had explained the legal basis for divulging the records. But under the law as written, "it looks like the disclosure is not allowed," Kerr said.
|
|
| | | 210 | Perm Dude Dude
ID: 030792616 Sun, May 14, 2006, 09:24
|
It sounds like that's the reason Qwest kept refusing. Despite being run by a crook, they were the only ones to follow the law.
|
|
| | | 211 | The Treasonists
ID: 571192610 Sun, May 14, 2006, 09:25
|
4th Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
It sounds pretty clear to me.
|
|
| | | 212 | sarge33rd
ID: 2511422414 Sun, May 14, 2006, 09:46
|
$1000 per violation, per customer? I had a Verizon cell for a cple years. hmmmmmmmm.....
|
|
| | | 213 | Toral
ID: 541029611 Sun, May 14, 2006, 09:47
|
I hope the phone companies' lawyers remembered to put an indemnification clause in their contracts with the government.
|
|
| | | 214 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 4923198 Sun, May 14, 2006, 10:08
|
NY Times: Cheney pushed for domestic eavesdropping But N.S.A. lawyers, trained in the agency's strict rules against domestic spying and reluctant to approve any eavesdropping without warrants, insisted that it should be limited to communications into and out of the country, said the officials, who were granted anonymity to discuss the debate inside the Bush administration late in 2001.
|
|
| | | 215 | sarge33rd
ID: 2511422414 Sun, May 14, 2006, 12:19
|
Wouldnt that open the door, assuming it true, for impeaching both shrub and cheney? I honestly think that only the threat of a president cheney, has prevented serious action towrad an impeachment of shrub.
|
|
| | | 216 | Boxman
ID: 23421115 Sun, May 14, 2006, 19:48
|
The Treasonists: "shall not be violated"
People on this board have found "shall not be infringed" in the 2nd Amendment to mean flexible and living. Not sure what difference they'll have with this either. Unless of course the NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) Principal applies.
|
|
| | | 217 | Perm Dude Dude
ID: 030792616 Sun, May 14, 2006, 20:17
|
I'd suggest reading our objections to the wording of that clause a little closer.
|
|
| | | 218 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 4923198 Sun, May 14, 2006, 20:18
|
People on this board have found "shall not be infringed" in the 2nd Amendment to mean flexible and living.
I do know that by "people". you are referring to me. I don't know whether you mean post 216 literally of if this is more poorly crafted sarcasm.
So for the record, that sentence is a gross distortion of things I have said regarding the 2nd Amendment and the 'shall not be infringed' clause.
Further, Boxman, you have advocated infringement of the right to possess and bear arms in this forum, so one is left to wonder how much you could possibly understand about your favorite Amendment and the Bill of Rights in general and the simple definition of the word 'infringe'.
I'm sure you'll read this post and think I'm beineg a jerk. I'd expect you or anyone else to react the same if not more harshly if such distortions were attributed to you or them.
|
|
| | | 219 | Boxman
ID: 23421115 Mon, May 15, 2006, 06:38
|
Here.
|
|
| | |
| | | 221 | Mattinglyinthehall Leader
ID: 01629107 Wed, May 17, 2006, 09:22
|
Possibly in response to the concern in post 213, Verizon and BellSouth deny giving phone records to the NSA.
|
|
| | | 222 | Boldwin
ID: 46651516 Sun, Jul 23, 2006, 06:58
|
In case you didn't want Big Brother reading the RFID tags on you, your car, your clothes, now there's this.
|
|
| | | 223 | Boxman
ID: 427471614 Thu, Oct 19, 2006, 13:39
|
Will there ever be states rights again in this country?
Getting To Look Like Oceania Around Here
Any hope we may have of keeping government, industry and criminals out of our personal business is scheduled to vanish completely in 18 months, privacy advocates say.
That’s when the federal government’s Real ID Act is to be fully in place, effectively setting up a national identification program by requiring states to adopt strict new high-tech standards for driver’s licenses and ID cards if they are to be accepted by federal authorities at places ranging from airports to U.S. courthouses.
On one hand I can see the argument for the feds wanting to have an ID that is acceptable to them to access federal locations, yet I lack the belief in government for them to stop it there.
|
|
| | | 224 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714 Thu, Oct 19, 2006, 13:45
|
all together now...lets stand up and applaud our Presidents, (you remember him, the one some 51,000,000 halfwits re-elected), efforts to preserve our Constitution and its provisions.
|
|
| | | 225 | boikin
ID: 59831214 Thu, Oct 19, 2006, 14:00
|
It is about time they made a national standard for licenses as someone who use to dabble in the business of making fake licenessess it is disappionting to know the some states will not be easier to make fakes of than others....
|
|
| | | 226 | Boxman
ID: 427471614 Thu, Oct 19, 2006, 14:01
|
Your criticism of Republicans is really only 1/2 correct. You've got to factor in the Democrats as well. Whether it's the Democrats with their universal health care or the Republicans with their federal IDs, the end result is always more government, not less.
|
|
| | | 227 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714 Thu, Oct 19, 2006, 14:06
|
I see. So your end position is essentially that we're utterly screwed either way...so WTF?
You wont mind then, that since we have a Republican House, a Republican Senate and a Republican Administration...I sorta figure the Republicans are the problem atm?
|
|
| | | 228 | Perm Dude
ID: 529101815 Thu, Oct 19, 2006, 14:13
|
Actually, during the last Administration the size of government shrank by substantial amounts. The number of people working in government, the number of programs, and the overall budget went down.
When looking at what is likely based upon party affiliation, it is best to look at what people have actually done when given the chance.
Pork (as measured by congressional earmarks), was higher in 2005 than 1991-1999 combined:
Republicans have turned into the liberals they openly loathe, with the inflexibility they've always demonstrated.
|
|
| | | 229 | Boxman
ID: 427471614 Thu, Oct 19, 2006, 14:15
|
So your end position is essentially that we're utterly screwed either way...so WTF?
In this current state of matters, how aren't we?
You wont mind then, that since we have a Republican House, a Republican Senate and a Republican Administration...I sorta figure the Republicans are the problem atm?
So this completely absolves the Democrats of everything? I suppose you'll permit the so called Democrat leadership to play the role of Pontius Pilate in the upcoming play entitled The Passion of the United States?
|
|
| | | 230 | Perm Dude
ID: 529101815 Thu, Oct 19, 2006, 14:17
|
Democrats aren't "absolved" of anything. They simply get an "n/a" next to their names.
During the last 6 years, Democrats have effectively been out of the loop in Congress--indeed, many Republicans openly gloated at how they had completely cut off Democrats from the debate.
|
|
| | | 231 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 49848118 Thu, Oct 19, 2006, 14:22
|
Its worth noting that the graph in post 228 is from the conservative leaning Heritage Foundation
|
|
| | | 232 | Myboyjack
ID: 27651610 Thu, Oct 19, 2006, 14:22
|
all together now...lets stand up and applaud our Presidents, (you remember him, the one some 51,000,000 halfwits re-elected), efforts to preserve our Constitution and its provisions.
What Constitutional provision is offended by the Federal government requiring minimal standards for IDs used at Federal checkpoints?
|
|
| | | 233 | Perm Dude
ID: 529101815 Thu, Oct 19, 2006, 14:32
|
Don't they already require certain forms of ID at those checkpoints?
|
|
| | | 234 | Myboyjack
ID: 27651610 Thu, Oct 19, 2006, 14:46
|
Yes. Generally, they'll accept a valid DL. Now, it would appear they want the DL to meet certain minimal security standards to be acceped. Still searching for sarge's Constitutional crisis.
|
|
| | | 235 | soxzeitgeist
ID: 439331911 Thu, Oct 19, 2006, 14:48
|
You're awful fond of citing that Fred guy over at Dead Parrots, perm.
I'm starting to think the two of you are in cahoots. He ought to hit you with some kind of intellectual property suit.
BTW, the site is looking good, parroters.
|
|
| | | 236 | Perm Dude
ID: 529101815 Thu, Oct 19, 2006, 14:56
|
He's a real loser, sox. I'd never cite him in anything peer-reviewed...
But I don't blog as often as I should, really. We really need to re-examine the whole DPS thing soon.
|
|
| | | 237 | Seattle Zen
ID: 46315247 Thu, Oct 19, 2006, 15:05
|
Re 232
I'd like to see what would happen if a state declines to follow the Real ID program. Would every resident of that state be barred from entering a Federal courthouse save the few who have Passports? Good luck calling a jury as required in Article III Section 2 if the majority of the citizens in a state are not allowed into the courthouse. Furthermore, the first amendment to the Constitution forbids Congress from passing any law that abridges the right of a citizen from petitioning the government for a redress of grievances. Can't very well sue the Federal Government if they don't let you into the courtroom, eh.
|
|
| | | 238 | Tree
ID: 1411442914 Thu, Oct 19, 2006, 15:09
|
lawyers debating on a messageboard > lawyers debating in a court room.
much, much, MUCH more entertaining.
|
|
| | | 239 | Myboyjack
ID: 27651610 Thu, Oct 19, 2006, 15:10
|
Can't very well sue the Federal Government if they don't let you into the courtroom, eh.
That's, of course, stupid. No one is prohibited from acquiring the proper ID. It's a reasonable security measure, blah, blah, blah.
|
|
| | | 240 | Seattle Zen
ID: 46315247 Thu, Oct 19, 2006, 15:19
|
Did you read my post, MBJ?
Imagine Kentucky declines to follow the Real ID law. The Federal Government has then said that KY drivers licenses do not meet Federal standards. Therefore a KY drivers license would not be sufficent to gain access to a Federal courthouse. What other ID would a KY resident be able to use to get in? Military ID? Sure, if you are a member of the armed forces. Everyone else would have to obtain passports, which are not free. The fee charged for passports would be an unconstitutional abridgement upon their first amendment right to petition the Federal government. Blah, blah, blah.
|
|
| | | 241 | Myboyjack
ID: 27651610 Thu, Oct 19, 2006, 15:26
|
Yeah, I really meant that. Say the Feds accept KY IDs. Say I can't obtain a DL. Do I already have a claim?
Everyone else would have to obtain passports, which are not free
Neither are DLs free. Uh-oh.
You really think that Feds have to accept whatever ID the various states spit out? Really? You think minimal ID standards for entry to Federal facilities creates a Constituional claim? Geez, you should work for the PDs office or something.
|
|
| | | 242 | Boxman
ID: 427471614 Thu, Oct 19, 2006, 15:29
|
From the portion of the link that I quoted it also mentions airports. So now apparently I will need a glorified passport to fly from Illinois to anywhere else in the United States?
Look at this piece of the article for the future uses of this ID.
Harper and other foes of Real ID fear that its potential for misuse rests chiefly in the combination of “machine readable” technology and the linking of state databases.
“Machine readable” technology suggests the use of Radio Frequency Identification chips or a similar technology, which critics like Chris Calabrese of the American Civil Liberties Union say open up whole new horizons for fraud and abuse. Because the chips emit radio signals that can be read at a distance, the possibility exists for them to be read by criminals and the data used for nefarious means, said Calabrese, counsel to the ACLU’s Technology and Liberty Program. He also has no doubt that commercial users will capitalize on the neat data package, gleaning and storing personal data much more easily than they can now when a driver’s license is part of a business transaction.
So now we'll eventually be giving them an "in" on knowing our location at any given point in time.
|
|
| | | 243 | boikin
ID: 59831214 Thu, Oct 19, 2006, 15:31
|
No the government will just stop giving them money just as the stopped giving states money for road construction when they did not raise the drinking age to 21. States usually stop putting up a fight pretty quick when they quit getting national funding.
|
|
| | | 244 | Baldwin
ID: 14358177 Wed, May 23, 2007, 13:07
|
What's your personal radar signature?
"...a kind of information radar to better understand the information battlespace"
No matter what you thot about the 'fate' of the 'total informational awareness' program promoted by Poindexter you can be assured the momentum for this sort of thing is unstoppable and seeps around any safeguards and roadblocks. Too powerful and irresistable to those in power to be stopped.
|
|
| | | 245 | Perm Dude
ID: 25658198 Thu, Jul 19, 2007, 20:06
|
Tracking you, via cellphone
As I noted in a comment on that site, I saw a show the other day (a FOX News clip, as I recall) that the FBI has the ability to track you even with the phone turned off. The only way currently to short-cicuit this is by taking out the batteries. Or, like they do in the movies, just toss the phone into a passing garbage truck for the feds to track, all the way to the garbage barge...
|
|
| | | 246 | Boxman
ID: 571114225 Fri, Jul 20, 2007, 06:55
|
Turn In Gun And Receive A Pre-Paid $100 Mastercard
Mayor Daley in Chicago is leading a program wherein if you turn in a gun you get a $100 card.
Couple that program with this.
Crime Fighting Cameras
A popular quote lately has been from Benjamin Franklin "Those who would give up Essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
I wonder what Democrats, Libertarians and Republicans who support amending the Patriot Act or H.R. 3171 (The Benjamin Franklin True Patriot Act) would think about what's going on in Chicago.
|
|
| | | 247 | Mattinglyinthehall Leader
ID: 01629107 Fri, Jul 20, 2007, 07:12
|
I certainly see your issue with the cameras. But what's the problem with the gun turn-in program?
|
|
| | | 248 | Tree
ID: 3533298 Fri, Jul 20, 2007, 09:06
|
ditto here. not a big fan of the cameras at all, but i'm not seeing how the gun buy-back program is relevant to giving up civil liberties.
|
|
| | | 249 | Boxman
ID: 211139621 Sat, Jul 21, 2007, 07:08
|
Look at the efforts in concert with one another and then along with the link below. Why is the Chicago government so afraid of people owning guns? Do they expect all the gang bangers to come forth and just turn in all their guns and buy ice cream with the $100?
To me it stinks of disarming the populace and installing a way of living that is akin to a police state.
First the police in Illinois started randomly pulling over cars in the name of drunk driving prevention. With no cause, they just pull people over at random checkpoints. Now they hang carrots out to basically incentivize people to give up their guns. Now they see what you are doing and these bullet sound detectors are the apex of the slippery slope to inevitable listening devices.
All they are doing is empowering the gangs. The good people, especially the poor who live in neighborhoods that might actually need a gun for self defense, are turning in their guns for $100. For the poor, the $100 helps. Gas prices in Chicago are at or near the highest in the nation (thank you taxation) and some people need that money.
Chicago Pairing Surveillance Cameras with Gunshot Recognition Systems
The police are watching. And in Chicago, they're listening, too.
City officials are using new technology that recognizes the sound of a gunshot within a two-block radius, pinpoints the source, turns a surveillance camera toward the shooter and places a 911 call. Officials can then track the shooter and dispatch officers to the scene.
The CT in me believes these listening devices will one day not just listen for bullets.
I'm surprised there isn't a bit more outrage amonngst you considering how evil some people view The Patriot Act. While you ever so briefly commented on the cameras, you seem more concerned about my concern related to the gun buy-back.
|
|
| | | 250 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714 Sat, Jul 21, 2007, 09:28
|
The gun buy-back program, is nothing new. Its been done in many cities over the years at one time or another.
If I'm a honcho in Chicago, you're damned right I'm concerned by how many guns are on the street. At the same time, gun buy-backs, dont reduce the nr of guns currently in the hands of street thugs. That part bothers me. Johnny gang-banger, aint turning in his piece ofr a meager $100. What the program DOES do however, is to reduce the available number of guns which could be stolen and end up in the hands of Johnny gang-banger.
Personally, I have no probelm with gun buy-backs at all.
Re the cameras...other than cost; what specifically is the difference between installing cameras and stationing a patrolman at that location?
|
|
| | | 251 | Perm Dude
ID: 59610219 Sat, Jul 21, 2007, 10:16
|
There are many, many illegal guns out there. Getting them off the streets is a good thing. And, for just $100, no one is going to be selling a gun that they actually want to keep.
What happens is that people with illegal guns who don't want them now have a way to get rid of them. No one is compelling the sale. You seem to be confusing two compelling acts (pulling over cars for drunk driving tests and cameras in public areas) with one that is not, simply because they are all done by the government.
|
|
| | | 252 | Boxman
ID: 571114225 Sat, Jul 21, 2007, 10:26
|
Sarge: The gun buy-back program, is nothing new. Its been done in many cities over the years at one time or another.
Is that how you write off all questionable acts of government?
PD: There are many, many illegal guns out there. Getting them off the streets is a good thing. And, for just $100, no one is going to be selling a gun that they actually want to keep.
And just how many bad guys with illegal guns do you expect to turn over a new leaf for $100?
You seem to be confusing two compelling acts (pulling over cars for drunk driving tests and cameras in public areas) with one that is not, simply because they are all done by the government.
Not in the slightest. Look at these events in combination with each other. It paints a picture.
|
|
| | | 253 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714 Sat, Jul 21, 2007, 10:29
|
No Box, because this is not a questionable act of government. This is an OPTION provided BY government.
No, it doesnt paint a picture. Nothing more advanced anyway, than one would see from a Kindergarten finger painting.
|
|
| | | 254 | Perm Dude
ID: 59610219 Sat, Jul 21, 2007, 10:38
|
And just how many bad guys with illegal guns do you expect to turn over a new leaf for $100?
I dunno. The program isn't really aimed at them. There are thousands of old guns, some of them illegal, sitting around. People who don't want them can get some money for them. The $100 is enough of an incentive to get people to turn in guns.
In the past, cities have had hundreds of unwanted guns turned in. None of them are compelled to do so, yet those are hundreds of guns that won't get into the hands of the "bad guys" and won't get into the hands of kids playing.
Unwanted guns are no detriment, Boxman.
|
|
| | | 255 | Mattinglyinthehall Leader
ID: 01629107 Sat, Jul 21, 2007, 11:02
|
Post 249 Look at the efforts in concert with one another and then along with the link below.
Well gun buyback programs are nothing new and I know this isn't the first time this is being done in Chicago. It is entirely voluntary and therefore not a particularly authoritarian measure. Especially since the sale and registration of handguns in Chicago have been banned for 25 years now, anyway. No rights are being taken away through this policy.
To me it stinks of disarming the populace and installing a way of living that is akin to a police state.
I don't share your opinion on this. And I can't help but notice that its somewhat striking to see you suddenly take this libertarian stance after years of singing Rudy Guiliani's praises here. Perhaps you're not aware that NYC had a similar program under Mayor Giuliani? For all I know Rudy may have been the founder of such programs. His claim was that many of the guns returned were indeed illegal weapons turned in by the parents and families of gang members.
First the police in Illinois started randomly pulling over cars in the name of drunk driving prevention.
Maybe I've been incorrectly thinking DWI checkpoints have been widespread for the past 15 years or so. They were found constitutional by SCOTUS in 1990, in a 5-4 decision that included Rehnquist and Scalia. Most gun advocates I know who debate the difference between rules regarding registration and license requirements of automobiles and firearms argue vehemently that roads are public domain and therefore subject to much more strict regulation than the home, where most people would keep a gun. Allowing for dwi checkpoints and other measures seem to mesh well with arguments frequently made by gun rights advocates, as far as I can tell.
I'm surprised there isn't a bit more outrage amonngst you considering how evil some people view The Patriot Act.
Well the first issue is that I don't live in Chicago. :) Really I'm only partly kidding there. The greatest difference between anything in the Patriot Act and the measures you cite here (only 1 of which is really new at all, by the way) is that The Patriot Act applies to the entire country. Most Patriot Act opposers prefer to see authority less centralized, giving states and municipalities the freedom to decide the stringency of such laws for themselves. That doesn't mean I love seeing cameras going up on city streets in America. They're in my town, too, another measure spawned by Mayor Rudy Giuliani. That shouldn't be a surprise.
The honest truth is that when I'm alone on an underground subway platform in a questionable neighborhood in the middle of the night and I look up and see a camera, I'm not afraid to admit that knowing its there is a little bit comforting. I don't know how effective a deterrant most of those cameras are but they definitely help police find violent criminals, which in turn helps keep them off city streets.
I guess I'm torn on the camera issue. While I'm very wary of the slippery slope you cite, I also know from living in and traveling through high crime areas that different kinds of places require different levels of security to keep people safe. I think we're always better off letting local governments argue over and decide these issues (cameras, gun control, other authoritive issues) for themselves, within the boundaries of the legislative structures of those localized places, rather than the federal government.
Your local Chicago gripes here are not very anagalous to my issues with the Patriot Act.
|
|
| | | 256 | Boxman
ID: 571114225 Sat, Jul 21, 2007, 11:41
|
Mith: Please pardon the following war analogy, but maybe this will help us both understand the issue further. I do not pretend to be a legal scholar. I am approaching this as keeping government out of the lives of the everyday person as much as possible.
If you're going to war, you don't just send in tanks. You use tanks, along with airplanes, ground troops, and naval support.
These actions by the government (locally, statewide, etc.) all position the government to observe and interfere with the lives of law abiding citizens while nothing happens to the bad guys.
Sarge had an idea about more police in an earlier post. I have no qualm with that. More police is a reasonable step to fighting crime. I do have a problem with the American citizen under constant close surveillance; specifically these cameras, listening devices, and gun buy backs which I believe targets the mass of the poor. Without having a census analysis with the camera placements handy, I would imagine a disproportionate number of them are in neighborhoods dominated by minorities.
How are we ever going to get minority communities to fully trust police if they are predominatly being observed? How do we move ahead as a society if I, who lives in semi-affluent suburbia, have no police observation, but a black guy my age can't walk 10 blocks without seeing them?
I am asking you to look at these events as a whole and see how it is positioning the government to observe and control the people. Then ask why are they doing it? Why do they need to do it?
|
|
| | | 257 | Tree
ID: 396122110 Sat, Jul 21, 2007, 11:57
|
my mind is spinning that anyone would question or have problem with a gun buy-back program that is OPTIONAL.
How are we ever going to get minority communities to fully trust police if they are predominatly being observed? How do we move ahead as a society if I, who lives in semi-affluent suburbia, have no police observation, but a black guy my age can't walk 10 blocks without seeing them?
out of curiosity, do you do any volunteering or mentoring in poorer communities? you'd be surprised at how much influence doing something like being a Big Brother or Big Sister can help...
|
|
| | | 258 | Boxman
ID: 571114225 Sat, Jul 21, 2007, 13:11
|
Tree: When you look at these programs, together, do you find anything suspicious?
|
|
| | | 259 | Boxman
ID: 571114225 Sat, Jul 21, 2007, 13:16
|
out of curiosity, do you do any volunteering or mentoring in poorer communities?
This is getting off topic and I don't want to divert the thread. Seriously, there is a latino boy in my community that I am trying to convince to go to college. His dad became successful without advanced schooling and his son thinks he can follow the same path. It's a complicated story, but the father asked me to help convince the young man to go to college. Hopefully it works because if this young man goes on to achieve an undergrad and then an MBA, combine that with his natural bilingual abilities, he will be able to write his own ticket.
|
|
| | | 260 | Tree
ID: 426192112 Sat, Jul 21, 2007, 13:32
|
Hopefully it works because if this young man goes on to achieve an undergrad and then an MBA, combine that with his natural bilingual abilities, he will be able to write his own ticket.
good to hear. everytime someone does "their part", it's a good thing.
Tree: When you look at these programs, together, do you find anything suspicious?
honestly? no, not in the least bit. even less so, when you attempt to link two news articles that were published THREE YEARS APART.
the article about the cameras is 3 years old.
again, one program - the gun buy-back program is strictly voluntary. there is no law or requirement forcing people to sell their guns.
the second program - regarding cameras in public places - is something that i do have some reservations about, but mostly because i hate the fact that i can't even pick my nose at 3 am walking up 7th Ave without thinking that some camera somewhere might catch it.
the flipside of that is that living in NYC, i've seen these cameras work and be valuable aids in crime-fighting.
heck, it's not even an NYC thing. Watch America's Most Wanted and even your local newscast, and you are bound to see crimes captured on camera, and criminal caught because of it.
bottom line, what would i find suspicious about this. i mean, you could really take any two things, attempt to link them, and describe it as suspicious.
heck, you don't find it curious that the crown of the statue of liberty is still closed, but yet, the observation deck of the empire state building is not only open, but you have to wait in a long line to get there?!?!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
|
|
| | | 261 | Boxman
ID: 571114225 Sat, Jul 21, 2007, 18:16
|
the article about the cameras is 3 years old.
That doesn't change the fact that they are there.
|
|
| | | 262 | Mattinglyinthehall Leader
ID: 01629107 Sat, Jul 21, 2007, 23:55
|
256 Boxman I'm not trying to be difficult, so I do hope you that don't take it that way but I really do not understand your analogy.
Moving from there...
These actions... all position the government to observe and interfere with the lives of law abiding citizens while nothing happens to the bad guys.
I don't agree. According to Giulianni (whom you call "your guy" if I remember correctly) many of the turned in guns in NYC were handed in by mothers and families of gang members. In 1999 something like 1,100 guns were turned in. If just 10% of them were in the possession of criminals, that's a significant achievement. Further, likely over 90% of the guns handed in in NYC were illegal, since its near impossible for anoyone outside of law enforcement to obtain legal registration inside NYC.
I'm less familiar with the issue in Chicago, but from what I've read on the topic today, it appears that almost every handgun in Chicago obtained after 1982 (aside from those in possession of people in law enforcement) is also illegal.
I'm aware of how you feel about restrictive gun laws, we've hashed that out before in a thread more apropriate for the particulars of that discussion. I'll just note that on a practical level and on a legal level, I don't agree with you.
Without having a census analysis with the camera placements handy, I would imagine a disproportionate number of them are in neighborhoods dominated by minorities.
Again, I don't know much about Chicago but in New York this is not true. The highest concentration of cameras are in midtown Manhattan, the touristy areas around the city, the busiest places and in mass transit terminals. There are plenty of bustling minority communities in NYC but to my knowledge race isn't a factor in detrmining where cameras are placed.
There is actually a group opposed to public funded surveillance camera sysytem that attempts to keep track of them.
Look at what they found in NYC. The highest concentrations of cameras are in Midtown East (the neighborhood I work in) and Tribeca and the financial district downtown. These are the two primary business centers in NYC . where the bulk of the skyscrapers are located and easily the most populous parts of the city during work hours. Note the number of cameras in Harlem and Washington Heights, uptwon neighborhoods with high concentrations of minorities.
Apparently there is a similar measure in Chicago though the website doesn't appear to be completed yet.
I am asking you to look at these events as a whole and see how it is positioning the government to observe and control the people.
This is exactly why I prefer to see these kinds of measures taken by local governments rather than federal. I'm not too worried about local municipalities becoming authoritarian states. At the local level people have more control and frankly, if that's what they want, so be it.
Another thing for you to consider is that the world is changing in leaps and bounds in ways that we couldn't have imagined just 30 years ago. The number of ways for government agencies to spy on and find people is ever growing. Consider that every time you use your ATM or debit or credit card, a record of the time and place of that use is kept.
Every day, I enter the subway by swiping my electronic metrocard at the turnstile. They're far better than the old tokens for many reasons. The aren't an annoyance in my pocket, they fit in my wallet right behind my driver's license, I can purchase as many rides as I want on a single card or buy a 7-day or 30-day unlimited pass. But every time you swipe your card, a record is kept of that card being swiped at that particular turnstile at that time. There have been countless cases where suspects were proven to be lying to police about their whereabouts because the metrocard in their possession had been swiped at a subway station different from where they claimed to be.
Many people buy metrocards with debit cards or credit cards. Some, like me, purchase them through an account provided by their employer. In these cases, the cardholder's name and other personal information is easily obtained. You say your weren't anywhere near 40th and Lexington at 9 pm last night Mr Boxman? Well I have right here a transit record that says that a metrocard purchased from your account was swiped at Grand Central Station right around teh corner from there at 9:15. Wanna rethink your story?
The Northeast US has adopted a system to speed up toll booths on highways called EZPass. Perhaps EZPass has extended to other parts of the country as well (I don't own a car so I don't do much driving). If not, I'm sure there is a similar program in your area where you purchase an electronic device that mounts on your windshield and allows you to simply slow down through a toll booth rather than have to stop and exchange money. Every time someone drives through an EZPass lane at a toll booth, a record is made of that person's car being at that place at that time.
I presume you own and carry a cell phone. Your phone has a signal that can be traced to your approximate whereabouts in almost any populated area even when the thing is turned off.
Does your new Mustang have one of those anti theft devices that allows it to be traced to it's precise location in case it is stolen?
All of these things, credit cards, metrocards, EZPasses, cell phones, etc. are terrific conveniences in our modern society. And yes the result of these conveniences is that with seemingly each advancement, more machinery is set in place for the police state to eventually take over. The founding fathers could not have seen or prepared us for these advancements. It isn't the way Orwell foretold it would happen.
I think that unless you're willing to drop your life and take to the hills, this is the way western society will continue to develop, and there is little we can do about it except watch for abuses and expose them when they occur. I'm not happy about it, but I'm not willing to give up the convenience of swiping my metrocard at the turnstile or receive a call from my dad on my cell phone or pay my restaurant check with a credit card. Are you?
|
|
| | | 263 | Tree
ID: 446342123 Sun, Jul 22, 2007, 00:41
|
the article about the cameras is 3 years old.
That doesn't change the fact that they are there.
i mentioned that to see if that's what you'd focus in on, and sure enough, you did.
you didn't respond to any of the other, more relevant to the issue points.
feel free to do so.
|
|
| | | 264 | Tree
ID: 446342123 Sun, Jul 22, 2007, 00:49
|
I think that unless you're willing to drop your life and take to the hills, this is the way western society will continue to develop, and there is little we can do about it except watch for abuses and expose them when they occur. I'm not happy about it, but I'm not willing to give up the convenience of swiping my metrocard at the turnstile or receive a call from my dad on my cell phone or pay my restaurant check with a credit card. Are you?
MITH - this entire post is one of the best posts i have EVER seen on this message board.
|
|
| | |
| | | 266 | Tree
ID: 45612227 Sun, Jul 22, 2007, 09:27
|
i see a lot of smashed TP dispensers in Kimberly-Clark's future.
|
|
| | | 267 | Tree
ID: 356392220 Sun, Jul 22, 2007, 21:58
|
Boxman - shoot me an email?
|
|
| | | 268 | Boxman
ID: 571114225 Mon, Jul 23, 2007, 18:33
|
Sent.
Sorry for the lag. Busy day at the salt mines.
|
|
| | | 269 | Boxman
ID: 337352111 Mon, Oct 08, 2007, 13:35
|
From the WSJ...
Reagan and the Law of the Sea By WILLIAM P. CLARK and EDWIN MEESE October 8, 2007; Page A19
It is an impressive testament to the abiding affection and political influence of former President Ronald Reagan that the fate of a controversial treaty now before the U.S. Senate may ultimately turn on a single question: What would Reagan do? As we had the privilege of working closely with President Reagan in connection with the foreign policy, national security and domestic implications of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (better known as the Law of the Sea Treaty or LOST), there is no question about how our 40th president felt about this accord. He so strongly opposed it that he formally refused to sign the treaty. He even sent Donald Rumsfeld as a personal emissary to our key allies around the world to explain his opposition and encourage them to follow suit. All of them did so at the time.
Proponents of LOST, however, have lately taken -- on these pages and elsewhere -- to portray President Reagan's concerns as relatively circumscribed. They contend that those objections were subsequently and satisfactorily addressed in a multilateral accord known as the Agreement of 1994. To the extent that such assertions may induce senators who would otherwise oppose the Law of the Sea Treaty to vote for it, perhaps within a matter of weeks and after only the most cursory of reviews, we feel compelled to set the record straight.
Ronald Reagan actually opposed LOST even before he came to office. He was troubled by a treaty that had, in the course of its protracted negotiations, mutated beyond recognition from an effort to codify certain navigation rights strongly supported by our Navy into a dramatic step toward world government. This supranational agenda was most closely identified with, but not limited to, the Treaty's Part XI, which created a variety of executive, legislative and judicial mechanisms to control the resources of the world's oceans.
In a radio address titled "Ocean Mining" on Oct. 10, 1978, Mr. Reagan applauded the idea that "no nat[ional] interest of ours could justify handing sovereign control of two-thirds of the earth's surface over to the Third World." He added, "No one has ruled out the idea of a [Law of the Sea] treaty -- one which makes sense -- but after long years of fruitless negotiating, it became apparent that the underdeveloped nations who now control the General Assembly were looking for a free ride at our expense -- again."
The so-called seabed mining provisions were simply one manifestation of the problems Ronald Reagan had with LOST. That was made clear by an entry in his diary dated June 29, 1982, after months of efforts to negotiate extensive changes in the draft treaty text came to naught. On that evening, President Reagan wrote: "Decided in [National Security Council] meeting -- will not sign 'Law of the Sea' treaty even without seabed mining provisions."
The man selected by President Reagan to undertake those renegotiations was the remarkable James Malone. In 1984, Ambassador Malone explained why the Law of the Sea Treaty was unacceptable: "The Treaty's provisions were intentionally designed to promote a new world order -- a form of global collectivism known as the New International Economic Order (NIEO) -- that seeks ultimately the redistribution of the world's wealth through a complex system of manipulative central economic planning and bureaucratic coercion. The Treaty's provisions are predicated on a distorted interpretation of the noble concept of the Earth's vast oceans as the 'common heritage of mankind.'"
Interestingly, Ambassador Malone declared in 1995, "This remains the case today." That statement is particularly relevant insofar as LOST's supporters, including some of our colleagues from the Reagan administration, insist that the 1994 Agreement "fixed" the previously unacceptable Part XI provisions. As James Malone explained to a conference on the Law of the Sea Treaty before his untimely death more than a decade ago:
"All the provisions from the past that make such a [new world order] outcome possible, indeed likely, still stand. It is not true, as argued by some, and frequently mentioned, that the U.S. rejected the Convention in 1982 solely because of technical difficulties with Part XI. The collectivist and redistributionist provisions of the treaty were at the core of the U.S. refusal to sign."
He added, "The regime's structural arrangements place central planning ahead of free market interests in determining influence over world resources; and yet, the collapse of socialist central planning throughout the world makes this a step in the wrong direction."
In a comment that is, if anything, even more true at present, Ambassador Malone observed that: "Today, not only are the seabed mining provisions inadequately corrected, and the collectivist ideologies of a now repudiated system of global central planning still imbedded in the treaty, new and potentially serious concerns have arisen."
Currently, these include: the increasingly brazen hostility of the United Nations and other multilateral institutions to the United States and its interests; the organization's ambition to impose international taxes, which would allow it to become still less transparent and accountable to member nations; the determination of European and other environmentalists to impose the "precautionary principle" (a Luddite, "better safe than sorry" approach that requires proof no harm can come from any initiative before it can be undertaken); the increasing practice of U.S. courts to allow "universal jurisprudence" to trump American constitutional rights and laws; and the use of "lawfare" (multilateral treaties, tribunal rulings and convention declarations) by adversaries of the U.S. military as asymmetric weapons to curtail or impede American power and operations.
Such developments only serve to reinforce the concerns President Reagan rightly had about the central, and abiding, defect of the Law of the Sea Treaty: its effort to promote global government at the expense of sovereign nation states -- and most especially the United States. One of the prime movers behind LOST, the late Elisabeth Mann Borgese of the World Federalist Association (which now calls itself Citizens for Global Solutions), captured what is at stake when she cited an ancient aphorism: "He who rules the sea, rules the land." A U.N. publication lauding her work noted that Borgese saw LOST as a "possible test-bed for ideas she had developed concerning a common global constitution."
While we would not presume to speak for President Reagan, his own words and those of the man who worked most closely with him and us on Law of the Sea matters, Jim Malone, make one thing clear: Even if the 1994 Agreement actually amended LOST (and there are multiple reasons why it did not actually alter so much as a single word of the treaty), Ronald Reagan's belief in the U.S. as an exceptional "shining city on a hill" and his enmity towards threats to our sovereignty in general, and global governance schemes in particular, were such that he would likely encourage the Senate to do today what he did in 1982: Reject LOST.
Judge Clark and Mr. Meese served in several capacities in President Reagan's administration including, respectively, as national security adviser and attorney general.
|
|
| | | 270 | Baldwin
ID: 125312919 Fri, Oct 12, 2007, 04:29
|
Outstanding find.
|
|
| | | 271 | Perm Dude
ID: 1951116 Fri, Oct 12, 2007, 10:04
|
I meant to respond to #269 a few days ago.
While I understand the arguments the authors are making, what isn't clear to me is: "Why is it important that we know what Reagan would have done?" Are these people unable to think for themselves? Does the treaty in question have acceptable language until you realize that Reagan would have rejected it?
If the treaty is bad, it should fail on its own merits (or lack of them). Not based upon 25-year old diary entries.
I have no idea if the LOST is good or not. But basing it all on what Reagan would do is silly.
|
|
| | | 272 | Baldwin
ID: 125312919 Sun, Oct 14, 2007, 17:35
|
The one American president to buck the NWO agenda and of course there was an attempt on his life.
PD, there is no one conservatives trust more in the 'reliable instincts' dept.
|
|
| | | 273 | Perm Dude
ID: 159551417 Sun, Oct 14, 2007, 20:11
|
Sure, but at this point Reagan's ideas on modern political, economic, and diplomatic activity is more speculative than anything else.
There may be a good reason why LOST should be bounced (and, it might be the same reasons why Reagan was against it decades ago). But you won't really get that from the article. Which leads me to believe something is not being said that should.
|
|
| | | 274 | Baldwin
ID: 125312919 Thu, Oct 18, 2007, 13:16
|
Just curious why you think there is any mystery at all about why Reagan opposed it. Those same factors do still apply and in fact are even more serious today.
He was adamantly opposed to collectivism, central planning, the UN and the UN taxing Americans, globalism, global tribunals superceding American law...where do you see any doubt what-so-ever that he would oppose it every bit as much today?
|
|
| | | 275 | Perm Dude
ID: 6952237 Tue, Oct 23, 2007, 10:26
|
I'm not wondering at all--I'm sure he did, at the time, oppose the treaty at the time. And I'm not unmoved by the idea that he would likely oppose the treaty as it is now being proposed, as the world is now.
I simply think the point is moot. The "goodness" or "badness" of the treaty exists outside of Reagan's opinion of it or his opinion on anything else.
|
|
| | |
| | | 277 | Boxman
ID: 571114225 Sun, Nov 04, 2007, 16:39
|
The Law of the Sea Treaty is getting closer to ratification. From the WSJ Online...
Arctic Thaw Defrosts a Sea Treaty By NICK TIMIRAOS November 3, 2007
The Senate moved closer to ratifying a sweeping international treaty that governs every aspect of maritime law, from ocean shipping to deep-sea mining. A 17-4 panel vote sent the Law of the Sea Treaty to the full Senate, where it must win a two-thirds vote for ratification.
The treaty enjoys an odd mix of support from the Bush administration, top diplomats and military leaders, the oil industry and environmentalists. But it is opposed by conservatives who worry it would undermine U.S. sovereignty, and Senate critics repeatedly have blocked the 25-year-old treaty, to which 155 nations have signed on.
The renewed push for ratification comes as the Arctic ice cap thaws, offering the prospect of new shipping lanes and access to underwater oil and mineral resources.
Here's a closer look:
Natural resources: The treaty gives coastal nations, including nonsignatories, rights to manage resources in an "exclusive economic zone" that extends 200 nautical miles from their shores. Nations also can apply to explore for resources on their continental shelf extending as far as 350 nautical miles offshore.
Oil and mining companies support the treaty because it could grant the U.S. access to an additional 291,000 square miles of seabed in the Gulf of Mexico, North Atlantic, Bering Sea and Arctic Ocean. Recent estimates suggest more than 400 billion barrels of oil and gas could be located in the Arctic, along with deep-sea deposits of precious metals.
Russia has reported 32 oil and gas discoveries in the Arctic region and underscored the race for resource rights this summer when it planted its flag on a seabed more than 15,000 feet below the North Pole. Canada has disputed the claim.
Taxes are another point of contention. Companies must pay 1% of revenue to an international body on any resources extracted beyond the 200-mile limit after five years of production, with rates rising by 1% annually to a maximum of 7%. Critics object to such payments.
National security: The Navy remains one of the treaty's top supporters because the treaty ensures the right of free passage through international straits and archipelagoes such as Indonesia. Earlier this year, the heads of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines signed a letter urging the Senate to ratify the treaty.
The Bush administration has argued that the treaty would bolster the Proliferation Security Initiative, a U.S.-led global effort to interdict shipments of nuclear and missile technology from nations such as North Korea or Iran, but critics have warned that the antiproliferation measures would violate the treaty.
Critics most strongly object to the loss of U.S. sovereignty that would result from ratification, including the delegation of authority to the International Seabed Authority. Critics also claim that the treaty's dispute-resolution mechanism could allow foreign judges to determine the Navy's right to seize a ship believed to be carrying terrorists or contraband.
Environment: Environmental organizations support U.S. ratification because the treaty requires signatories to enforce environmental standards in their exclusive economic zones.
Critics say the treaty could give other nations or third-party environmental groups leverage in influencing U.S. environmental policies and that the pact could be used to oppose the very oil and gas exploration that it promises to open up.
* * * Facts
• In 1702, Dutch jurist Cornelius Bynkershoek articulated the "cannon shot" rule that, for centuries, led nations to establish rights to their territorial waters at three nautical miles off their shores, roughly the distance that a cannon ball could be shot. • President Reagan supported most of the Law of the Sea Treaty as it was conceived in 1982, but refused to sign it because of provisions on deep-sea mining. The agreement was amended in 1994 and signed by President Clinton. • Oceans cover about 70% of the Earth's surface. • The U.S. portion of the "exclusive economic zone" created by the treaty is the largest of any country's, and at 3.36 million square miles, is larger than the continental U.S. • The first successful offshore oil platform was established in the Gulf of Mexico in 1947. • Fewer than 40 nations have opted not to join the Law of the Sea Treaty. The U.S. is the only major power that hasn't joined.
|
|
| | | 278 | Pancho Villa
ID: 495272016 Sun, Nov 11, 2007, 22:15
|
John Graham of Giraffe Heroes Project is on the No-Fly Watch list
Whether it's a mistake or somebody with the power to hassle me really thinks I am a threat, the stark absence of due process is unsettling. The worst of it is that being put on a list of America's enemies seems to be permanent. The TSA form states:
'The TSA clearance process will not remove a name from the Watch Lists. Instead this process distinguishes passengers from persons who are in fact on the Watch Lists by placing their names and identifying information in a cleared portion of the Lists.'
Which may or may not, the form continues, reduce the airport hassles. Huh?
My name is on a list of real and suspected enemies of the state and I can't find out what I'm accused of or why, let alone defend myself. And I'm guilty, says my government, not just until proven innocent or a victim of mistaken identity—but forever.
|
|
| | | 279 | Boxman
ID: 337352111 Tue, Nov 20, 2007, 13:32
|
From the WSJ Online...
Deep-Six the Law of the Sea By THOMAS A. BOWDEN November 20, 2007; Page A18
The Law of the Sea Treaty, which awaits a ratification vote in the U.S. Senate, declares most of the earth's vast ocean floor to be "the common heritage of mankind" and places it under United Nations ownership "for the benefit of mankind as a whole."
This treaty has been bobbing in the legislative ocean for the past 25 years. After President Ronald Reagan refused to sign it in 1982, repeated attempts at ratification have failed. Last month, however, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted 17-4 to send it to the full Senate, where a two-thirds majority is required to ratify.
What's at stake are trillions of tons of vital minerals such as manganese, nickel, copper, zinc, gold and silver -- enough to supply current needs for thousands of years -- spread over vast seabeds constituting 41% of the planet's area. Senate ratification would signify U.S. agreement that the International Seabed Authority, a U.N. agency based in Jamaica, should own these resources in perpetuity.
Why should we agree to this?
Like any other hard-to-reach resources, these undersea minerals are completely valueless where they now rest. What is it that makes such resources actually valuable? It is the thinking and action of inventors, engineers, explorers and entrepreneurs who devote their mental energy to the task of finding and retrieving them. These undersea pioneers don't just find wealth, they create wealth -- by bringing a portion of nature's bounty under human control.
Despite the treaty's allusion to seabeds as the "common heritage of mankind," mankind as a whole has done exactly nothing to create value in the deep ocean, which is a remote wilderness, virtually unexploited. Under the proposed treaty, however, the ocean mining companies -- whose science, exploration, technology, and entrepreneurship are being counted on to gather otherwise inaccessible riches -- are treated as mere servants of a world collective.
In practice, under the treaty's explicitly socialist approach, mining companies operate as mere licensees who must render hefty application fees as well as continuing payments (read: taxes) and obtain prior approval at every stage of work, under regulations that emerge sluggishly from multinational committees.
Licensees must also enrich a U.N.-operated competitor called, spookily enough, "The Enterprise." For every square mile of ocean bottom a licensee explores, half must be relinquished to The Enterprise, free of charge -- and the Enterprise gets to pick the better half.
Licensees must also make available, on so-called reasonable commercial terms, their technology and know-how, and even train this giant competitor's personnel. At the end of the day, profits from The Enterprise, along with taxes from licensees, are distributed to U.N. member-nations such as Cuba, Uganda and Venezuela, who contribute nothing to the productive process.
The treaty simply assumes as a self-evident truth that wealth sharing is the moral duty of the haves toward the have-nots, and that the world's needy nations have a moral claim on the wealth created by undersea miners. But we should pause to challenge both that moral assumption and its legal implications.
Morally, undersea mining operations are entitled to own outright those portions of the ocean floor they exploit, by virtue of the productive effort they expend. Producers in general are morally entitled to live and work for their own sake, keeping the wealth they create without any moral debt to those who didn't create it. Because nature requires us to be productive in order to live, the businessman's pursuit of profit is properly regarded as a virtue, not a vice indebting him to a hungry planet.
Legally, this viewpoint is embodied in the American ideals of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, secured by private property rights. A historical example of the proper principle in action is the Homestead Act of 1862. Farmers acquired property rights, i.e., private deeds, to 270 million acres of fertile Midwest prairie land by the productive act of farming it, parcel by parcel.
Suppose, instead, that the U.S. government had issued only licenses, not deeds, for the acreage those farmers carved out of wild prairie land. Then suppose the government had transferred half that hard-won acreage to "The Farm," a giant government-owned competitor whose field hands the farmers would be expected to equip and train. Of course, such a travesty would have been unthinkable in the relatively capitalistic 19th century.
Governments today have legitimate options regarding how to deal with undersea explorers' need to establish property rights in the deep ocean. But it would be totally improper for America to declare eternal hostility to private property in the ocean floor by ratifying a treaty dedicated on principle to denying such rights.
Mr. Bowden, a former attorney and law school instructor, is an analyst focusing on legal issues at the Ayn Rand Institute.
|
|
| | |
| | | 281 | Boldwin
ID: 573452112 Sun, Apr 27, 2008, 03:28
|
Now all that's missing is the pretext.Beginning in 1999, the government has entered into a series of single-bid contracts with Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root (KBR) to build detention camps at undisclosed locations within the United States. The government has also contracted with several companies to build thousands of railcars, some reportedly equipped with shackles, ostensibly to transport detainees.
According to diplomat and author Peter Dale Scott, the KBR contract is part of a Homeland Security plan titled ENDGAME, which sets as its goal the removal of "all removable aliens" and "potential terrorists."
It is important to stress that the historical precedent mirrors exactly what the Halliburton camp deal outlines. Oliver North's Reagan era Rex 84 plan proposed rounding up 400,000 refugees, under FEMA, in the event of "uncontrolled population movements" over the Mexican border into the United States.
The real agenda, just as it is with Halliburton's gulags, was to use the cover of rounding up immigrants and illegal aliens as a smokescreen for targeting political dissidents. From 1967 to 1971 the FBI kept a list of persons to be rounded up as subversive, dubbed the "ADEX" list.
According to author Naomi Wolf, the National Counterterrorism Center today holds the names of roughly 775,000 "terror suspects" with the number increasing by 20,000 per month.
Discussions of federal concentration camps are no longer the rhetoric of paranoid Internet conspiracy theorists, they are mainstream news.
Halliburton, through their KBR subsidiary, is the same company that built most of the major new detention camps in Iraq and Afghanistan. KBR have been embroiled in a human sex slave trade that their representatives have lobbied to continue.
We have a company that has been handed a contract to build prison camps in America that is engaged in trafficking young girls and women. Can this horror movie get any more frightening? Sadly, yes.
A much discussed and circulated report, the Pentagon's Civilian Inmate Labor Program, has recently been updated and the revision details a "template for developing agreements" between the Army and corrections facilities for the use of civilian inmate labor on Army installations."
The plan is clearly to swallow up disenfranchised groups like prisoners, immigrants and Muslims at first and then extend the policy to include 'Fifth Columnists,' otherwise known as anyone who disagrees with the government or exercises their Constitutional rights.
Respected author Peter Dale Scott speculated that the "detention centers could be used to detain American citizens if the Bush administration were to declare martial law."
Daniel Ellsberg, former Special Assistant to Assistant Secretary of Defense, called the plan, "preparation for a roundup after the next 9/11 for Mid-Easterners, Muslims and possibly dissenters. They've already done this on a smaller scale, with the 'special registration' detentions of immigrant men from Muslim countries, and with Guantanamo."
George Bush has declared himself to be dictator and to have supreme power over and above the limitations of the US Constitution. Bush administration officials like Alberto Gonzales have declared Bush to be "above the law." White House advisors are openly discussing the legality of crushing a child's testicles as part of the war on terror. Preparation for the internment of thousands of Americans who are 'disloyal' in times of emergency are afoot.
Under the enemy combatant designation anyone at the behest of the US government, even if they are a US citizen, can be kidnapped and placed in an internment facility forever without trial. Jose Padilla, an American citizen, spent over four years in a Navy brig before being brought to trial.
In 2002, FEMA sought bids from major real estate and engineering firms to construct giant internment facilities in the case of a chemical, biological or nuclear attack or a natural disaster.
Furthermore, in May 2006, we exposed the existence of a nationwide FEMA program which is training Pastors and other religious representatives to become secret police enforcers who teach their congregations to "obey the government" in preparation for the implementation of martial law, property and firearm seizures, mass vaccination programs and forced relocation.
A whistleblower who was secretly enrolled into the program told us that the feds were clandestinely recruiting religious leaders to help implement Homeland Security directives in anticipation of a potential bio-terrorist attack, any natural disaster or a nationally declared emergency.
The first directive was for Pastors to preach to their congregations Romans 13, the often taken out of context bible passage that was used by Hitler to hoodwink Christians into supporting him, in order to teach them to "obey the government" when martial law is declared.
It was related to the Pastors that quarantines, martial law and forced relocation were a problem for state authorities when enforcing federal mandates due to the "cowboy mentality" of citizens standing up for their property and second amendment rights as well as farmers defending their crops and livestock from seizure.
It was stressed that the Pastors needed to preach subservience to the authorities ahead of time in preparation for the round-ups and to make it clear to the congregation that "this is for their own good."
Pastors were told that they would be backed up by law enforcement in controlling uncooperative individuals and that they would even lead SWAT teams in attempting to quell resistance.
Though some doubted the accuracy of this report at the time due to its fundamentally disturbing implications, the story was later confirmed by a KSLA 12 news report, in which participating clergy and officials admitted to the existence of the program.
|
|
| | | 282 | Boxman
ID: 571114225 Sun, Apr 27, 2008, 13:11
|
Adding this betrayal by the Bush Administration onto Boldwin's previous posts and it isn't so far to imagine Americans being tried in int'l criminal courts and then being held in American detention camps.
Not to mention the danger we face, right or wrong, as the world's policeman and the ensuing probability of our fighting men and women having to stand before this joke of a so called "legal" body.
From the WSJ...
U.S. Accepts International Criminal Court By JESS BRAVIN April 26, 2008; Page A5A
A senior Bush administration official said Friday that the U.S. now accepts the "reality" of the International Criminal Court, and that Washington would consider aiding the Hague tribunal in its investigation of atrocities in Sudan's Darfur region.
"The U.S. must acknowledge that the ICC enjoys a large body of international support, and that many countries will look to the ICC as the preferred mechanism" for punishing war crimes that individual countries can't or won't address, John Bellinger, the State Department's chief lawyer, told a conference in Chicago marking the 10th anniversary of the tribunal's founding treaty, the Rome Statute. More than 100 countries have ratified the treaty.
Although it reiterated longstanding U.S. concerns about the court, Mr. Bellinger's speech represented a rhetorical turnabout for an administration that came to power determined to hobble the movement for a permanent war crimes tribunal.
"This is a meaty piece of work," said Richard Dicker, international justice director for Human Rights Watch. "It's impossible to imagine such a statement four years ago."
Shortly before the court opened in 2002, the Bush administration "unsigned" the Rome Statute, which President Clinton had approved before leaving office. President Bush subsequently signed legislation authorizing military action, should the court arrest an American, and limiting U.S. dealings with the tribunal.
An architect of the White House's earlier policies dismissed Mr. Bellinger's remarks as "pabulum" from a State Department that is too solicitous of international institutions. "It would be a great speech in the first Clinton administration, and probably a great speech in the second Clinton administration," said John Bolton, the former ambassador to the United Nations who, as undersecretary of state, signed the letter repudiating Rome Statute.
"It reflects the yearning the Rice State Department has for acceptance" by academics and foreign intellectuals, Mr. Bolton said. "The fight resumes after Jan. 20," when a new administration takes office, he added.
All three senators running for president -- Republican John McCain and Democrats Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama -- have voiced reservations about the court, but said they would consider closer cooperation with it.
In 2002, both Arizona Sen. McCain and New York Sen. Clinton voted for the anti-court legislation. But Sen. McCain said in 2005 that "I want us in the ICC, but I'm not satisfied that there are enough safeguards," Reuters reported.
This year, Sen. Clinton said she would "reassess how we can best engage with this institution and hold the worst abusers of human rights to account," in a candidate questionnaire from the American Society of International Law.
Illinois Sen. Obama said much the same, adding, "I will consult thoroughly with our military commanders and also examine the track record of the court before reaching a decision on whether the United States should" join.
The Darfur investigation "is likely to do more than any other factor...to shape U.S. perceptions of the role and impact of the ICC," Mr. Bellinger said Friday. "We want to see the ICC's Darfur work succeed," and are "prepared to consider" providing assistance, he said.
The thaw between the Bush White House and the court began in 2005, when the U.S. refrained from vetoing a U.N. Security Council resolution referring Darfur atrocities to the court.
Mr. Bellinger said the U.S. wanted the court to "complement" the U.N. Security Council's agenda. That would ensure the court remains aligned with American interests, because the council can take no action without assent from its permanent members -- the U.S., Britain, China, France and Russia.
Mr. Bellinger said the U.S. would look to a diplomatic conference slated for 2010, which is expected to discuss definitions for the international crime of "aggression."
At the Nuremberg tribunal after World War II, the Allies prosecuted Nazi leaders for waging "wars of aggression." More recently, however, the U.S. has worried that a vague definition could be used as a pretext to prosecute American officials for military operations.
The International Criminal Court is intended as a court of last resort for genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity, when national justice systems can't or won't take action. It has cases open in several countries, including the Central African Republic, Congo and Uganda, but has yet to conduct a trial.
Write to Jess Bravin at jess.bravin@wsj.com
|
|
| | |
| | | 284 | Boxman
ID: 337352111 Tue, May 27, 2008, 13:39
|
From the WSJ.
Homeland Security Newspeak May 27, 2008; Page A19
The Department of Homeland Security thinks it's a bad idea to use the word "liberty" when describing America's foreign policy goals. Nor does it much like the terms "Islamist" and "jihadist." Heaven forbid the federal government cause needless offense in the current war against, well, whoever.
Such are the recommendations on "Terminology to Define Terrorists," a nine-page, "Official Use Only" memo issued in January by Homeland Security's Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. It purports to represent the suggestions of a "wide variety" of unnamed American Muslim leaders consulted on the subject. And while it is not a statement of official policy, it neatly captures the sophisticated government thinking about its rhetorical strategies for what used to be called the "Global War on Terror."
Now, thanks to the DHS brain trust, we are offered a "Global Struggle for Security and Progress." Perhaps with further moral and intellectual refinement, we can someday embark on a General Effort Against Negativity and Ungoodness.
In "1984," George Orwell famously created Newspeak, "the only language in the world whose vocabulary gets smaller every year." How things haven't changed. The Homeland Security memo begins by declaring that "Words matter," whereupon it proceeds to suggest that some words matter so much it's best not to use them at all. Instead, the memo proposes a "strategic terminology" to dictate the utterances of public officials regarding the so-called Global Struggle.
In the new dispensation, much of which has reportedly been adopted by the State Department, using the word Islamic is out because it potentially "[concedes] the terrorists' claims that they are legitimate adherents of Islam." Use of the word jihad is said to "glamorize terrorism." Islamist – a neutral and broadly accepted term for those who espouse Islam as a political system – is frowned upon because "the general public . . . may not appreciate the academic distinction between Islamism and Islam." Using the word Salafism, the religious variant of Islam espoused by al Qaeda, may have the unfortunate effect of demonizing those Salafists who aren't violent. The term moderate Muslims may include those who aren't religiously observant, and thus offend those Muslims who are. "Mainstream Muslim" is supposedly better.
In its most eye-catching recommendation (which goes strangely unmentioned in an Associated Press story about the memo), the DHS authors explain their preference for the word "progress" over "liberty."
"The struggle is for 'progress,' over which no nation has a monopoly," reads the memo. "The experts we consulted debated the word 'liberty,' but rejected it because many around the world would discount the term as a buzzword for American hegemony. But all people want to support 'progress,' which emphasizes that there is a path for building strong families and prosperity among the current dislocations of globalization and change. And progress is precisely what the terrorists oppose through their violent tactics and through their efforts to impose a totalitarian world view."
It seems to have escaped the authors' notice that the most formidable totalitarian movement of the 20th century – communism – was, by its own lights, "progressive." It seems to have escaped their notice that the essence of a totalitarian system is the denial of liberty (often in the name of progress). It seems to have escaped their notice that "progress" is a word that signifies nothing. Exactly what is one progressing to?
It also seems to have escaped their notice that Muslims themselves might aspire to live in conditions of political, economic and social liberty, U.S. "hegemony" notwithstanding. As for defining the current struggle as one for "security," it might be observed that dictatorial regimes often have solid track records as crime fighters: Mussolini crushed the mafia.
The inanity here is so mind-boggling that it seems almost deliberate, and causes one to wonder just which "American Muslim leaders" the U.S. government is consulting. Last October, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff was a guest of honor at a Ramadan event at which, according to one participant, he was publicly thanked by the president of the Islamic Society of North America for "keeping the doors open so we can advise you on how to engage the Muslim world."
For the record, the ISNA was named an unindicted co-conspirator in the case of the Holy Land Foundation, a U.S.-based charity alleged to have had ties with Hamas. Imagine if the Kennedy administration had consulted with the Workers World Party on strategies to contain the Soviet Union, and you get a sense of what Homeland Security is doing today.
No doubt the government really does need better terminology to describe the war we're in, which is against violent Islamic extremists and every regime, warlord, charity, school or imam supporting them. No doubt, too, we need the support of every Muslim we can rally to our side. Those many millions who do not shrink from the word "liberty" might just fit the bill.
Write to bstephens@wsj.com
|
|
| | | 285 | Boldwin
ID: 406201020 Fri, Jul 18, 2008, 22:35
|
Brazil moving to give 5 year prison terms to anyone who preaches homosexuality is a sin.
|
|
| | | 286 | Perm Dude
ID: 22661815 Fri, Jul 18, 2008, 23:01
|
Who is the "CNA" in that article?
No links in it, except to themselves. "Something is rotten in the state of Denmark..."
|
|
| | | 287 | Perm Dude
ID: 22661815 Fri, Jul 18, 2008, 23:01
|
nevermind--"Catholic News Agency"
|
|
| | | 288 | Boldwin
ID: 133532810 Wed, Apr 29, 2009, 11:42
|
Barack Obama's nominee for "regulatory czar", Cass Sunstein, Obama's friend from the University of Chicago Law School and nominee to head the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. If it were up to Obama and Sunstein, everything we read online – right down to our personal e-mail communications – would have to be inspected and approved by the federal government."
'the Internet is anti-democratic'...therefore:
Proposed controls...
1) Federally mandated doubleplus goodspeak 'sidewalks' surround your comments countering everything you say.
2) E-mails containing doubleplus ungood speak prevented from sending for 24 hours.
As if government censorship of the radio was all we had to worry about from Obama.
|
|
| | | 289 | Tree
ID: 41371322 Wed, Apr 29, 2009, 12:44
|
suggested angry e-mails should be prevented from being sent by technology that would require a 24-hour cooling off period.
eh, he's trying to bite of an idea Google has already implemented, called Mail Goggles.
from the GMail Lab: Google strives to make the world's information useful. Mail you send late night on the weekends may be useful but you may regret it the next morning. Solve some simple math problems and you're good to go. Otherwise, get a good night's sleep and try again in the morning. After enabling this feature, you can adjust the schedule in the "General" settings page.
|
|
| | | 290 | Boldwin
ID: 133532810 Wed, Apr 29, 2009, 17:09
|
Considering that Google is actually assisting the Chinese government in censoring it's people, have they made that feature mandatory in China?
We used to say that things start at the coasts and move to the heartland. Now it starts in China.
|
|
| | | 291 | Tree
ID: 41371322 Wed, Apr 29, 2009, 17:17
|
and thank god it starts in china. without it, we wouldn't have delicious baby bok choy for our soups, salads, and sides...
mmmmmmm....leafy greens....
|
|
| | | 292 | Boldwin
ID: 133532810 Wed, Apr 29, 2009, 17:19
|
'This is your brain....
|
|
| | | 293 | Tree
ID: 41371322 Wed, Apr 29, 2009, 18:11
|
...on leafy greens!
try some Baldwin. you might make a whole lot more sense.
|
|
| | | 294 | Boldwin
ID: 133532810 Fri, May 01, 2009, 09:42
|
Good advice for the future...
|
|
| | | 295 | Boldwin
ID: 133532810 Mon, May 04, 2009, 22:19
|
Senate version of H.R. 1913, which was approved in the U.S. House yesterday, moves to the senate.
In 24 hours plus a president's signature, it could be a felony to say anything negative about any of the 547 forms of sexual deviancy or 'paraphilias' listed by the American Psychiatric Association."
I dare you to stop pedophiles from swooping in on your children when it is a felony to say or do anything that gets in the way of their agenda.
This is also operationally going to outlaw religion.
You farmers might also decide how you are going to hide the chickens and sheep. Morticians...etc.
|
|
| | | 296 | Tree
ID: 41371322 Mon, May 04, 2009, 22:39
|
right.
because i am so sure that cops, prosecuting attorneys, judges, , jurors, pastors, rabbis, republican presidential candidates, the dude drinking Bud down at the local watering hole, junior high school students, and every wing nut on a message board are all going to be stuffed and cuffed, tried and fried, because they called someone a fag, said something was gay, or referred to pedos as the lowest form of life on earth.
do you ever allow reality to set in and interrupt your thought process, or do you really enjoy living your life this way?
|
|
| | | 297 | Razor
ID: 583182923 Mon, May 04, 2009, 22:53
|
Baldwin does not appear to interact with normal people on a regular basis, which is why the batshit crazy articles he posts do not seem batshit crazy to him.
|
|
| | | 298 | Perm Dude
ID: 15453417 Mon, May 04, 2009, 23:20
|
Original source. How quaint, eh?
I dislike all hate crimes legislation, because I think it criminalizes thought. But my point of view isn't being helped by keening, Chicken Little conservatives on this particular bill.
|
|
| | | 299 | Boldwin
ID: 133532810 Tue, May 05, 2009, 04:01
|
Once this speech and thot crime legislation is in place it won't even be humanly possible to reverse it, because resistance would involve thot crimes and speech crimes.
I interact with normal people at every door I preach at, tho I don't discuss politics. At all.
Not only is the idea that religion will be outlawed not 'crazy', it's prophesied. And it's been done in numerous and increasing numbers of coutries. Oh, politically sanitized government sponsored shell religions might be allowed to stand like in China, and in the old USSR. But not actual religions with their own beliefs.
|
|
| | | 300 | Pancho Villa
ID: 45426420 Tue, May 05, 2009, 09:07
|
From the link in #295
If a mother hears that their child has been raped and she slaps the assailant with her purse, she is now gone after as a hate criminal because this is a protected class.
Like PD, I also oppose hate crime legislation, but it's hard to support the type of distorted projections as presented by hysterical WND 'reporters.'
I'd really like to see exactly where in this legislation rapists are extended protected class status.
|
|
| | | 301 | Mith
ID: 2894309 Tue, May 05, 2009, 09:20
|
Have at it. But the onus should be on the person raising the issue.
|
|
| | | 302 | Tree
ID: 41371322 Tue, May 05, 2009, 09:32
|
I'd really like to see exactly where in this legislation rapists are extended protected class status.
you need one of these to see that...
|
|
| | | 303 | Mith
ID: 2894309 Tue, May 05, 2009, 09:44
|
You know Tree, you are the Rotoguru yin to Boxman's Rotoguru yang.
|
|
| | | 304 | Tree
ID: 41371322 Tue, May 05, 2009, 10:13
|
i know. the funny thing MITH, is that as i was posting the photo above, i was thinking to myself "this is probably overkill with the tin foil hat photos"...
probably shoulda gone with my gut on it..
:o/
|
|
| | | 305 | bibA Leader
ID: 261028117 Tue, May 05, 2009, 10:44
|
I interact with normal people at every door I preach at
When anyone knocks on my door, interupting whatever I am doing, and proceeds to preach at me, the "interaction" that results is not what I would define as normal. I live in a very conservative area, and am certain that my neighbors do not welcome these visitors with open arms.
I would not be surprised if this definition of interaction might result in somewhat of a negative attitude toward ones fellows.
|
|
| | | 306 | Boldwin
ID: 133532810 Tue, May 05, 2009, 11:30
|
I would not be surprised if this definition of interaction might result in somewhat of a negative attitude toward ones fellows.
Wrong, it heightens the sense of concern and empathy for people, the way they've been spiritually starved, kicked around and confused by satan and his system.
|
|
| | | 307 | biliruben
ID: 461142511 Tue, May 05, 2009, 13:06
|
When living in Brooklyn Heights, one of my favorite sports was to feign interest when Witnesses began the preaching, drawing them in, making them think they might have a chance at yanking me from the tight grip of Satan. Then, depending on how smug they were, I would deflate their bubble in either a big pop, or slow hiss.
These were not "normal" interactions. These were pure comedy. Any "normal" person, as defined by me, would do exactly what I did.
|
|
| | | 308 | Tree
ID: 41371322 Tue, May 05, 2009, 14:35
|
Wrong, it heightens the sense of concern and empathy for people, the way they've been spiritually starved, kicked around and confused by satan and his system.
actually, that's pretty much how i feel about the guy knocking on my door.
i used to love when my dad would engage these guys in conversation. they were usually well out of their league, and again, speaking from the same side of the door as Biba and Bili, these were hardly "normal" interactions, and to think so shows quite a skewed sense of normality.
|
|
| | | 309 | Boxman
ID: 29351011 Tue, May 05, 2009, 15:31
|
i used to love when my dad would engage these guys in conversation. they were usually well out of their league
If you're dad (I'm assuming your biological father.) was able to outwit somebody what in the hell happened to you? You're as dumb as a fvcking box of rocks. Paint chips? Paint thinner? Dropped on your head?
|
|
| | | 310 | Mith Dude
ID: 01629107 Tue, May 05, 2009, 15:39
|
yang
|
|
| | | 311 | Tree
ID: 41371322 Tue, May 05, 2009, 16:21
|
MITH - between post 309 in this thread, and 293 in the Direction of the GOP thread, i'm going to now disagree with your assertion in post 303.
sorry, i can't live up to those "standards" of unsolicited attacks from someone who wasn't even discussed in the posts he referenced.
|
|
| | | 312 | Mith
ID: 2894309 Wed, May 06, 2009, 15:13
|
Regarding opposition to H.R. 1913 or the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention ActLast week, Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) generated intense controversy when she railed against The Matthew Shepard Act by claiming that Shepard’s horrific murder was a “hoax.” “We know that that young man was killed in the commitment of a robbery. It wasn’t because he was gay,” she said. The next day, Foxx’s office released a statement saying that “hoax” was a “poor choice of words” and that she was “especially sorry if his grieving family was offended.” Now, the Winston-Salem Journal reports that Foxx has written a letter of apology to Shepard’s mother, Judy. The Matthew Shepard Foundation confirmed that Judy Shepard received Foxx’s note, but refused to comment further. Click through for links.
|
|
| | | 313 | Tree
ID: 41371322 Wed, May 06, 2009, 17:17
|
good for her for stepping up and realizing her mistake.
|
|
| | | 314 | Boldwin
ID: 133532810 Thu, May 07, 2009, 05:29
|
The death wasn't a hoax, the attachment of his death to hate crime legislation was a hoax.
|
|
| | | 315 | Tree
ID: 41371322 Thu, May 07, 2009, 09:04
|
go on thinking he wasn't victimized and ultimately left to die because of his sexual orientation. fits right in with your M.O.
|
|
| | | 316 | Boxman
ID: 29351011 Thu, May 07, 2009, 09:22
|
Go Treetard! Go Treetard!
Go! Go! Go!
Go Treetard! Go Treetard!
It's your birthday!
Go Treetard!
|
|
| | | 317 | Razor
ID: 371502414 Thu, May 07, 2009, 09:45
|
Boxman, it's time for you to leave.
|
|
| | | 318 | Mith Dude
ID: 01629107 Thu, May 07, 2009, 09:47
|
go on thinking he wasn't victimized and ultimately left to die because of his sexual orientation.
I have no idea how you get that idea. Not that I couldn't believe it's possible but shouldn't B at least suggest such a thing before you assume it?
|
|
| | | 319 | Perm Dude
ID: 21453619 Thu, May 07, 2009, 11:04
|
Actually, I agree with #314. No joke.
In interviews afterwards, it was clear the two guys were strung out on meth and were looking to rob someone for money to buy more meth. As far as I can tell, neither one even know the guy was gay.
Horrible crime. But it was a horrible robbery, not a hate crime.
Rep Foxx was stupidly insensitive in her remarks, however.
|
|
| | | 320 | Tree
ID: 41371322 Thu, May 07, 2009, 11:53
|
I have no idea how you get that idea. Not that I couldn't believe it's possible but shouldn't B at least suggest such a thing before you assume it?
fair enough. i was projecting based on various other things Baldwin has said.
comments retracted.
|
|
| | | 321 | Boldwin
ID: 26451820 Mon, May 18, 2009, 02:49
|
Killer chips
|
|
| | | 322 | Boldwin
ID: 26451820 Tue, May 19, 2009, 01:33
|
Because it worked so well in East Germany. The era of globalisation means that these trial balloons can metastasize anywhere. Sounds like exactly the sort of thing that would excite Obama.
|
|
| | | 323 | Tree
ID: 41371322 Tue, May 19, 2009, 06:21
|
says the guy who probably knows the least about anyone who posts on this board. and by this board, i'm talking about all of rotoguru, including the spambots that occasionally make a post.
|
|
| | | 324 | Boldwin
ID: 133532810 Sat, May 23, 2009, 14:22
|
Making home bible study impossible...She says she was then told, however, that she must stop holding "religious assemblies" until she and her husband obtain a Major Use Permit from the county, a permit that often involves traffic and environmental studies, compliance with parking and sidewalk regulations and costs that top tens of thousands of dollars.
And if they fail to pay for the MUP, the county official reportedly warned, the couple will be charged escalating fines beginning at $100, then $200, $500, $1000, "and then it will get ugly."
|
|
| | | 325 | Tree
ID: 51457238 Sat, May 23, 2009, 14:39
|
interesting that the couple remains unnamed, and per the article, "a spokeswoman for San Diego County" could not locate any details of the situation.
i've got little doubt it's a publicity ploy from the the WCLP.
after all, it's an organization that claims to be a legal defense organization dedicated to the protection and promotion of religious freedom, parental rights, and other civil liberties, yet who's founder writes that gay rights are a violation of the first amendment...
so much for civil liberties from this farce of an organization.
either you fight for civil liberities, or you don't - do you think the ACLU was thrilled with defending the rights of Nazis to march in Skokie?
|
|
| | | 326 | Boldwin
ID: 133532810 Sat, May 23, 2009, 14:50
|
I suppose you also feel that the PC kangaroo courts which drove Mark Steyn south of the border were just a Mark Steyn publicity stunt. So no point taking it seriously.
|
|
| | | 327 | Tree
ID: 51457238 Sat, May 23, 2009, 14:57
|
when you feel like bringing up a relevant point, let the rest of us know.
or, as an alternative, if you want to let us know what a canadian who had some borderline hate-filled to say, has anything to with a Civil Liberties organization being against gay rights, we're listening.
now your chance to explain the relation, and please, spare us the "if you can't see it, you're blind" hysteronics...
|
|
| | | 328 | Tree
ID: 41371322 Tue, May 26, 2009, 10:24
|
still waiting...
|
|
| | | 329 | Boldwin
ID: 133532810 Tue, May 26, 2009, 15:35
|
If you think that they made up the accusation that they are being threatened over holding Bible studies in their home, then you probably think Mark Steyn 'just made it up' about having been sued over free speech issues.
What kind of an internet site accepts 'they're probably making it up' as a serious post.
|
|
| | | 330 | Tree
ID: 41371322 Tue, May 26, 2009, 15:59
|
like i said, spare us the the "if you can't see it, you're blind" hysteronics.
but, by all means, support a farce of a group who's ideas of civil liberties is exclusive, not inclusive, while you criticize the ACLU.
shows just where your head and heart are.
|
|
| | | 331 | Mith
ID: 2894309 Tue, May 26, 2009, 16:00
|
support a farce of a group who's ideas of civil liberties is exclusive, not inclusive, while you criticize the ACLU.
This is your articulation of your Israel position, yes?
|
|
| | | 332 | Tree
ID: 41371322 Tue, May 26, 2009, 16:50
|
not at all MITH.
last time i checked, homosexuals weren't barging into crowded churches, strapped with bombs.
however, some palestinians are doing that, encouraged to do so by their leaders, and then their families get paid by Iran.
but, i'm sure the gay community loves your comparison of them to bomb wielding mass murderers.
|
|
| | | 333 | Boldwin
ID: 133532810 Fri, Jun 05, 2009, 18:58
|
Winston Churchill -"No socialist government conducting the entire life and industry of the country could afford to allow free, sharp, or violently worded expressions of public discontent. They would have to fall back on some form of Gestapo, no doubt very humanely directed in the first instance.
"And this would nip opinion in the bud; it would stop criticism as it reared its head, and it would gather all the power to the supreme party and the party leaders, rising like stately pinnacles above their vast bureaucracies of civil servants, no longer servants and no longer civil.
"And where would the ordinary simple folk – the common people, as they like to call them in America – where would they be, once this mighty organism had got them in its grip?" The banks are cowering, the glittering jewels of capitalism are being gutted, the assault on free speech is gearing up in the form of outlawed speech and the creation of control boards for broadcasters, seeded with radicals, is next.
After that the accumulation of unrestrained power.
|
|
| | | 334 | Boldwin
ID: 376192015 Sun, Jul 26, 2009, 16:55
|
Plan to censor the internet by making most of it pay-to-view [and sure to wither and die] revealed and confirmed..
|
|
| | | 335 | Tree
ID: 41371322 Sun, Jul 26, 2009, 18:44
|
nothing screams "by god, this MUST" be real than a girl with gigantic tits and impressive cleavage.
well, i mean, aside from the imbedded "OMG CLICK to see how to get HOT GIRLS!?" link that is within the video.
that was good stuff. I'd think it funny if you weren't serious. instead, it's just sad and desperate.
no doubt, you've checked out some of the other videos from your source, like this one, where you can click to see nude photos of your girl:
or this one, advertising more sex in GTA4:
wow. you are getting lazier and lazier. I mean, are the people you linked to any more reliable than these guys:
|
|
| | | 336 | Boldwin
ID: 376192015 Mon, Jul 27, 2009, 19:24
|
You are such a tasteless creep, Tree.
|
|
| | | 337 | Perm Dude
ID: 154552311 Mon, Jul 27, 2009, 20:52
|
I dunno. The first one was from the site you linked to, Boldwin. You call tree a "tasteless creep" while presumably trying to overlook the fact that your linked site is apparently run by a tasteless creep.
|
|
| | | 338 | tree, in BC
ID: 515451613 Mon, Jul 27, 2009, 21:37
|
baldwin - those are the people YOU linked to.
don't even pass this one off on me, you dirty old man.
you posted those folks, you should own up to it.
|
|
| | | 339 | Boldwin
ID: 376192015 Wed, Jul 29, 2009, 08:11
|
Just because you couldn't get your eyes off her cleavage...or resist one more chance to lower this forum's standards.
|
|
| | | 340 | Boldwin
ID: 376192015 Wed, Jul 29, 2009, 08:22
|
House of Representatives outrageously destroys franking privileges.
Republican congressmen can no longer speak to their constituents without sticking word for word to Democratic campaign rheteric.“The Franking Commission came back and told me I could not say ‘government run healthcare’ and I could not say the ‘Democratic Party.’ I had to say ‘the majority party is submitting its public option healthcare program.’ In other words what they’re telling me is that I have to use the same language that the President of the United States uses in his speech or that [House Speaker] Nancy Pelosi uses when she talks about this. ‘Public option.’”
“They have never before in the history of the Republic taken the position that you do not have the right to express your opinion on the policies that are being proposed, or that you must reword the language to suit the policies of someone else,” Carter said. In other news they've started cutting off special orders speeches in the house to censor republicans from reaching their constituents in another way.
|
|
| | | 341 | bibA
ID: 18623297 Wed, Jul 29, 2009, 08:23
|
Cleavage or not, one should be able to admit that these are sources used as evidence supporting the opinion expressed in post 334.
"watch the clip", "revealed and confirmed".
|
|
| | | 342 | Boldwin
ID: 376192015 Wed, Jul 29, 2009, 08:42
|
Yeah, and if I post something from Fark I am obligated to post pictures...tactics on this forum just get crazier and crazier.
|
|
| | | 343 | Mith
ID: 2894309 Wed, Jul 29, 2009, 09:01
|
I agree tree's out of line with his combative and typical tendency to reject a post based solely on the source of the info.
But what I don't understand is your declaration that this report is any kind of confirmation of what it claims. Like you, I'm sure, I'm familiar enough with Alex Jones and Prison Planet and Infowars to know that they occasionally stumble onto something worthwhile but that they're mostly crackpots. And employing that particular video as a suppliment to this report does nothing to lift that perception.
I have to imagine that if you knew that the woman appearing in those videos is probably best known for offering sex to "every virgin who supports net neutrality", that you might have looked for a better way to present the issue.
But anyway, why is that report, from over a year ago, any more valid or factual than, say, this one from the following day?The article claims that someone named Dylan Pattyn was working on fleshing out this story for Time. I tracked down and called the 26-year-old Pattyn, who says he is submitting an amateur piece to Time based on claims he's received from employees within Telus, who insist the company is exploring per-website fees. However, no employee has gone on the record, and he wasn't able to provide me documentation. Not exactly substantive. Do you really not see any difference between what you presented and actual journalism with sourced information cited from people who are what the claim?
Anyway, my understanding is that telecoms have been pitching and toying with various internet subscription models since the beginning of this decade. Surely in just about every company there are executives on the pro and con sides of the issue. I don't think it's any big secret conspiracy, as I'm certain I've seen both sides represented on TV interviews.
|
|
| | | 344 | Boldwin
ID: 376192015 Wed, Jul 29, 2009, 09:23
|
James Madison writing to Thomas Jefferson: We have "extinguished forever the ambitious hope of making laws for the human mind." Well not quite.Very late into the night on July 12, Democratic Senate leader Harry Reid slipped the Leahy "hate crimes" bill, as an amendment, into the $680 billion Defense Authorization Act. Leahy agreed with this avoidance of a full-scale floor debate. The amendment was approved by voice vote...
There were minor differences between the Senate and House "hate-crimes bills," requiring a Senate-House conference to resolve them. One more step in the destruction of America.
|
|
| | | 345 | Boldwin
ID: 376192015 Wed, Jul 29, 2009, 09:28
|
Mith
The glorious freedom of free exchange of information on the internet [that has enabled the best moments in this forum's heyday and each of our own best education] is confirmed to be on the chopping block and all you can think of is petty irrelevant quibbles.
|
|
| | | 346 | Mith
ID: 2894309 Wed, Jul 29, 2009, 09:49
|
Frankly this is more a function of capitalist enterprise than it is big brother.
As it is news organizations large and small (you know, private businesses) are finding it increasingly difficult to stay afloat because of all the free content available on the web.
The inconvenient truth of the matter is that the usefullness of internet as a source for news and current events information will dwindle to a fraction of it's current value if we lose the depth, resources and reach of professional journalism. The current way just isn't sustainable in the long term. I know it would make your day for the NYT to go out of business but we're already seeing papers like The Seattle PI and the Christian Science Monitor on the brink.
You can close up, sing lalalala and deny the trend all you want but it's a legitimate free enterprise problem that requires a legitimate free enterprise solution that in the end isn't likely to be solved in a way that allows consumers to continue to count on free service forever.
Sorry if that doesn't satisfy your need for a reason to blame everything on liberals.
|
|
| | | 347 | Perm Dude
ID: 154552311 Wed, Jul 29, 2009, 11:08
|
I find it almost funny that Baldwin wants his internet to spring from a socialist philosophy, while health care must be entirely free market driven.
In related Big Brother news, the TSA continues to walk around with big britches.
Another Bush leftover. Inject steroids into our law enforcement in search of "safety," then watch as rights get trampled.
|
|
| | | 348 | Boldwin
ID: 376192015 Wed, Jul 29, 2009, 15:35
|
Mith
The MSM squandered their credibility getting Obama elected and eliminating the competition is their only chance of survival.
|
|
| | | 349 | Mith Dude
ID: 01629107 Wed, Jul 29, 2009, 16:52
|
The MSM squandered their credibility getting Obama elected and blahblahblahblah oh just shut up. As if you believed teh MSM has had any "credibility" since the 1970s.
You don't even use the term MSM correctly and I'm tired of appeasing you by dumbing down discussions into your immature terms.
And for the record you dolt I explicitly referred to MSM's reach, resources and depth being necessary for a healthy blogosphere, and nothing about credibility. So your distorted and ridiculous point is moot and not worth the trouble I've already invested in showing how foolish you are.
|
|
| | | 350 | Boldwin
ID: 376192015 Wed, Jul 29, 2009, 17:43
|
I refuse to believe that Pravda is necessary in any sense.
|
|
| | | 351 | Pancho Villa
ID: 336162918 Wed, Jul 29, 2009, 19:16
|
I refuse to believe that Pravda is necessary in any sense.
Somebody in the MSM called the President a racist yesterday. Your Pravda reference is embarrassing in its ignorance.
|
|
| | |
| | | 353 | Razor
ID: 0745321 Mon, Aug 03, 2009, 22:45
|
Wait, did you watch the whole thing and hear that woman explain about how the government can hack into your computer forever? Rich.
Where were you during the Bush years when our civil liberties were getting peeled away like a banana?
|
|
| | | 354 | Perm Dude
ID: 154552311 Mon, Aug 03, 2009, 22:57
|
Didn't catch that. I'm going to have to start calling the MSM the Microsoft Media.
During the Bush years Baldwin was cheering the fact that the patriotic side won. Plus, becoming a junior brownshirt for the Swiftboat Veterans for "Truth."
|
|
| | | 355 | Boldwin
ID: 376192015 Mon, Aug 03, 2009, 23:01
|
Where were you during the Bush years when our civil liberties were getting peeled away like a banana? - Razor
Here in this thread between #69 and #79 among others, bemoaning them louder than anyone else.
It is a sad sad thing that people cannot keep track of each other's positions and must rely on cliched assumptions. We all fall into that trap.
|
|
| | | 356 | Boldwin
ID: 376192015 Mon, Aug 03, 2009, 23:09
|
Ya'know you lazy minded people haven't caught on. This information over-reach is rampant in Obama's agenda.
Read what access to your information all government receives in the 'healthcare bill'.
Read the list of questions on the census you'll get any time now. A total proctology exam. Amazingly the Acorn [ex?]felon who grills you gets to ask you when you leave your home and when you return from work! And failure to answer will result in a fine!
This isn't a left/right thing. It is a 'globalist-reaching-for-total-control-of-the-individual' thing.
|
|
| | | 357 | Boldwin
ID: 557171216 Wed, Aug 12, 2009, 17:18
|
Because big brother needs...
|
|
| | | 358 | Perm Dude
ID: 154552311 Wed, Aug 12, 2009, 17:47
|
He's got that "You look like you would like to have your holy book smeared in feces" look.
|
|
| | | 359 | Tree
ID: 41371322 Wed, Aug 12, 2009, 20:09
|
He's got that "hey, this was more fun under the Republicans, because then we could torture people. I miss the Conservatives" look...
what's your point Baldwin? That prior to Obama, the USA didn't imprison people of other nations, holding them indefinitely without charging them?
|
|
| | | 360 | Boldwin
ID: 6052820 Thu, Jan 28, 2010, 21:05
|
Here is something you can do to kick big brother in the eye.
|
|
| | |
| | | 362 | boikin
ID: 532592112 Fri, Feb 19, 2010, 11:31
|
I think that belongs in the WTF thread.
|
|
| | |
| | | 364 | Seattle Zen Leader
ID: 055343019 Sun, Feb 21, 2010, 20:21
|
Dave Chapelle discovers an amazingly persistant agenda.
Very interesting...
|
|
| | | 365 | Boldwin
ID: 2155174 Sun, Feb 21, 2010, 20:26
|
Look at the other stereotypes they are pushing on black people.
I think they are being set up for a reversal in public opinion.
The pirates keep on sailing, tacking back and forth.
|
|
| | |
| | | 367 | Boldwin
ID: 634489 Sat, Apr 10, 2010, 12:33
|
The desperation to control the internet.For the past several years, the Left has breathlessly claimed that without the imposition of government oversight and control, the Internet as we know it will cease to exist.
Just try and follow the Left’s logic for a moment. The Internet – whose ingenious development and explosive growth has occurred almost entirely free from the heavy hand of the government – will cease to exist as we know it without the heavy hand of government?
This week’s ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit clearly states that the FCC does not have the authority to impose network neutrality rules on Internet service providers. Indeed, the FCC “failed to tie its assertion” that any law gives the Commission regulatory authority to oversee Internet providers’ network management practices.
That’s right: no law exists that gives the FCC the authority to regulate Internet service providers. It’s not that the FCC just misinterpreted their authority – they unilaterally asserted authority where none existed.
So, what’s this Obama FCC likely to do now? Well, forge ahead anyway, of course! Not content to accept the courts ruling on this, not waiting until they can pack the court later on, they have already signaled they will proceed on course anyway.
And yes [anticipating Sarge] , somewhere the power elite would have found a republican to do this if they couldn't get it done any other way.
|
|
| | | 368 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313 Sat, Apr 10, 2010, 12:57
|
Funny just 5 months ago in another thread you exactly the opposite position on net neutrality.
|
|
| | | 369 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313 Sat, Apr 10, 2010, 12:59
|
Here's what you wrote in the "end of the free internet" thread on 11/1/09:
Pay-to-view is just one more way to kill the internet's freedom obviously. Of course I don't support it no matter who is for it.
Who cares about integrity where there are liberals to demonize?
|
|
| | |
| | | 371 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313 Sat, Apr 10, 2010, 13:13
|
Net Neutrality discussion starts on post 54 of the above linked thread.
|
|
| | | 372 | DWetzel
ID: 33337117 Sat, Apr 10, 2010, 14:21
|
Zing! That one's going on someone's permanent record for the next time he says he's not in full foaming at the mouth attack mode and damn the facts.
|
|
| | | 373 | Boldwin
ID: 634489 Sat, Apr 10, 2010, 14:38
|
I'll give you a big gotcha on that one.
The problem is that there are threats from both sides. If the ISP's condition us to paying for internet, the government can more easily get us to swallow taxes on the internet or the ISP's can censor the internet by overcharging. Conversely if the FCC can control content they can tax it and censor it.
If the government gets the power to order the ISP's around how do we know they won't do the same thing I was afraid the ISP's were planning?
So I just want the internet to stay free and uncensored as I would expect everyone would.
How do we make sure it does? I dunno. You tell me. Constitutional amendment referendum making free access a God given right...heh.
|
|
| | | 374 | DWetzel
ID: 33337117 Sat, Apr 10, 2010, 14:55
|
Boldwin, I mean this sincerely, that's the best post you've made in a couple of weeks. I don't even disagree with anything you said there.
|
|
| | | 375 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313 Sat, Apr 10, 2010, 15:07
|
Boldwin Perhaps the frankness of my opinion crosses the civility threshold (my apologies to Guru and the forum if that's the case) but the problem as I see it, is that you appear far more interested in demonizing liberals at every last opportunity than you seem in your position on net neutrality.
That would certainly explain why post 367 was entered into this thread as an attack on the ethics and motives of political left, despite your previously stated position against the opponents of net neutrality in the "End of the Free Internet" thread.
|
|
| | | 376 | Boldwin
ID: 634489 Sat, Apr 10, 2010, 18:33
|
Relax. I believe the Bush's would bring in a world dictatorship and censor the internet as surely as Obama. Hillary was an outspoken advocate of cencoring the internet and Obama's advisors have lobbied for it and have a plan in place. That makes them the immediate threat.
|
|
| | | 377 | Boldwin
ID: 634489 Sat, Apr 10, 2010, 18:34
|
And also relax about civility. As long as you don't bore me, you can trash talk as much as you like. I would be loathe to run crying to mommy.
|
|
| | | 378 | Pancho Villa
ID: 29118157 Sat, Apr 10, 2010, 19:19
|
Obama's advisors have lobbied for it and have a plan in place.
You forgot to qualify that statement with,
"I'm wildly guessing."
|
|
| | | 379 | Boldwin
ID: 634489 Sat, Apr 10, 2010, 20:48
|
Well why would conservatives be worried?
The Speaker of the House Pelosi has come out publicly in favor of reinstating the Fairness Doctrine.
The Majority Whip of the Senate, Dick Durbin has come out publicly in favor of reinstating the Fairness Doctrine.
Bill Clinton is going around the country campaigning in favor of reinstating the Fairness Doctrine.
Obama's appointee to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Cass Sunstein wrote a book suggesting ways to control the internet and force opposing views onto your computer screen.
Yeah, why don't I take Obama at his word that he isn't gonna? One thing I am sure of is that he will find some other way to do it if he can't reimpose the FD.
|
|
| | | 380 | Tree
ID: 248472317 Sat, Apr 10, 2010, 21:11
|
I would be loathe to run crying to mommy.
WHAT?!?!! half the "future of this forum" thread is you whining about your perceived persecution/messiah complex.
As long as you don't bore me
god complex too. lol. outstanding.
|
|
| | | 381 | Pancho Villa
ID: 29118157 Sat, Apr 10, 2010, 21:34
|
Yeah, why don't I take Obama at his word that he isn't gonna?
Of course, that has nothing to do with the claim you made:
Obama's advisors have lobbied for it and have a plan in place.
|
|
| | | 382 | Boldwin
ID: 634489 Sat, Apr 10, 2010, 22:39
|
The fall back position is a congress ready and eager to reimpose the FD. The preference is to sneak it in the back door or rename it.
|
|
| | | 383 | Boldwin
ID: 42651210 Fri, Jul 02, 2010, 11:58
|
Remember that internet enabled revolution in Iran? How'd that work out?
It turns out that, quite counter-intuitively, Big Brother has most of the advantages in the area of cyber-revolution when he really puts his mind to it.But that isn’t what happened in Belarus. After the first flash mob, the authorities began monitoring By_mob, the LiveJournal community where the activities were announced. The police started to show up at the events, often before the flashmobbers did. Not only did they detain participants, but they too took photos. These—along with the protesters’ own online images—were used to identify troublemakers, many of whom were then interrogated by the KGB, threatened with suspension from university, or worse. This intimidation didn’t go unnoticed. Soon, only hardcore activists would show up. Social media created a digital panopticon that thwarted the revolution: its networks, transmitting public fear, were infiltrated and hopelessly outgunned by the power of the state.
The Belarusian government shows no sign of being embarrassed by the fact it arrested people for eating ice-cream. Despite what digital enthusiasts tell you, the emergence of new digital spaces for dissent also lead to new ways of tracking it. Analogue activism was pretty safe: if one node in a protest network got busted, the rest of the group was probably OK. But getting access to an activist’s inbox puts all their interlocutors in the frame, too. The result is a cat-and-mouse game in which protesters try to hide from the authorities by carving out unconventional niches. In Iran, dissidents used to be active on Goodreads, an international social networking website for book-lovers. Here they quietly engaged in conversations about politics and culture, unseen by the censors—that is, until the Los Angeles Times helpfully published an article about what was going on, tipping the authorities off.
Social networking, then, has inadvertently made it easier to gather intelligence about activist networks. Even a tiny security flaw in the settings of one Facebook profile can compromise the security of many others. A study by two MIT students, reported in September, showed it is possible to predict a person’s sexual orientation by analysing their Facebook friends; bad news for those in regions where homosexuality carries the threat of beatings and prison. And many authoritarian regimes are turning to data-mining companies to help them identify troublemakers. TRS Technologies in China is one such company. It boasts that “thanks to our technology, the work of ten internet cops can now be done by just one.” The immediate future looks bright for internet goons. Not so good for independent thinkers.
|
|
| | | 384 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Fri, Jul 02, 2010, 12:46
|
Remember that internet enabled revolution in Iran? How'd that work out?
Who, exactly, are you talking to?
|
|
| | | 385 | Boldwin
ID: 42651210 Fri, Jul 02, 2010, 13:47
|
I was highlighting the disconnect between common perception and reality as I usually do. It was a rhetorical question to everyone. Not snark directed at any one person.
|
|
| | | 386 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Fri, Jul 02, 2010, 13:49
|
fair enough.
|
|
| | | 387 | Building 7 Leader
ID: 171572711 Tue, Jul 06, 2010, 23:47
|
Police State Canada from bill johnson on Vimeo.
One billion dollars was spent on security for the G20 meeting in Toronto. Unbelievable. Maybe next time they can use NetMeeting.
|
|
| | |
| | | 389 | Boldwin
ID: 1183027 Thu, Sep 02, 2010, 13:48
|
Tased three times in his own home 'for his own good'.
|
|
| | | 390 | Boldwin
ID: 1184818 Wed, Sep 08, 2010, 19:04
|
Chris Dodd to ram thru UN Agenda 21 controls on your life as his last act in the Senate.
How many Americans today, forced to sell their house, have $35,000 handy to meet UN inspired guidlines before they are allowed to sell?
|
|
| | | 391 | Boldwin
ID: 35816155 Wed, Sep 15, 2010, 06:23
|
I went into a very very high profile legal website and commented that the Righthaven/Stephens media lawsuits [which were being discussed from a lawyerly POV] were not about money but rather about the Clinton's Daddy Warbucks, the Stephens family, and Michele Obama's former law co-worker conspiring to freeze the right wing blogs long enuff to retain control of congress in November.
Woke up the next day and my computer is a brick unable to even reach restore points.
Something for coincidence theorists to chew on.
|
|
| | | 392 | Tree
ID: 248472317 Wed, Sep 15, 2010, 09:44
|
Woke up the next day and my computer is a brick unable to even reach restore points.
Something for coincidence theorists to chew on.
it is no coincidence that some of the right wing blogs you visit might put trojans and such into your computer...
|
|
| | | 393 | Boldwin
ID: 57852158 Wed, Sep 15, 2010, 09:59
|
Lol
|
|
| | | 394 | Mith
ID: 28646259 Wed, Sep 15, 2010, 10:25
|
I would suggest your search for gay bath houses is the more likely culprit. But sure, maybe the Secret Service is working under the direction of Arianna Huffington.
|
|
| | | 395 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313 Sat, Sep 25, 2010, 14:39
|
Huffington Post:Obama Invokes 'State Secrets' Claim To Dismiss Lawsuit Against Targeting Of U.S. Citizen
The Obama administration on Saturday invoked the state secrets privilege which would kill a lawsuit on behalf of U.S.-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, an alleged terrorist said to be targeted for death or capture under a U.S. government program.
|
|
| | | 396 | Boldwin
ID: 571051214 Sun, Nov 14, 2010, 03:42
|
Yes, today U Penn's GRASP Lab posted the aptly titled "Aggressive Quadrotor Part II," showing off all of their drone's freaky new feats. It can buzz around in menacing circles, calculate an optimal path through several rings, and even squeeze through an opening that's on the move itself. That means it could fly through your window and kill you in your sleep if you were sleeping in a train's sleeper car. Nowhere is safe!
Thankfully, we know that Daniel Mellinger and Vijay Kumar, the U Penn researchers behind the project, will only use their talented little bot for good. Like flying through supervillains' windows and killing them in their sleep. - Gizmodo
|
|
| | | 397 | Boldwin
ID: 211053178 Wed, Nov 17, 2010, 17:54
|
Never forget to drop a chilling effect on the media.
Governing would be so much easier with a censored media.
|
|
| | | 398 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Thu, Nov 18, 2010, 11:41
|
Or, as in the Bush Administration, one which defers to the Administration so much that one major newspaper still won't use the word "torture" except when it is done by another country.
Trust me: The next Republican that is elected will have a self-censoring conservative media covering their back like a badger, self-censoring all the way.
|
|
| | | 399 | Boldwin
ID: 411155813 Wed, Dec 08, 2010, 19:27
|
How you know it's a real problem...
They won't let you air the TV show episode dealing with it.
Not every Jesse Ventura show hits a nerve but you know this issue is for real.
|
|
| | | 400 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916 Wed, Dec 08, 2010, 20:47
|
Good catch, B.
|
|
| | | 401 | Boldwin
ID: 35355159 Fri, Apr 15, 2011, 23:37
|
Canada very very close to making conservative blogging in Canada impossible.Today I was sued by Richard Warman, Canada’s most prolific – and profitable – user of section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. As readers of this site know, Warman isn’t just a happy customer of section 13 and its 100% conviction rate, he’s a former CHRC employee, an investigator of section 13 thought crimes himself. In fact, he was often both a customer and an investigator at the same time. ------ Warman doesn’t just “use” section 13. As I’ve documented here before, he actively interferes with other CHRC investigators working on his complaints. For example, he called up Hannya Rizk, a fellow investigator he trained, and told her to improperly withhold information from the person Warman had complained about; he told Rizk to slow down her work to fit his other plans; he tried to get Rizk to improperly disclose confidential information about cases to third parties.
And then there’s Warman’s direct interference in the investigation of his own complaints – wandering right into the CHRC offices, hopping right on investigator’s computers, using their passwords, and just having a ball – violating not only privacy and confidentiality, but the integrity of the CHRC’s evidence – not that such sloppiness has detracted from their 100% conviction rate.
Warman isn’t solely responsible for the corruption of the CHRC, of course – he couldn’t get away with his antics without the cooperation and even encouragement of the rest of the CHRC staff, which happens to include some decidedly ethically challenged people. But Warman is the central figure in its abuse. That is a source of great pride for Warman, who professes a philosophy he calls “maximum disruption”. ------- Warman’s not just suing me. He’s suing some of the biggest names in the Canadian blogosphere – from Kate McMillan of Small Dead Animals to Kathy Shaidle of Five Feet of Fury (or, Five Feet of Furry, as the lawsuit says on page 2), to Free Dominion, the largest conservative chat site in Canada. Warman’s goal is breathtaking in its chutzpah: he wants to muzzle the Canadian conservative Internet. It’s not just his goal – it’s the goal of the CHRC itself, and its friends at the Canadian Jewish Congress, who have stated their goal is to “tame” the Internet – or at least those voices they disagree with. It wouldn’t surprise me one bit if the CJC was bankrolling Warman’s lawsuit – they’ve done joint legal work together before, and Warman’s number one defender is on the CJC’s legal committee. The CJC hates conservatives, and this would be a way for them to do damage to the conservative blogosphere without taking the political flak for it.
Take a look at the language Warman’s lawsuit uses to smear Free Dominion. At paragraph 17, Warman calls them an “extreme right-wing discussion forum”. Look at that language – hardly distinguishable from the CHRC’s and CJC’s boilerplate insults reserved for neo-Nazis. That’s what this lawsuit is about: an attempt by the CHRC’s biggest star to try to marginalize Canadian conservatism. And why not? The CHRC has moved from targeting white supremacists to targeting mainstream conservatives like Mark Steyn; the Alberta HRC has already gagged Christian pastors and taken a run at Calgary’s bishop, and two years ago they charged me with publishing the Danish cartoons of Mohammed. Surely attempting to criminalize conservatism is just the next, natural step for these congenital censors. Pay close attention because Cass Sunstein is writing about and planning the same thing here.
|
|
| | | 402 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Sat, Apr 16, 2011, 02:11
|
I don't suppose you have an update on that 3-year-old column?
|
|
| | | 403 | Tree
ID: 16329157 Sat, Apr 16, 2011, 09:56
|
I don't suppose you have an update on that 3-year-old column?
or an accurate, honest, and unbiased account?
the lawsuit was a libel case, and again, it's easy research Baldwin doesn't like to do.
In April 2008, Warman launched a libel suit against the National Post Company, National Post columnist Jonathan Kay, and Canadian bloggers - Ezra Levant, Kate McMillan and her blog Small Dead Animals, Kathy Shaidle and her blog Five Feet of Fury, Mark Fournier and Constance Wilkins-Fournier and their blog Free Dominion.The reason for the suit was that the newspaper, quoting an expert hired by Mark Lemire as part of his lawsuit with Warman, said that Warman was the author of a 2003 internet post regarding Canadian Senator Anne Cools that used racist and sexist epithets. Warman denied that he was the author of the post and sued for libel damages from those who posted the information.
The National Post and Kay apologized and retracted its statement and settled out of court with Warman. The remaining litigants are pursuing the case.
|
|
| | | 404 | Boldwin
ID: 53371610 Sat, Apr 16, 2011, 11:11
|
I however don't retract a word of her perfectly worded accurate and honest post because the PC Torquemada hasn't extorted a lie out of me. Tho you and Cass are working on it.
|
|
| | | 405 | Boldwin
ID: 53371610 Sat, Apr 16, 2011, 11:30
|
Let me add, her abundantly documented factual charges against the Canadian Kangaroo Court and it's head kangaroo.
Mark Steyn and the rest of Canada's conservative commentariat have started to move to the USA in order to carry out their work uncensored. For as long as there is free speech here, that is.
|
|
| | | 406 | Tree
ID: 16329157 Sat, Apr 16, 2011, 12:20
|
never let facts stand in the way of your trying to make an (invalid) point.
|
|
| | | 407 | DWetzel
ID: 31111810 Sat, Apr 16, 2011, 13:55
|
Why would anyone want to attempt to extort a lie from someone who offers them so freely?
|
|
| | | 408 | Boldwin
ID: 53371610 Sat, Apr 16, 2011, 14:23
|
Virtually every legal settlement ever made forces one or both parties to agree to a statement they do not believe to be true in order to avoid a greater financial burden.
Dealing with a kangaroo court which rules against conservatives 100% of the time provides quite an incentive to shut up and stop telling the truth.
I'm curious how the Jewish group that appears to be financing this jihad against free speech in Canada compares to Tree [and DWetz?] religion which dares not speak it's name.
|
|
| | | 409 | bibA
ID: 48627713 Sat, Apr 16, 2011, 14:35
|
405 refers to Mark Steyn. Guys like he and Limbaugh seem to be very desirous of vigorous prosecution and heavy sentences for any and all possible criminals.....unless they or their friends are involved.
Always cracked me up that when one of Steyn's cronies was being prosecuted for fraud, cheating others out of millions of dollars, he commented that the procedural advantages the prosecution enjoys — the inducements it's able to dangle in order to turn witnesses that, if offered by the defence, would be regarded as the suborning of perjury; or the confiscation of assets intended to prevent an accused person from being able to mount a defence; or the piling on of multiple charges which virtually guarantees that a jury will seek to demonstrate its balanced judgment by convicting on something.
|
|
| | | 410 | Tree
ID: 533371613 Sat, Apr 16, 2011, 14:38
|
I'm curious how the Jewish group that appears to be financing this jihad against free speech in Canada compares to Tree [and DWetz?] religion which dares not speak it's name.
my religion has been discussed often on this board, including by me.
what is YOUR problem with my religion? got some anti-Semitism to go along with that anti-Muslim sentiment? (not accusing, just asking, as you seem to have a pre-occupation with me and my religion...maybe it's my lack of foreskin that has you curious?)
also, nice attempt to change the discussion, which, of course, is something you need to do because once again your argument has been discredited.
this case was about libel. you want to make into something else.
|
|
| | | 411 | DWetzel
ID: 31111810 Sat, Apr 16, 2011, 14:45
|
I'd take Tree's religion over the one that defends pedophiles any day of the week. You know, as long as you're bringing up the subject of other people's religions without context for the purpose of insulting them, Boldwin.
I'll wait for your apology.
|
|
| | | 412 | Boldwin
ID: 53371610 Sat, Apr 16, 2011, 21:38
|
So I'm curious. Why do so many Jewish people support the anti-semetic/anti-Israeli democrats and spurn their reliable allies?
|
|
| | | 413 | sarge33rd
ID: 372291615 Sun, Apr 17, 2011, 02:11
|
Now you blanket label Dems as anti-semetic?
|
|
| | | 414 | Boldwin
ID: 31332179 Sun, Apr 17, 2011, 10:38
|
Sarge
Ask me again after Isreal is entirely surrounded by Islamist countries, revolutions all cheered on by Dems.
In the words of the Isrealis, "Experiment with countries closer to your own."
But when the revolution is against administrations inimical to our own such as Iran, a big yawn from the left goes up. Didn't hear Obama worrying about stopping the administration there from killing their own people. Where was the 'Responsibility to Protect' then?
For all the bogus charges that the right is fascist/anti-semitic, why is it always a liberal cheering on the Hamas Islamists against Isreal?
|
|
| | | 415 | DWetzel
ID: 31111810 Sun, Apr 17, 2011, 11:04
|
I know you're just trolling and don't mean it, but to clarify:
Unlike you and much of the far right, who would happily cheer on as many Muslims and Jews murdering each other as possible, there are very very few liberals, Christians, or anybody else cheering on anyone killing each other, whether it be Palestinians killing Israelis or whether it be Israelis killing Palestinians.
|
|
| | | 418 | Tree
ID: 16329157 Sun, Apr 17, 2011, 16:48
|
Why do so many Jewish people support the anti-semetic/anti-Israeli democrats and spurn their reliable allies?
they don't. just because they don't support anti-African American, anti-Muslim, anti-Latino Conservatives like you do, doesn't mean they support people you disagree with.
most Jews are Dems because the Dems have always been the party of yes, and the party with the bigger tent of accepting all. Many Conservatives have repeatedly come out with hate toward minorities, and as a Jew, I have little doubt some of them will start to attack my people, much like you have.
|
|
| | | 419 | Boldwin
ID: 31332179 Sun, Apr 17, 2011, 16:59
|
Ridiculous. Just keep telling every infitada backing, clenched fist, keffiyeh wearin', Rachel Corrie mournin' liberal how glad you are they are on your side.
|
|
| | | 420 | DWetzel
ID: 31111810 Sun, Apr 17, 2011, 17:35
|
So, let's see, you managed to slander Muslims, Jews, and just as a bonus liberals in one sentence. I hope that's a new record.
Sadly, I expect that not only is it not a new record, but that you're going to continue to try really hard to break your own record.
I'd express exactly how you have misrepresented my opinions on the entire matter, but I know based on past experience that you would rather substitute your own imagination in place of what my opinions are, so that you can continue to not have to speak rationally.
|
|
| | | 421 | Tree
ID: 320371412 Sun, Apr 17, 2011, 21:47
|
Why do so many Jewish people support the anti-semetic/anti-Israeli democrats and spurn their reliable allies?
Just keep telling every infitada backing, clenched fist, keffiyeh wearin', Rachel Corrie mournin' liberal how glad you are they are on your side.
i notice how you changed your argument. typical. (hint: you stopped insulting Jews, and went back to just insulting liberals. )
|
|
| | | 422 | Boldwin
ID: 31332179 Mon, Apr 18, 2011, 00:03
|
I'm not insulting Jews. I do have a problem with certain liberal Jewish organizations. If the fact that they are Jewish is particularly significant, I wouldn't really know. They only become a problem for me when they attack freedom of speech.
|
|
| | | 423 | sarge33rd
ID: 372291615 Mon, Apr 18, 2011, 00:14
|
Yet you despise the ACLU, which expends an inordinate effort in the protection of that very freedom. Admit please, what the rest of us already know....the only speech you want to be free, is that which reinforces your own opinions.
|
|
| | | 425 | Boldwin
ID: 31332179 Mon, Apr 18, 2011, 00:29
|
So Tree, is the religion which dares not speak it's name related to Meir Kahane?
|
|
| | | 426 | Tree
ID: 320371412 Mon, Apr 18, 2011, 01:35
|
i suppose your hatred and bigotry being universal is not a surprise.
it doesn't matter if they're Jewish, Muslim, African-American, or Hispanic - you've shown disdain for all those groups - honestly, at this point, it shouldn't come as a surprise that your bigotry is across the board, but it's still disheartening that there are many people who think and hate like you do.
i'm pretty much over your hatred, because it's a fact of your life. But when you meet your maker, i kind of want to see the bemused look on his face when you're actually dumbstruck to not be going to the place where you thought you'd be.
|
|
| | | 427 | Boldwin
ID: 31332179 Mon, Apr 18, 2011, 10:54
|
Is it?
|
|
| | |
| | | 429 | sarge33rd
ID: 372291615 Wed, Jun 01, 2011, 21:30
|
I get a 404 file error
|
|
| | |
| | | 431 | sarge33rd
ID: 372291615 Wed, Jun 01, 2011, 21:55
|
Thanks Mith. :)
|
|
| | | 432 | Mith
ID: 5631099 Thu, Jun 16, 2011, 19:31
|
Apple patents mobile camera that other people can shut off It is intended for use at live events and galleries and museums, and it will be a tremendous boon to policemen who shoot unarmed subway riders, despotic armies putting down revolutions as well as anyone else who is breaking the law or exercising coercive power.
|
|
| | | 433 | Boldwin
ID: 465231911 Sun, Jun 19, 2011, 13:27
|
In the future this is just static.
|
|
| | | 434 | Boldwin
ID: 465231911 Sun, Jun 19, 2011, 16:48
|
Runaway Justice Dept. accumulates similar powers to the USSR legal system.
Read the book, 'Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent'.
|
|
| | | 435 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Mon, Aug 15, 2011, 21:08
|
Taking them at their word: A NEW WORLD ORDER
|
|
| | |
| | | 437 | Boldwin
ID: 321121173 Wed, Dec 28, 2011, 17:14
|

|
|
| | | 438 | Boldwin
ID: 49030519 Sun, Jan 22, 2012, 15:18
|
|
|
| | | 439 | Boldwin
ID: 49030519 Mon, Feb 06, 2012, 22:04
|
Labeling:
The DHS has come out with a new lexicon that labels everyone here who has ever raised an objection to the Patriot Act, or other questionable security measures...
...either a militia extremist or at the very least an unwitting cooptee of militia extremists.
Anyone of us who can say they have never here criticized a government anti-terrorism measure or a executive or legislative act that he thot violated the constitution?
|
|
| | | 443 | Mith
ID: 23217270 Sat, Feb 18, 2012, 00:01
|
He just uses terms like that to goad people into an outraged response like #441 to justify his own phoney outrage over pretend-hypocrisy when some liberal uses 'chimichanga' and 'Latino' in the same sentence.
You're letting him play you, Tree.
|
|
| | | 447 | Tree
ID: 2013189 Sat, Feb 18, 2012, 10:05
|
You're letting him play you, Tree.
and no offense MITH, but i think the only people here being played are those who allow Baldwin's behavior to go on unchecked, and to chalk it up to "Baldwin being Baldwin."
again, it's one thing when he calls fellow posters all sorts of ridiculous names - it's a whole other ball of wax when it starts using bigoted terms. Those that slough it off and excuse his behavior are the ones being played.
|
|
| | | 448 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916 Sat, Feb 18, 2012, 10:15
|
Imagine the outcry if this guy had been successful.
Imagine the rabid right wingers tearing into Napolitano for not doing everything possible to identify and preventing threats like this.
I'm not really understanding exactly what privacy issues are in play here. As soon as you make a tweet, post on Facebook or comment on an article in the NY Times, you've gone public. Phone conversations, texts, letters and other forms of private communication demand a court order as they always have.
I find it especially hypocritical that those who protest this type of monitoring were all in favor of infiltrating the Weathermen, SDS, Black Panthers, Dr. Martin Luther King and any other group they deemed to be subversive leftists intent on overthrowing the establishment. Obviously, some of those groups were heavily involved with illegal and terrorist activities, but I never recall one peep about their privacy rights.
|
|
| | | 449 | Boldwin
ID: 49030519 Sat, Feb 18, 2012, 11:15
|
If you guys are perfectly A-OK about being put on a government enemies list just because you've criticized some element of DHS on a forum, that's your prerogative, just know that Napolitano thot you wouldn't be, so she lied to congress about it.
|
|
| | | 450 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916 Sat, Feb 18, 2012, 11:26
|
If you guys
What you guys are you talking about? Are you so lazy that you are unable to address a person and respect their opinion without making it some type of collective?
I could care less if I'm put on some government enemies list. I've probably been on it since 1969.
|
|
| | | 452 | Boldwin
ID: 49030519 Sat, Feb 18, 2012, 11:46
|

First they came for my freedom of religion and freedom of assembly...
|
|
| | | 453 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Sat, Feb 18, 2012, 11:51
|
Erase #451. Or I'll recommend you get banned. Now.
|
|
| | | 454 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916 Sat, Feb 18, 2012, 11:57
|
Why ban him? Everyone on this board - liberal, moderate, conservative - considers him a joke. See how I stealthily replaced "you guys" with "everyone?"
|
|
| | | 455 | Boldwin
ID: 49030519 Sat, Feb 18, 2012, 11:57
|
Then they came for my internet.
|
|
| | | 456 | Boldwin
ID: 49030519 Sat, Feb 18, 2012, 12:02
|
What you guys
The ones who think showing solidarity with one *censored* committing perjury before congress so as to suspend and prosecute free speech is more important that preventing that *censored* from destroying free speech.
Losing our freedom of speech? It could never happen here. */sarc*
|
|
| | | 457 | Boldwin
ID: 49030519 Sat, Feb 18, 2012, 12:03
|
Bully
|
|
| | | 458 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916 Sat, Feb 18, 2012, 12:20
|
Nobody is coming to get you. Nobody is coming for your internet. Nobody is stfling your free speech. No one in the White House ever ordered an IRS audit of your returns. In short, no one gives a shit about you except your family, which is true with all of us who post here.
|
|
| | | 459 | DWetzel
ID: 33337117 Sat, Feb 18, 2012, 12:23
|
"What you guys
The ones who think showing solidarity with one *censored* committing perjury before congress so as to suspend and prosecute free speech is more important that preventing that *censored* from destroying free speech. "
Citation needed.
We're only showing solidarity with people who also think it's important to actually look at issues rather than listen to YOUR inane blathering and patently bigoted namecalling that you (and this is not a 'you guys', this is YOU) use in lieu of intelligent conversation.
Which is pretty much everyone you label as "you guys", by the way.
|
|
| | | 460 | bibA
ID: 4057177 Sat, Feb 18, 2012, 12:27
|
Well, personally I don't believe I am on one of these enemy lists. And you, Baldwin, obviously feel you are on most of them. Can you say just how much more your life is restricted than those of us who are not on these lists?
|
|
| | | 472 | Mith
ID: 23217270 Sun, Feb 19, 2012, 00:12
|
#448 - These stories always make me a little uneasy. I'd be a lot more comfortable if there was a much higher degree of public oversight demanded of these sting operations. An honest look at the TSA and NYPD make it clear that many of the excessive federal and local terrorism prevention measures we now live with are an otherwise useless show to satisfy the public. We really can't know whether this guy and any of the other recent "thwarted terrorists" were victims of entrapment by zealous or ambitious agents or department heads or however high up the food chain you want to go.
A guy who walks around this country seething with hate for the place is unpleasent company but isnt a criminal. I'd feel better if I could know he actively sought to hurt people before the Feds got hold of him.
|
|
| | | 473 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916 Sun, Feb 19, 2012, 10:36
|
A guy who walks around this country seething with hate for the place is unpleasent company but isnt a criminal.
A guy who has a suicide vest ready to detonate at the Capitol as well as an AK47 to kill as many infidels as possible prior to his desire for matyrdom has passed the threshold from unpleasant to mass murder proponent. This wasn't some nebulous discussion about how honorable it would be to serve Allah by carrying out jihad in the US. This wasn't a conspiracy evidenced by a paper trail or taped phone convesations. This guy was moments away from committing mass murder. This guy is someone we want off the streets. This guy had every opportunity over the past year to abandon his thirst for the violent deaths of innocent Americans, instead being conflicted only as to which plan would cause the most death and publicity.
IMO, this is an incident where law enforcement worked as it is intended. Identify a person committed to violent jihad against the US, who is more than willing to take the jump from rhetoric to action, give him the rope and let him hang himself. Seems like a no-brainer.
The real question here here goes back to the original issue of Homeland Security monitoring social networks through separate contracts with General Dynamics. As far as I can tell, Homeland Security didn't play a role in Amine El Khalifi's arrest. It appears the FBI was the primary agency involved throughout the entire case. But when we examine MITH's claim that many of the excessive federal and local terrorism prevention measures we now live with are an otherwise useless show to satisfy the public, I think we can agree that this incident will be used as a catalyst for Homeland Security to ask for more money and more resources to combat terrorism. In other words, more bureaucracy, bigger govenment. Rather than expanding the levels of agencies that suck money out of our pockets, we might want to have a discussion as to eliminating levels and concentrate our resources on agencies like the FBI, which are already tasked with the job of keeping the country safe and secure.
We have discussions about eliminating the Departments of Energy, Education, Commerce by some of the current and recent crop of GOP nominees, but the elimination of the Department of Homeland Security, much of which is duplicated by other agencies, and much of which has nothing to do with securing the homeland, seems to be off limits to discussion.
Finally, if we're going to be honest, we know that the Boldwins of this country have no problem targeting Muslims, have no problem restricting their rights and freedoms because they aren't "true Americans." It's the Christian militias, armed to the teeth and filled with rage directed at the federal government and law enforcement on every level, whose rights and freedoms must be respected, despite their own unique concept of jihad.
|
|
| | | 474 | Mith
ID: 50151411 Sun, Feb 19, 2012, 12:23
|
a suicide vest ready to detonate at the Capitol as well as an AK47 to kill as many infidels as possible
He was provided with those materials (inert explosives and an inoperable firearm) by the FBI. I don't question that he was dangerous at the time he was arrested. My concern is whether he was dangerous before the undercover agents got into his head.
|
|
| | | 475 | sarge33rd
ID: 4717718 Sun, Feb 19, 2012, 13:27
|
Both points, are in fact legitimate to ask and debate.
Did the agents, discover a threat; or did they in fact create that threat? At the same time, if they were able to create that threat, could an extremist not also have done so only then, the threat would have been both real and unknown?
It's a double edged sword, with no easy answers.
|
|
| | | 476 | Mith
ID: 23217270 Sun, Feb 19, 2012, 14:16
|
if they were able to create that threat, could an extremist not also have done so
A free society isn't one that prosecutes people for what undercover law enforcement professionals can eventually coerce them to do. At least it shouldn't be.
|
|
| | | 477 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916 Sun, Feb 19, 2012, 15:19
|
A free society isn't one that prosecutes people for what undercover law enforcement professionals can eventually coerce them to do.
Amine El Khalifi isn't a lovestruck teen suckered into a $25 pot buy. That distraction ignores that there are ideologically-driven individuals and groups who want to perform devastating terrorist acts in this country. No one has challenged Boldwin on his Islamophobic paranoia more than me, but the reality exists that there are threats which need to be contained, and I can't think of a better example of a threat than someone who willfully attempts to blow up the United States Capitol building.
There isn't a whole lot of info available yet, but there's no reporting of coercion or entrapment that I've found. This article by
John Miller, former assistant FBI director and CBS News correspondent, gives a pretty good account of the activities leading to the arrest.
a confidential informant for the FBI's Counter Terrorism Division reported to his handlers that he watched as El Khalifi, by then, 28 years old, listened as another man said, "The war on terror is a war on Muslims." El Khalifi watched as the man produced an AK-47 rifle, two revolvers and ammunition, and discussed what the group needed to do to be ready to fight back.
Over the next year, FBI agents, detectives from the U.S. Capitol Police, and other investigators from the sprawling Joint Terrorism Task Force that covers the National Capitol Region, kept close tabs on El Khalifi. El Khalifi allegedly kept discussing his desires to launch a terrorist attack.
I'm not sure what law enforcement is supposed to do when confronted with someone who keeps discussing his desires to launch a terrorist attack. Maybe see just how serious he is, and create a sting before he ends up hooking up with like-minded radicals?
I don't see this as an affront to a free society, ala Jose Padilla, held for years without charges on a much flimsier basis.
El Khalifi has already had a court appearance. He will be provided legal representation. He will be allowed to present his side of the story, where he can claim he was entrapped and coerced, or just kidding. That's how a free society works.
|
|
| | | 479 | Mith
ID: 37838313 Sun, Feb 19, 2012, 15:35
|
I don't disagree with anything in #477.
And you're right, there isn't a lot of info on it.
The quote you provided says El Khalifi was present when some other person with multiple firearms talked about what the group had to be "prepared" for. A good reason to keep an eye on the El Khalifi but clearly not grounds to call him a committed terrorist.
Your link also says The other thing that became increasingly clear to the agents and detectives was that El Khalifi was determined to move forward.
This is more significant and if true we're talking about nothing short of commendable (if not heroic) investigative work.
But I just don't know to what extent I trust that these so called terrorists are always necessarily already headed down that path.
|
|
| | | 480 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916 Sun, Feb 19, 2012, 15:49
|
But I just don't know to what extent I trust that these so called terrorists are always necessarily already headed down that path.
And I would agree with that sentiment. We have a fairly large contingency in this country(and abroad) that are convinced any committed Islamist is a terrorist. It's somewhat ironic that the Muslim Brotherhood, who Boldwin claims is behind every Islamic act of terrorism for the past 60 years, finds themselves dealing with the pragmatic reality of governing a large Arab nation.
|
|
| | | 481 | Boldwin
ID: 49030519 Mon, Feb 20, 2012, 05:09
|
Are you aware that islamist and islamic are not coterminous?
|
|
| | | 482 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Mon, Feb 20, 2012, 12:25
|
I would ask the same question of you, Boldwin.
|
|
| | | 483 | Boldwin
ID: 49030519 Mon, Feb 20, 2012, 18:43
|
A) Islamists support violent Jihad. They support terrorism. In their ideals they believe they themselves are capable of terrorism and given a great opportunity consider it a failing if they do not engage in violent jihad.
We have a fairly large contingency in this country(and abroad) that are convinced any committed Islamist is a terrorist. - PV
Any genuine islamist is one opporunity and one persuasive mullah away from a terrorist act.
I was the first one on these boards to explain this to you when the rest of you didn't even know there was a shia/sunni divide in the muslim world.
It's somewhat ironic that the Muslim Brotherhood, who Boldwin claims is behind every Islamic act of terrorism for the past 60 years, finds themselves dealing with the pragmatic reality of governing a large Arab nation. - PV
There is nothing ironic about their position. They are in exactly the same position as the Ayatolla was in Iran for the first few years while he consolidated his power and before he dropped all pretense of ruling in a way compatible with the secular liberals in the west who paved his way to power.
When all internal rivalry is resolved they will be terrorizing their own country and exporting terrorism in the manner of Iran only many many times more seriously due to their larger numbers around the world.
|
|
| | | 484 | sarge33rd
ID: 4717718 Mon, Feb 20, 2012, 18:54
|
I was the first one on these boards to explain this to you when the rest of you didn't even know there was a shia/sunni divide in the muslim world.
Ummm, not true. I had not yet discovered this forum, nor indeed the internet, when I learned of the divide in the Muslim world, via my religious research circa 1978-1980.
You can stop breaking your arm, with self congratulatory posts like that, anytime now.
|
|
| | | 485 | Frick
ID: 52182321 Mon, Feb 20, 2012, 22:22
|
I can't say I was researching in 78-80, but I would think that most of us on the political board were aware of the divides long before this board came into existance.
|
|
| | | 486 | Tree
ID: 17039238 Mon, Feb 20, 2012, 23:10
|
I was the first one on these boards to explain this to you when the rest of you didn't even know there was a shia/sunni divide in the muslim world.
i actually do believe that you have completely gone off the deep end. your constant refrain of "i was the first" is truly a sign of someone who has lost his grip on reality.
i'd wager that the majority of posters on this board have at least a vague knowledge of the Lebanese Civil War, which started nearly a quarter-century before this board came to be, and ENDED nearly a decade before this this board came to be.
That war included battles between many different sects, including but not limited to, the Sunni and the Shi'a.
do you honestly believe you were the first to explain this to us!?!? oy.
|
|
| | | 487 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Fri, Feb 24, 2012, 17:58
|
The Lacey Act.
Surely a clear sign of government overreach.
|
|
| | | 488 | Boldwin
ID: 49030519 Fri, Feb 24, 2012, 21:11
|
Seriously.
|
|
| | | 489 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Fri, Feb 24, 2012, 22:15
|
BTW, I've been reading more and more on the next round of copyright changes. Very messy stuff which, as usual, is being written by insiders of the content providers with little to no input by users. More in a bit.
|
|
| | | 490 | Boldwin
ID: 49030519 Fri, Feb 24, 2012, 22:22
|
ACTA?
|
|
| | | 491 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Sat, Feb 25, 2012, 01:53
|
Yeah, plus some other trade agreements being developed concurrently, in the hopes of streamlining what is a pretty horrid series of changes, tilting copyright law even more toward content providers.
ACTA has more direct bearing because it would involve changes in US laws.
Content providers seem to forget that the whole point of the copyright law is to enrich the public domain.
|
|
| | | 492 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Tue, Apr 03, 2012, 17:07
|
Arizona goes all-in--bans annoying internet speech.
Since the bill has been passed but hasn't been signed into law by the governor yet, let me take this moment to say: Kiss my ass, Arizona. Smack, smack, smack, smack.
|
|
| | | 493 | Khahan
ID: 373143013 Thu, Apr 05, 2012, 09:32
|
That Arizona law is absolutely horrible. A complete F-U to the first amendment and also extremely unrealistic.
|
|
| | | 494 | Boldwin
ID: 12214143 Thu, Apr 05, 2012, 10:52
|
It's hard to believe they really think that will withstand a court challenge so I take it they are just making a statement, throwing some constituency a bone.
|
|
| | | 495 | Tree
ID: 17039238 Thu, Apr 05, 2012, 11:09
|
Arizona's new license plate oughta read "passin' stupid laws for awhile now..."
|
|
| | | 496 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Thu, Apr 05, 2012, 11:42
|
I think you're exactly right, Boldwin. That kind of thing has been a standard GOP response these days in places like AZ. And it isn't exactly conservative to do so.
Even from strictly a financial standpoint, passing such clearly unconstitutional laws costs taxpayer money, let alone the cost to defend this in federal court.
|
|
| | | 497 | Boldwin
ID: 48351195 Thu, Apr 19, 2012, 12:54
|
Listen carefully to the range of threats, especially where the reader says 'Jesus':
|
|
| | | 498 | Boldwin
ID: 48351195 Thu, Apr 19, 2012, 12:54
|
This bill was passed and is now law btw.
|
|
| | | 499 | Boldwin
ID: 48351195 Mon, Apr 23, 2012, 17:12
|
Department of Homeland Security - too much time on their hands.
Now raiding flea markets for counterfeit sportswear.
|
|
| | |
| | | 501 | Boldwin
ID: 48351195 Thu, Apr 26, 2012, 03:03
|
And yet paperboys not so much.
|
|
| | | 502 | Boldwin
ID: 3944693 Thu, May 24, 2012, 19:13
|
The monster on Beef Hollow Road. (Who could make a name like that up?)The former NSA official held his thumb and forefinger close together: “We are that far from a turnkey totalitarian state.”
He explains that the agency could have installed its tapping gear at the nation’s cable landing stations—the more than two dozen sites on the periphery of the US where fiber-optic cables come ashore. If it had taken that route, the NSA would have been able to limit its eavesdropping to just international communications, which at the time was all that was allowed under US law. Instead it chose to put the wiretapping rooms at key junction points throughout the country—large, windowless buildings known as switches—thus gaining access to not just international communications but also to most of the domestic traffic flowing through the US.
After he left the NSA, Binney suggested a system for monitoring people’s communications according to how closely they are connected to an initial target. The further away from the target—say you’re just an acquaintance of a friend of the target—the less the surveillance. But the agency rejected the idea, and, given the massive new storage facility in Utah, Binney suspects that it now simply collects everything. “The whole idea was, how do you manage 20 terabytes of intercept a minute?” he says. “The way we proposed was to distinguish between things you want and things you don’t want.” Instead, he adds, “they’re storing everything they gather.” And the agency is gathering as much as it can.
Once the communications are intercepted and stored, the data-mining begins. “You can watch everybody all the time with data- mining,” Binney says. Everything a person does becomes charted on a graph, “financial transactions or travel or anything,” he says. Thus, as data like bookstore receipts, bank statements, and commuter toll records flow in, the NSA is able to paint a more and more detailed picture of someone’s life.
The NSA also has the ability to eavesdrop on phone calls directly and in real time. According to Adrienne J. Kinne, who worked both before and after 9/11 as a voice interceptor at the NSA facility in Georgia, in the wake of the World Trade Center attacks “basically all rules were thrown out the window, and they would use any excuse to justify a waiver to spy on Americans.”
Before he gave up and left the NSA, Binney tried to persuade officials to create a more targeted system that could be authorized by a court. At the time, the agency had 72 hours to obtain a legal warrant, and Binney devised a method to computerize the system. “I had proposed that we automate the process of requesting a warrant and automate approval so we could manage a couple of million intercepts a day, rather than subvert the whole process.” But such a system would have required close coordination with the courts, and NSA officials weren’t interested in that, Binney says. Instead they continued to haul in data on a grand scale. Asked how many communications—”transactions,” in NSA’s lingo—the agency has intercepted since 9/11, Binney estimates the number at “between 15 and 20 trillion, the aggregate over 11 years.”
When Barack Obama took office, Binney hoped the new administration might be open to reforming the program to address his constitutional concerns. He and another former senior NSA analyst, J. Kirk Wiebe, tried to bring the idea of an automated warrant-approval system to the attention of the Department of Justice’s inspector general. They were given the brush-off. “They said, oh, OK, we can’t comment,” Binney says.
There is still one technology preventing untrammeled government access to private digital data: strong encryption. Anyone—from terrorists and weapons dealers to corporations, financial institutions, and ordinary email senders—can use it to seal their messages, plans, photos, and documents in hardened data shells. For years, one of the hardest shells has been the Advanced Encryption Standard, one of several algorithms used by much of the world to encrypt data. Available in three different strengths—128 bits, 192 bits, and 256 bits—it’s incorporated in most commercial email programs and web browsers and is considered so strong that the NSA has even approved its use for top-secret US government communications. Most experts say that a so-called brute-force computer attack on the algorithm—trying one combination after another to unlock the encryption—would likely take longer than the age of the universe. For a 128-bit cipher, the number of trial-and-error attempts would be 340 undecillion (1036).
Breaking into those complex mathematical shells like the AES is one of the key reasons for the construction going on in Bluffdale. That kind of cryptanalysis requires two major ingredients: super-fast computers to conduct brute-force attacks on encrypted messages and a massive number of those messages for the computers to analyze. The more messages from a given target, the more likely it is for the computers to detect telltale patterns, and Bluffdale will be able to hold a great many messages.


How you store yottabytes of information.
(A yottabyte is a septillion bytes—so large that no one has yet coined a term for the next higher magnitude.)
|
|
| | |
| | | 504 | Boldwin
ID: 43492714 Thu, May 31, 2012, 16:24
|
I can't help feeling someday these will be pointed at us. Blue helmets, not skynet.
Where the drones are.
|
|
| | | 505 | Boldwin
ID: 43492714 Sat, Jun 02, 2012, 13:27
|
|
|
| | | 506 | Boldwin
ID: 40502313 Sat, Jun 23, 2012, 14:01
|
Too far?
|
|
| | |
| | | 508 | biliruben
ID: 41431323 Mon, Jul 16, 2012, 06:09
|
Interesting. They have been flying one down the road from me.
|
|
| | | 509 | Boldwin
ID: 18643169 Mon, Jul 16, 2012, 10:50
|
Watch your IR signature there, bili.
|
|
| | | 510 | Boldwin
ID: 18643169 Mon, Jul 16, 2012, 20:16
|
In a world where I predict a 3-way world war with the muslims, America's military planners have decided to...
Plant 50 Lillypads. Plant 50 indefensible lilypads in my estimation. (and they think Afghanistan is hard to defend at current deployment levels...sheesh. What an impression easily over-running 25, 30, 35 American bases all over the world would have on the inferiority complex of jihadis. I asked a member of the Air Force medical team about the casualties they see like these. Many, as with this flight, were coming from Afghanistan, he told me. “A lot from the Horn of Africa,” he added. “You don’t really hear about that in the media.”
“Where in Africa?” I asked. He said he didn’t know exactly, but generally from the Horn, often with critical injuries. “A lot out of Djibouti,” he added, referring to Camp Lemonnier, the main U.S. military base in Africa, but from “elsewhere” in the region, too.
Since the “Black Hawk Down” deaths in Somalia almost 20 years ago, we’ve heard little, if anything, about American military casualties in Africa (other than a strange report last week about three special operations commandos killed, along with three women identified by U.S. military sources as “Moroccan prostitutes,” in a mysterious car accident in Mali). The growing number of patients arriving at Ramstein from Africa pulls back a curtain on a significant transformation in twenty-first-century U.S. military strategy.
These casualties are likely to be the vanguard of growing numbers of wounded troops coming from places far removed from Afghanistan or Iraq. They reflect the increased use of relatively small bases like Camp Lemonnier, which military planners see as a model for future U.S. bases “scattered,” as one academic explains, “across regions in which the United States has previously not maintained a military presence.”
Disappearing are the days when Ramstein was the signature U.S. base, an American-town-sized behemoth filled with thousands or tens of thousands of Americans, PXs, Pizza Huts, and other amenities of home. But don’t for a second think that the Pentagon is packing up, downsizing its global mission, and heading home. In fact, based on developments in recent years, the opposite may be true. While the collection of Cold War-era giant bases around the world is shrinking, the global infrastructure of bases overseas has exploded in size and scope.
Unknown to most Americans, Washington’s garrisoning of the planet is on the rise, thanks to a new generation of bases the military calls “lily pads” (as in a frog jumping across a pond toward its prey). These are small, secretive, inaccessible facilities with limited numbers of troops, spartan amenities, and prepositioned weaponry and supplies.
Around the world, from Djibouti to the jungles of Honduras, the deserts of Mauritania to Australia’s tiny Cocos Islands, the Pentagon has been pursuing as many lily pads as it can, in as many countries as it can, as fast as it can. Although statistics are hard to assemble, given the often-secretive nature of such bases, the Pentagon has probably built upwards of 50 lily pads and other small bases since around 2000, while exploring the construction of dozens more.
As Mark Gillem, author of America Town: Building the Outposts of Empire, explains, “avoidance” of local populations, publicity, and potential opposition is the new aim. “To project its power,” he says, the United States wants “secluded and self-contained outposts strategically located” around the world. According to some of the strategy’s strongest proponents at the American Enterprise Institute, the goal should be “to create a worldwide network of frontier forts,” with the U.S. military “the ‘global cavalry’ of the twenty-first century.”
Such lily-pad bases have become a critical part of an evolving Washington military strategy aimed at maintaining U.S. global dominance by doing far more with less in an increasingly competitive, ever more multi-polar world. Central as it’s becoming to the long-term U.S. stance, this global-basing reset policy has, remarkably enough, received almost no public attention, nor significant Congressional oversight. Meanwhile, as the arrival of the first casualties from Africa shows, the U.S. military is getting involved in new areas of the world and new conflicts, with potentially disastrous consequences. It may be a drone operator's dream, putting nearly every American enemy within drone-range, but the hubris of thinking this basing structure is defensible is mind-boggling.
|
|
| | | 511 | Boldwin
ID: 20811421 Wed, Sep 05, 2012, 06:55
|
The following is disturbing on many levels. It is a long collage of inter-related constitutional violations and freedom taking. It is produced by a Russian propaganda mill called Russia Today, and yet RT often, nay usually provides more valuable uncensored/unsanitized information than 'our own' media. How far down the rabbit hole is that?
When they say 'we' and they use the term frequently, of course they aren't we, and that's disturbing.
Nevertheless the information contained in this video is compelling. It is true. While it is a sledgehammer, it is yet understated. Every case they cite can be backed up with similar or worse abuses they haven't had time or space to include.
In the future I will include numerous quotes and videos from people like Rachel Maddow, Young Turks, Keith Olberman, etc. Hardly people I usually agree with and people you probably agree with more often than not, which amply flesh out and back up pretty much everything in this video.
|
|
| | |
| | | 513 | Boldwin
ID: 368252710 Thu, Sep 27, 2012, 14:57
|
What are the odds that idea hasn't occurred to/been exploited by Big Brother?
|
|
| | | 514 | Perm Dude
ID: 56832185 Thu, Sep 27, 2012, 15:03
|
For a nice profit, no doubt.
|
|
| | | 515 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167 Thu, Sep 27, 2012, 15:40
|
well, since the govt (big brother) doesnt run any rent-to-owns that I know of...I'd say the odds are zilch.
|
|
| | | 516 | Boldwin
ID: 368252710 Thu, Sep 27, 2012, 15:53
|
Honey trap.
|
|
| | | 517 | Perm Dude
ID: 56832185 Thu, Sep 27, 2012, 15:56
|
They don't have to run the company to be a buyer of the information they collect, sarge. The R-T-O's are obviously collecting salable information. Baldwin is correct that almost certainly the government is in the market for that kind of stuff.
|
|
| | | 518 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167 Thu, Sep 27, 2012, 16:23
|
Color me naive, I dont see the govt buying information which was, illegally obtained and that the same govt will now, via the FTC, be actively precluding from being gathered.
|
|
| | | 519 | Perm Dude
ID: 56832185 Thu, Sep 27, 2012, 16:32
|
I do. If the government wants the information that they would be violating the law to have in the first place, the fact that the information was illegally obtained isn't going to be a barrier.
|
|
| | | 520 | Boldwin
ID: 368252710 Thu, Sep 27, 2012, 18:43
|
Hoover would have had a field day. I bet they still are. The political leverage to be gained would be monumental.
My understanding is that a single pixel on your screen can be used as a receiver, an electronic pinhole camera. Paranoid? Nah, those scientists are clever. And I've heard government listening post workers describe just such a function. I'm not saying everyone is being watched at this very moment, but I'm not betting the farm that they aren't either.
|
|
| | | 521 | Boldwin
ID: 368252710 Thu, Sep 27, 2012, 18:56
|
If the government wants the information that they would be violating the law to have in the first place, the fact that the information was illegally obtained isn't going to be a barrier.
Are those ever true words. John Poindexter's Total Information Awareness program is barreling ahead at full speed no matter what you've been told.
Ever notice those cameras mounted on every stoplight?
Facial recognition software.
I've heard this is already fully implemented.
Google the acronyms Facelight and Silverlight for starters.
|
|
| | | 522 | Perm Dude
ID: 56832185 Thu, Sep 27, 2012, 18:59
|
Those cameras have the *potential* to have FRS, but very, very few actually do (if any). And when they do, they will be mounted onto lights in the cities and aimed at the sidewalks, since it is incredibly difficult to get useful information on drivers from streetlight-level cameras.
In other words, to maximize the cost, they would maximize their effectiveness. Stoplight cameras simply aren't that effective.
|
|
| | | 523 | Boldwin
ID: 368252710 Thu, Sep 27, 2012, 19:35
|
A) You don't know that.
B) Yes, they aren't content just to track you at each stoplight on your route every day.
They are very aggressively trying to get you to provide circumstantial evidence linking you to every crime in your vicinity all day/every day.
What a well named company, btw.
|
|
| | | 524 | Perm Dude
ID: 56832185 Thu, Sep 27, 2012, 19:38
|
Don't know what, exactly? Be specific about what you believe I know.
|
|
| | | 525 | Boldwin
ID: 368252710 Thu, Sep 27, 2012, 19:54
|
You do not have definitive knowledge that, Those cameras have the *potential* to have FRS, but very, very few actually do (if any).
I've heard the system is very advanced and well deployed.
|
|
| | | 526 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167 Thu, Sep 27, 2012, 20:00
|
Neither do you have definitive knowledge, that they do. You simply buy into every conspiracy "big brother" concept, that comes down the pipe.
|
|
| | | 527 | Boldwin
ID: 368252710 Thu, Sep 27, 2012, 20:09
|
Here is how advanced the system was in Florida a year and a half ago.That means that all of the PCSO’s facial recognition cameras, both at fixed locations and mobile units used by deputies, can now almost instantly identify any person who has a Real ID compliant drivers’ license or state identification card.
The PCSO has long been a pioneer of facial recognition systems. In 2001, they deployed a series of video camera systems, cross-linked to facial recognition databases in the local jail, courthouse, and Sheriff’s visitor center. In 2004, they began distributing mobile facial recognition systems to 170 patrol deputies for use in citizen interdiction.
According to McCallum, 22 counties in Florida are participating in a program of sharing facial recognition data compiled from arrest records, drivers’ licenses, and other sources. McCallum claimed it is now the largest, collaborative facial recognition database in the country.
Perhaps coincidentally, the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) has recently finished a $3-million project to install traffic cameras at several major intersections throughout the City of Dunedin in Pinellas County. Dunedin has no municipal police force, and relies on the PCSO for all of their law enforcement services.
What makes these cameras different from red light or standard traffic monitoring cameras is that they are mounted on the traffic signal cross beams, and there are four per intersection. The cameras are directed at the windshield of the vehicle approaching the light, and could conceivably recognize the faces of the occupants. Similar cameras have begun appearing in the neighboring communities of Palm Harbor and Clearwater.
Dave Eggers, Mayor of Dunedin, said that he was told by the FDOT that the cameras were standalone, closed systems, and the images for the cameras would not be uploaded to a central location. When asked if these cameras could potentially be linked with PCSO facial recognition systems, he said, “I don’t know if there infrastructure is there or not.”
One of the new cameras at Main Street and County Road 1 in Dunedin
Mayor Eggers seemed uneasy when we pointed out the “gold star” on his recently-renewed Florida driver’s license, indicating that it was Real ID compliant, and that his facial identification and personal data was now part of the PCSO system, as well as a national database.
On Wednesday, a work crew was adjusting the traffic cameras at a major intersection on the main corridor in Dunedin. Curtis Mull, a traffic signal technician for Pinellas County, told 1787 Network that they were in the process of installing communication lines to the cameras, that will feed the images from the cameras to a “central control system at headquarters.” Mull expected the work to be completed within the next two to three months.
McCallum denied there were any immediate plans to include the new traffic cameras with their extensive facial recognition systems, but he did confirm that they have the capability of using their existing face recognition system with a variety of still and video images.
Wolfgang Ritter, Director of Sales and Marketing for ISS, a leading provider of facial recognition and security software, says that these systems can capture and identify a face from a moving image in 0.04 seconds, well within the amount of time required for a vehicle to pass through the traffic cameras’ field of view.
And, according to Ritter, there’s no fooling their systems. “You can grow a beard, you can lose a beard, you can gain weight, you can lose weight, you can change your sex…I’ll still get you,” said Ritter. BTW, remember that Homeland security instructions to law enforcement include being deceptive with the public about their methods and capabilities.
|
|
| | | 528 | Boldwin
ID: 368252710 Thu, Sep 27, 2012, 20:15
|
Let's just for fun make it a project. Do the intersections in your city have cameras on the crossbeams pointed in all four directions? Were they there two years ago?
All the main cities in my area are fully decked out with cameras at every traffic light in every direction and I only started noticing them a year or two ago.
|
|
| | | 529 | Mith
ID: 18451815 Thu, Sep 27, 2012, 20:23
|
The cameras are not designed with facial-recognition software. The costs of any such national network would simply be absurd.
The article claims ultra-cheap, inexpensive HD cameras are now being installed everywhere (which obviously isn't true - at least for now) and cites the 3700 cameras in the NYC subway system including 500 (in three major multi-system landmark transit hubs) with live feeds to NYPD.
But the cameras mounted on street corners are not HD video recorders. They're still photo cameras that snap several photos as the light turns red. I see the flash go off on them frequently.
Everyone already knows there are plenty of security cameras all over and around buildings and property and other areas that are potential targets and it shouldn't be a surprise that law enforcement controls or has access or to many of them. I'm not arguing that this is necessarily good or bad, the pros and cons are obvious enough.
The facial recognition software that has Boldy's hair aflame is not in any significant number of cameras but simply used to search HD photos of crowds. I don't know how many megapixels large a photographed face might have to be for FR software to catch it, so who knows how wide an area most HD cameras would be able to cover. If HD in this case means 1080p, you'd probably need 8 of them to cover all of a two-way NYC intersection.
I wonder how many intersections there might be in NYC.
|
|
| | | 530 | Boldwin
ID: 398552719 Thu, Sep 27, 2012, 20:55
|
On what authority do you hang this statement?
Your manly good looks?
|
|
| | | 531 | Boldwin
ID: 398552719 Thu, Sep 27, 2012, 20:56
|
The facial recognition software that has Boldy's hair aflame is not in any significant number of cameras but simply used to search HD photos of crowds.
|
|
| | | 532 | Boldwin
ID: 398552719 Thu, Sep 27, 2012, 21:05
|
FBI Plans Nationwide Face-Recognition Trials In 2012 - Slashdot
No need to let your mind go wild with pictures of my hair on fire. This is a matter of fact. It either is or isn't or it's half-way there. And the evidence isn't on the side of the pooh-poohers so far.
|
|
| | | 533 | Mith
ID: 23217270 Thu, Sep 27, 2012, 21:15
|
532 - You apparently didn't read you own article. It's pretty short. The FBI is basically providing or sharing their FR database of and the software to use it.
I agree there are legitimate authoritarian concerns about this but I don't know why it should be considered a surprise to anyone at this point and there is no evidence of the type of advanced technology you seem to be implying, much less a conspiracy to like me to every crime in my vicinity.
Somebody get a fire extinguisher.
|
|
| | | 534 | Boldwin
ID: 398552719 Thu, Sep 27, 2012, 21:16
|
Surveillance contractor Disneyland.
"** If you think that 24/7 tracking of citizens by biometric recognition systems is paranoid fantasy, just read the industry newsletters **"
|
|
| | | 535 | Boldwin
ID: 398552719 Thu, Sep 27, 2012, 21:18
|
but I don't know why it should be considered a surprise to anyone at this point - MITH
*roll*
Oh yeah, you were all over this subject. You've been up to date on developments all along.
|
|
| | | 536 | Mith
ID: 23217270 Thu, Sep 27, 2012, 21:36
|
See post 262 above, particularly the 2nd half of it. I wrote that 5 years ago.
A nationally kept database of convicts scanned into FR software available for local law enforcement to compare photos against isn't necessarily any greater an authoritarian concern than some of the things I wrote there.
|
|
| | | 537 | Boldwin
ID: 398552719 Thu, Sep 27, 2012, 21:53
|
TRAPWIRE! that was the name I was trying to remember.TrapWire is the name of this newly revealed network of cameras and other surveillance tools being utilized by a federal government that is rapidly constructing an impenetrable, inescapable theater of surveillance, most of which is going unnoticed by Americans and unreported by the mainstream media.
Unlike other elements of the central government’s cybersurveillance program, word about TrapWire was not leaked by Obama administration insiders. The details of this nearly unbelievable surveillance scheme were made public by WikiLeaks, the anti-secrecy group founded by Julian Assange.
The TrapWire story percolated from the millions of emails from the Austin, Texas-based private intelligence-gathering firm Stratfor, published this year by WikiLeaks.
Covering correspondence from mid-2004 to 2011, these documents expose Stratfor’s “web of informers, pay-off structure, payment-laundering techniques and psychological methods.”
This coterie of Stratfor co-conspirators are apparently angry about the leaks, considering that the WikiLeaks servers have been under near-constant Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attacks since the TrapWire revelations began attracting notice of alternative journalists. Some outlets report that the cyberattacks are being carried out by agents of the American intelligence community determined to prevent the full depth of this scandal from being explored by reporters.
Exactly what is TrapWire? According to one description of the program, from Russia Today:
Former senior intelligence officials have created a detailed surveillance system more accurate than modern facial recognition technology — and have installed it across the US under the radar of most Americans, according to emails hacked by Anonymous.
Every few seconds, data picked up at surveillance points in major cities and landmarks across the United States are recorded digitally on the spot, then encrypted and instantaneously delivered to a fortified central database center at an undisclosed location to be aggregated with other intelligence.
Again, remember this is not the plot of some futuristic dystopian movie; this is the situation under which we are living today.
Although many of the details remain undisclosed, it is known that the infrastructure of TrapWire was designed and deployed by Abraxas, an intelligence contractor based in Northern Virginia headed and run by dozens of former American surveillance officers. As one article described it: “The employee roster at Abraxas reads like a who’s who of agents once with the Pentagon, CIA and other government entities according to their public LinkedIn profiles, and the corporation's ties are assumed to go deeper than even documented." --- Despite all the foregoing information, there may yet be those who doubt that our own federal government would ever wield such power over otherwise law-abiding citizens. Those so inclined should read the following statement made in 2005 by Abraxas founder Richard “Hollis” Helms.
In interview Helms claimed that TrapWire “can collect information about people and vehicles that is more accurate than facial recognition, draw patterns, and do threat assessments of areas that may be under observation from terrorists.” Then, invoking the tried and true “security” trope, Helms described his company’s product as “a proprietary technology designed to protect critical national infrastructure from a terrorist attack by detecting the pre-attack activities of the terrorist and enabling law enforcement to investigate and engage the terrorist long before an attack is executed.” “The beauty of it is that we can protect an infinite number of facilities just as efficiently as we can one and we push information out to local law authorities automatically,” he added.
The upshot of this surveillance scheme of nearly incalculable scope and sophistication is that for about half a dozen years now almost every city of any substantial size has been under surveillance by the federal government. Citizens of these metropolitan areas (the Department of Homeland Security paid $832,000 to install TrapWire in Washington, D.C. and Seattle, for example) are well aware of the implementation of CCTV cameras on buildings, on traffic lights, at intersections, in subways, etc. that are always sold to the public as an effective and necessary tool in the hands of law enforcement whose only goal is to “serve and protect.” The problem of such widespread monitoring is that it is now known that at its own will the federal government may collect and conglomerate these images and use them to draw an imperceptible and inescapable net around anyone who passes under the unblinking eyes in the sky.
Despite the blanket of silence that the government and its agents have thrown over this story, Cubic Corporation, the company that acquired Abraxas in 2010, released a statement August 13 insisting that “Abraxas Corporation then and now has no affiliation with Abraxas Applications now known as Trapwire, Inc.”
That claim doesn’t square with the information revealed in a story covering the latest in the ongoing TrapWire revelations. According to that article:
According to a 2007 report in the Washington Business Journal, though, that as well is a full-on fib.
"Abraxas Corp., a risk-mitigation technology company, has spun out a software business to focus on selling a new product," the article reads. "The spinoff – called Abraxas Applications – will sell TrapWire, which predicts attacks on critical infrastructure by analyzing security reports and video surveillance."
It is unclear how or if Cubic Corporation will explain this apparent discrepancy. You skeptics were saying...what now?
|
|
| | | 538 | Boldwin
ID: 398552719 Thu, Sep 27, 2012, 21:56
|
See post #502.
|
|
| | | 539 | Perm Dude
ID: 577543120 Thu, Sep 27, 2012, 22:16
|
I've heard the system is very advanced and well deployed.
You've heard wrong.
MITH has it exactly right: It is incredibly expensive to set those cameras up. To set up a "system" is beyond the budget of most agencies and even the ones who do won't be setting them up on stoplights--it isn't a very effective way unless your aim is to blow most of your budget and not get much actionable intelligence from it.
Like most conspiracies, you seem to be confusing "potential or recently actualized technology that can be used to spy" with "a full-blown system using state-of-the-art technology that is operating under the radar, today." Perhaps intentionally so, I dunno.
Reading through what is essentially publicity releases by companies hoping to get contracts by large businesses and government is trapping the same outside-the-box thinkers that made them look a little silly in swallowing the original PR by Keystone.
You might recall that my former father in law runs one of the best counter-espionage companies in the business. Just sayin'.
|
|
| | | 540 | Mith
ID: 18451815 Thu, Sep 27, 2012, 22:28
|
Again, I don't understand why 502 should be so impressive, either. The article linked in #214 (6 1/2 years ago) claims Vice President Cheney sought domestic telephone eavesdropping in 2001 and it also cites Press Secretary Dana Perino admitting that the NSA (accidentally) listened in on domestic calls.
But moreover, I highly doubt there any need to set up equipment at these junction points to access domestic phone conversations. I know something about this from working at a major broadcast fiber hub (in fact in the same building where Western Union connected the very fist trans-atlantic cable a century ago). The cable landings that article refers to also carry domestic calls to and from the junction points it also refers to.
I suspect the junctions were probably necessary to accommodate eavesdropping on domestic land lines to international cell phone calls. I also suspect that cell phone eavesdropping probably doesn't require direct connectivity to to those facilities anymore.
|
|
| | | 541 | Boldwin
ID: 398552719 Thu, Sep 27, 2012, 22:34
|
Maybe he's not tellin you, maybe you're not tellin me, maybe you haven't asked, but wikileaks makes it quite clear that the system is up and well advanced in it's deployment. It can read your face no matter how you try and deceive the system and it can do so far quicker than the blink of an eye and the information sharing is going on now. Ridiculous to think it can't read your face while you drive.
Read the last posts carefully if you genuinely don't believe it.
|
|
| | | 542 | Mith
ID: 23217270 Thu, Sep 27, 2012, 23:19
|
Maybe he's not tellin you
He who?
I have no idea to what extent I can trust what some blogger claims Wikileaks has evidence of. Your MO lately is to exagerate and mash together cherry-picked and sometimes loosely-founded accounts from second and third hand info about partially related or unrelated topics. None of your links describes any network of CC-linked HD video cameras on every street corner in America.
|
|
| | | 543 | Boldwin
ID: 398552719 Thu, Sep 27, 2012, 23:19
|
You don't think claiming to know more about the NSA gone rogue than the former director of the NSA’s World Geopolitical and Military Analysis Reporting Group, is a bit too much hubris, MITH?
I know you are amazing and all but...
|
|
| | | 544 | Boldwin
ID: 398552719 Thu, Sep 27, 2012, 23:25
|
Look, google trapwire, wikileaks. You can find all you need to know in coverage from zdnet, Io9.com, PCmagazine, Business Insider, www.guardian.co.uk , www.wired, etc,.
|
|
| | | 545 | Boldwin
ID: 398552719 Fri, Sep 28, 2012, 00:07
|
Further what's more important that the current percentage of 'surveillance saturation' to coin a phrase, is the intent. Just count the surveillance cameras on your path, particularly on roads. They obviously intend on eventually putting an eye on every activity.
As some have said, it's a mixed bag. If all that surveillance catches the attack on the local nuke plant, you are happy. If it catches the clean-shaven three man teams of muslim young men going out on missions at the start of WWIII, you'll be glad they did.
It's not hard to see the Orwellian mischief down the road however.
|
|
| | | 546 | Boldwin
ID: 398552719 Fri, Sep 28, 2012, 00:25
|
Wow, we start talking about wikileaks and DOS attacks and all of a sudden we have a new thread titled ZbMGKTdXXxwukk show up. I'm not clicking on it. Did you?
|
|
| | | 547 | DWetzel
ID: 25740420 Fri, Sep 28, 2012, 01:40
|
mcnabbstare.gif
It's the same spambot test messages that have popped up from time to time on here for... well, for a pretty long time.
|
|
| | | 548 | Mith
ID: 18451815 Fri, Sep 28, 2012, 07:10
|
claiming to know more about the NSA gone rogue than the former director of the NSA’s World Geopolitical and Military Analysis Reporting Group
I'm sorry, is this discussion about video cameras and FR software or is it about domestic phone eavesdropping? I have tried to keep up but wtf does domestic eavesdropping have to do with exactly how extensive the FBI's facial recognition scanning of CC video surveillance feeds is? In any of these links you've posted can I find Binney commenting on the FR stuff? Or have you read less of your linked material than I have?
And of course I don't claim to know more about the NSA gone rogue than William Binney but I also have no idea how much I should believe him, much less how much I should believe of what Boldwin cherry picks from what James Bamford says William Binney knows.
Sorry, I've learned from over a decade of experience that What Boldwin cherrypicks from what someone says someone else said happens is a terrible way to get reliable information.
And specifically, I don't think I've even contradicted anything Binney said, only some some of the conclusions you and maybe Bamford seem to have leaped to about what Binney said.
It doesn't appear you are very interested in an in-depth discussion more than overwhelming forum readers with a spaghetti on the wall tactic.
Someone unexpectedly starts to pick through your scattered pieces of meatballs and offers a counter point about some of your hysterical assumptions about FR software and your response is to launch a bowl of domestic eavesdropping fettuccine to further confuse the mess.
Frankly, I'm not even sure you're aware that I haven't disagreed much with you on this, except for the likely extent of the current camera network and just how surprised we should be that this sort of thing is going on.
|
|
| | | 549 | Tree
ID: 57842011 Fri, Sep 28, 2012, 09:47
|
Wow, we start talking about wikileaks and DOS attacks and all of a sudden we have a new thread titled ZbMGKTdXXxwukk show up. I'm not clicking on it. Did you?
it's one of those new tracker bots. i'm surprised you haven't read about them. if you post anywhere on a website that contains them, you're pretty much screwed, because they not only track your every move in cyberspace, but they also send out microscopic tracker bugs that latch into the weave on your clothes.
man, you are so screwed. best to ditch your computer and your clothes right now.
|
|
| | |
| | | 551 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167 Sun, Oct 07, 2012, 00:38
|
evidence B?
|
|
| | | 552 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Sun, Oct 07, 2012, 00:38
|
So this author claims to have an affidavit (which he decided not to turn over to law enforcement, apparently) from a former official which claims widespread email deletions.
Huh.
You think this has something to do with him trying to sell a book to you? Does he also have the names of 72,000 communists in the EPA?
This guy sounds like a crank, pulling the same strings that WND does all the time.
In fact, this modus is common among the conservative media: Gin up the base by maintaining a constant, low-level anxiety about the feds, then sell them content intended to "prove" those same conjectures.
And they continue to smugly call liberals "naive." Funny stuff.
|
|
| | | 553 | Boldwin
ID: 4796714 Sun, Oct 07, 2012, 15:19
|
Bill Clinton's first question to an applicant was whether they were willing to lie to the FBI. He set the record for collecting illegal FBI files in the WH.
But even he never had a process for leaving no electronic traces. Score a new low for Obama, the transparency president.
Liberals calling conservatives naive. *roll*
|
|
| | | 554 | Boldwin
ID: 589301022 Thu, Oct 11, 2012, 01:08
|
Secretly, behind closed doors, the nations of the world are negotiating a treaty — initiated by Russia and China — to regulate the Internet through the United Nations. The only reason we know about these talks in the first place is through a WikiLeaks anonymous posting by a participant in the talks. That and the fact that a signing ceremony has been scheduled in Dubai in December of 2012.
The Russian and Chinese play to get control of the Internet is one of the major themes in our new book, Here Come The Black Helicopters: UN Global Governance and the Loss of Freedom. The world learned of these negotiations only because Jerry Brito and Eli Dourado, George Mason University researchers, set up a web site called WCITLeaks and encouraged anyone with knowledge of the negotiations to make an anonymous posting detailing their progress. Someone responded on June 12th of this year posting a 250 page synopsis of the proposed treaty and the talks surrounding it.
The Treaty would provide:
• The UN would distribute and assign all e-names.
• Each country would be notified of the IP addresses of each email user within their borders (allowing China and Russia to track down dissidents).
• The UN could regulate Internet content.
• Every nation would have the right to censor web sites that originate in their country.
• And every country could charge a surcharge for access to any web sites that originate beyond their borders.
Vinton Cerf, one of the founders of the Internet and currently vice president of Google, has correctly warned that the “open Internet has never been at higher risk than it is now.” He notes that “if all of us don’t pay attention to what’s going on, users worldwide will be at risk of losing the open and free Internet that has brought so much to so many.”
Meet Hamadoun Toure, the new wanna be boss of the Internet. Educated at the Leningrad Institute and at Moscow Technical University — both during the 80s — he is now the head of the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) of the United Nations. And he’s Vladimir Putin’s choice to run the Internet.
Currently the ITU is a little known arm of the UN in charge of long distance phone calls and satellite orbits. But the negotiations now under way would vest it with enormous powers over the Internet.
And yet, there is almost no coverage of this outrageous proposal and possible treaty in the media in the United States. The Wall Street Journal has warned that the proposal treaty could “use the International Telecommunications Regulations to take control of the Internet.”
If we don’t rally to protect the Internet and stop this outrageous invasion of our liberties, we may lose it forever.
|
|
| | | 555 | Boldwin
ID: 589301022 Thu, Oct 11, 2012, 13:51
|
An explosive 141-page investigative report was quietly released just after midnight by the U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is an indictment of the practices and procedures of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
While this report provides details of the investigation of “fusion centers,” or intelligence centers across the country under the control of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, it provides critical insight into the workings of the DHS itself.
PDF report
13 months of reports issued between April 1, 2009 and April 30, 2010 identified no reports that “...uncovered a terrorist threat, nor could [subcommittee investigators] identify a contribution…to disrupt an active terrorist plot.” --- Of the 386 unclassified reports reviewed during this investigation, only 94 were found to relate “in some way” to potential terrorist activity, or the activities of a known or suspected terrorist. Of those 94 reports, the usefulness of those reports were deemed as “questionable.”
DHS intelligence reporters overstepped legal boundaries, including reporting on First Amendment-protected activities lacking a nexus to violence or criminality, andreporting on or improperly characterizing political, religious or ideological speech that is not explicitly violent or criminal. --- Additionally, the subcommittee found false and misleading information about the alleged “anti-government, anti-Semitic and pro-Constitutional connections” of Jared Loughner in the shooting of Arizona Representative Gabrielle Giffords and 18 others. The subcommittee found that Loughner never had any such connections. Lastly, the subcommittee found that the very controversial 2009 Missouri Information Analysis Center Report, more commonly known as the MIAC Militia Report, was based on inaccurate and misleading information.
The DHS officials who filed useless, problematic or even “potentially illegal” reports generally faced no sanction for their actions. In fact, the subcommittee investigation was able to identify only one case in which an official with a history of serious reporting issues faced any consequences for his mistakes – he was required to attend an extra week of reporting training. The Department of Homeland Security lacked accountability for the federal funds budgeted,
************************************************* even to the point of lying about the existence of some fusion centers; **************************************************
*********************************************** The Department of Homeland Security leaders deliberately hid their internal assessment reports from congressional oversight, first denying that any reports even existed, then disputed sharing their findings with congressional investigators before ultimately providing committee investigators with the reports initially requested. **************************************************
The Federal Emergency Management (FEMA), a component of DHS, distributed hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to support state and local fusion centers yet could provide no accountability on how the funds were spent. The subcommittee investigation found that the total amount of federal dollars spent on fusion center activities from 2003 to 2011 ranged from $289 million to $1.4 billion. Much of the money was apparently used for surveillance equipment well outside the scope and intent of the analytical activity of the fusion centers.
Based on this investigative report alone, it is apparent that the Department of Homeland Security is mismanaged at the highest levels to the point of threatening the civil liberties of every American citizen while failing to uncover any domestic terror threat or plot.
[emphasis mine - B]
|
|
| | | 556 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Thu, Oct 11, 2012, 17:17
|
What a surprise--the boondoggle of Homeland Security combined with "threat levels" and fear-driven "security" turns out to be a waste.
Similarly, flying is not any safer despite our having to take our shoes off and getting groped. Who knew?
|
|
| | | 557 | Boldwin
ID: 589301022 Thu, Oct 11, 2012, 17:33
|
Can you imagine what is going on when they feel free to deny that a certain fusion center even exists? That's getting pretty dang independent of oversight.
|
|
| | | 558 | Boldwin
ID: 48102099 Fri, Nov 09, 2012, 19:01
|
Socialism: ideas so good, they have to be mandatory.
|
|
| | | 559 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167 Fri, Nov 09, 2012, 19:56
|
and what ideas are those Boldwin?
|
|
| | | 560 | Boldwin
ID: 5010412318 Fri, Nov 23, 2012, 23:16
|
Obama orders 2,700 of these. Coming to your town.
|
|
| | | 561 | Tree
ID: 57842011 Sat, Nov 24, 2012, 08:59
|
the radical right has been freaking out about this for quite some time now.
(btw, it was the army ordering these vehicles, at least based on the small bit of information i could find about this non issue.
|
|
| | | 562 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167 Tue, Nov 27, 2012, 12:16
|
Big brother lost this tool under IL "law"
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear an appeal of a controversial Illinois law prohibiting people from recording police officers on the job.
By passing on the issue, the justices left in place a federal appeals court ruling that found that the state's anti-eavesdropping law violates free-speech rights when used against people who audiotape police officers.
|
|
| | | 563 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169 Tue, Nov 27, 2012, 12:24
|
Good news.
|
|
| | |
| | | 565 | Tree
ID: 110112918 Thu, Nov 29, 2012, 19:11
|
Home sweet home.
1. it's an old news piece, from 2011. 2. it starts off with some glaring misinformation, so i stopped reading after Infowars.com has received a document originating from color=gold>Halliburton subsidiary KBR...
Halliburton sold off KBR 4 1/2 years before that article was posted.
|
|
| | | 566 | Boldwin
ID: 5410562923 Fri, Nov 30, 2012, 04:45
|
Big freakin' whoop. KBR runs military base contracting for secret and public acknowleged military bases all over the world. The document doesn't mention Haliburton so what have you disproved? Nuthin'.
|
|
| | | 567 | Boldwin
ID: 5410562923 Fri, Nov 30, 2012, 04:52
|
And predictably you can be sure that the same people who have been turning themselves inside out in pretentious grief and shame over internment of Japanese-Americans in WWII don't even bat an eyelash when they put out ads for civilian internment specialists.
|
|
| | | 569 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169 Fri, Nov 30, 2012, 11:37
|
Once again the wacky Right takes disaster preparation (which should be a good thing) and futurecasts it through their Karl Marx ("Everything is political" glasses.
The fact that some of theses plans they are hyperventilating over are sometimes decades old in their origins seems not to have stopped them. Because you just know Barack Obama is planning the demise of the white male.
Ironically, many of these plans were initially developed as part of the Red Scare.
|
|
| | | 570 | Boldwin
ID: 5410562923 Fri, Nov 30, 2012, 12:14
|
I am well aware this goes all the way back to Garden Plot and Cable Splice and at least as far back as Ollie North. They didn't have the guards hired and the toilet paper ordered until now.
|
|
| | | 572 | Tree
ID: 431073013 Fri, Nov 30, 2012, 14:07
|
Big freakin' whoop.
if a news article can't get the simple details right, how can it be trusted to get the more complex issues right?
|
|
| | | 573 | Boldwin
ID: 54115211 Sat, Dec 01, 2012, 03:16
|
They just ran a PDF of a KBR request for bids.
That you are waving your arms to distract from such a straightforward issue is sick. Even Nancy Pelosi and Rachel Maddow cringe at this fact of life and work against it.
|
|
| | |
| | | 575 | Boldwin
ID: 14114493 Sun, Dec 09, 2012, 12:09
|
The uncontested absurdities of today are the accepted slogans of tomorrow. They come to be accepted by degrees, by precedent, by implication, by erosion, by default, by dint of constant pressure on one side and constant retreat on the other - until the day when they are suddenly declared to be the country's official ideology. ~ Ayn Rand
|
|
| | | 576 | Mith
ID: 18451815 Sun, Dec 09, 2012, 12:18
|
Agreed!.
Ever notice there are no black characters in The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged?
|
|
| | | 577 | Boldwin
ID: 1511411012 Mon, Dec 10, 2012, 13:48
|
the Dutch capital may lose its reputation for tolerance over plans to dispatch nuisance neighbours to “scum villages” made from shipping containers.
The mayor, Eberhard van der Laan, insists his controversial new £810,000 policy to tackle antisocial behaviour is to protect victims of abuse and homophobia from harassment.
The camps where antisocial tenants will be rehoused for three to six months have been called “scum villages” because the policy echoes proposals from Geert Wilders, the far-right populist, who last year demanded that “repeat offenders” be “sent to a village for scum”.
But Bartho Boer, a spokesman for the mayor, denies that the plans are illiberal. “We want to defend the liberal values of Amsterdam,” he says. “We want everyone to be who he and she is – whether they are gay and lesbian or stand up to violence and are then victims of harassment. We as a society want to defend them.” The last time a self declared “socialist” tried this kind of idea in Europe there were terrible consequences[1]. The echos of those camps, also designed to lock up “asocials,” are entirely ignored by the left leaning Guardian. Furthermore the self-declared “left wing” and “socialist” Daily Mirror newspaper runs an opinion piece where their columnist, Carole Malone, can barely contain her excitment at the idea:Dam good suggestion
[...] only when families have changed their ways will they be eligible for rehousing.And, as attractive as that sounds, it could never happen here [in the UK] because the human rights lobby would go ape.
And nuisance families, who frequently wreck decent people’s lives, bank on that. Which is why they know they can do whatever the hell they like as they’ll never have to face the consequences.
And while scum villages might sound harsh, I’m willing to bet that within six months nuisance families won’t exist in Amsterdam. Hammering home the fact that the left wing is clearly being used to construct a terrifying new world in Europe often frustrates the debate but I believe it is essential. In my opinion neither the left wing nor the right wing provide any reasonable responses to many of the obvious dangers emerging on our collective horizon. However most of the so-called left seem almost blind to many of the problems they are bringing directly to our doorstep. It really doesn't matter which side ostensibly starts these Hitlerian plans into action. It is just the elites using manufactured crises to do what they wanted to do anyway and they'll use whichever side they need to atm. It doesn't matter if Obama or Ollie North is furthering the plan.
|
|
| | | 578 | Boldwin
ID: 3211181118 Tue, Dec 11, 2012, 21:05
|
Every drone strike known to man. If you twitter I think it's a 'must follow'.
https://twitter.com/dronestream
|
|
| | | 579 | Boldwin
ID: 011322421 Mon, Dec 24, 2012, 23:59
|
In the last month I know two cases, and I am forgetting another one lately, where the cops stopped a perfectly peaceful person [non-relatives] and accused them of assaulting a police officer for 'flinching' as they were being handcuffed. It's like they all just watched the training tape on embellishing their ticket writing.
My family is shelling out nearly a thousand dollars to help cover the lawyer fees to keep this off their records. And that's just to suppliment what those people are covering.
Just assume every police stop is a potential disasterous attack on your person and very very slowly do exactly what they say, and say as little as possible.
|
|
| | |
| | | 581 | Boldwin
ID: 011322421 Tue, Dec 25, 2012, 00:50
|
|
|
| | |
| | |
| | | 584 | Boldwin
ID: 911502615 Wed, Dec 26, 2012, 17:11
|
Federal regulators are proposing that new automobiles sold in the United States after September 2014 come equipped with black boxes, so-called “event data recorders” that chronicle everything from how fast a vehicle was traveling, the number of passengers and even a car’s location.
If you don't want to find a ticket in your mailbox for that moment you went over the speed limit or didn't buckle up. If you don't want your car insurance costs to be manipulated by some glitchy unblinking government computer, if you don't want to be tracked everywhere you go and be associated with every crime that ever happened near you path, complain here before it's too late.
|
|
| | | 585 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167 Wed, Dec 26, 2012, 17:26
|
The Govt does not monitor aviation black boxes, and they wouldnt be monitoring these either. They are intended, to gather data relative to accidents. (psssst, more than a few cars have had them in place, since circa 1999. Just FYI)
|
|
| | |
| | | 587 | Khahan
ID: 54138190 Wed, Dec 26, 2012, 18:21
|
the extreme's boldwin are posting will not happen from the black box. No ticket can mysteriously show up because of black box data recording. They aren't used that way.
However, in the case of an accident they CAN be subpeona'd. The data CAN be used against you. And it can also be used for you. It can be presented to fight traffic tickets. Of course the tough part for the common man is getting that information.
But these boxes are already in many/most cars made. Its nothing new.
And I'm not sure you expect the insurance industry would get their hands on this information.
|
|
| | | 588 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167 Wed, Dec 26, 2012, 18:25
|
Progressive already has a device they have you install, so they can monitor your driving habits.
|
|
| | | 589 | Boldwin
ID: 911502615 Wed, Dec 26, 2012, 20:21
|
Which they claim can save you money, but that sword cuts both ways. Will they reward you commensurate with what they save? Will they charge the apparently less favorable client fairly? Or at all?
Even if the all inclusive smothering intrusiveness of it were tolerable.
It assaults my sensibilities that some would welcome Saurons eye upon them every single step of the way.
|
|
| | | 590 | Boldwin
ID: 911502615 Wed, Dec 26, 2012, 20:33
|
Khahan
Good to know. For a second I worried that you couldn't trust our surveillance society with exploitable tools at their disposal.
aren't used that way...will not happen
Good thing because they are already planning on hooking EVERYTHING up to big brother and I'd hate to think he would take a look.
Highways, buildings, farms, satellites, solar panels, cars, milk cartons, cows…everything. Drop of water...float an RFID flake on it.
Gentlemen don't read other people's mail so we can count on the propriety of Big Brother certainly.
|
|
| | | 591 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167 Wed, Dec 26, 2012, 20:42
|
rampant paranoia Boldwin, serves only for you to give the rest of us, something to point at and laugh.
|
|
| | | 592 | Boldwin
ID: 911502615 Wed, Dec 26, 2012, 22:30
|
What paranoia? I was just pointing out the very very very reassuring post. Now I'm happy.
|
|
| | | 593 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169 Wed, Dec 26, 2012, 22:37
|
But these boxes are already in many/most cars made
That's exactly right. The only difference is now the government is thinking about requiring them, which is enough to set off the far right.
Essentially, some foreign-made cars would have to be fitted for the boxes. That's it. So for many on the Right, surveillance done by private companies is fine, but private company surveillance mandated by a government headed by a Democratic President--not so much.
|
|
| | | 594 | Boldwin
ID: 911502615 Thu, Dec 27, 2012, 06:40
|
So for many on the Right, surveillance done by private companies is fine - PD
You know damn well this isn't true.
|
|
| | | 595 | Boldwin
ID: 911502615 Thu, Dec 27, 2012, 06:44
|
This is the exact same argument democrats are attempting with gun grabbing.
"Well we know you've already prostituted your beliefs by allowing gun restrictions of guns painted black...now we are just talking how easily you can be bought the rest of the way"
|
|
| | | 597 | Boldwin
ID: 321121290 Sat, Dec 29, 2012, 06:59
|
Trapwire?“With nothing more than a hat, some infrared LEDs, some wiring and a 9 Volt battery,” it’s a piece of cake to render oneself completely invisible. By rigging a DIY system of small lights affixed to a baseball cap, the video claims you can create a device that “guarantees complete anonymity to cameras while appearing perfectly normal to the rest of the world.” A world in which the USA needs a Russian open media source to help it remain free and slightly less Orwellian, is surpassingly strange, yet there it is.
|
|
| | | 598 | Boldwin
ID: 321121290 Sat, Dec 29, 2012, 08:47
|
|
|
| | | 599 | Pancho Villa
ID: 59645318 Sat, Dec 29, 2012, 11:52
|
I'm wondering why the video in #598 is posted in the Big Brother's Toolbox thread instead of the Noteworthy Tech Developments thread, although the technology is
hardly new.
Terrahawk, LLC is the designer of the mobile units already in use for Mexico-U.S. border control in Texas, and has quick set-up time and maneuverability. It is equipped with the latest in high-tech surveillance gadgetry. It is slated for order across the United States. This type of prison-style tower system has in fact been recorded already in places such as mall parking lots and sporting events.
Granted, the term "prison-style tower system" doesn't sit well, but the reality is that video surveillance is a law enforcement tool that has facilitated prosecution of criminals from shoplifting to home invasions to drive-by shootings to hit and run occurrences.
I suppose if one is committed to the thought that the government is planning to round up citizens into FEMA camps, or herd them into urban nightmares based on Agenda 21 fantasies, then these paranoia-based mental deficiencies would naturally override the thought that law enforcement's goal is to make citizens safer. Of course, video technology has even been used in cases when law enforcement has been abusive and/or broken laws.
There seems to be some disconnect here. We have a contingency of citizens who have personal arsenals in the remote case that society falls apart and they are vulnerable to armed gangs of criminals(or Muslim hordes!)going block to block with their own high capacity magazine assault weapons. It would seem these mobile surveillance towers would be a good early warning system in such a scenario.
Some people just wake up everyday looking for things that will make them feel like crap.
|
|
| | |
| | | 603 | Boldwin
ID: 1902939 Thu, Jan 03, 2013, 10:30
|
You all have an idea what I think on this, but try and reassure me. Why do government agencies even as innocuous sounding as The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) need 5 hollow-point bullets for every man woman and child in America?
Not target practice bullets, lethal hollow-point and more serious rounds. Bullets so lethal that the Geneva Convention does not allow their use on the battle field in time of war.
I won't be reassured if you tell me not every order will actually be filled.
The most innocent explanation I can come up with, [and it's far far from reassuring to me], is they foresaw the run on guns and ammo after their gun-grabbing intentions got obvious, and tried to order up all the capacity before American citizens could get their orders in.
What's your alternate innocent explanation? What allows you to ignore this other than blind faith and willful obliviousness?
|
|
| | | 605 | Boldwin
ID: 1902939 Thu, Jan 03, 2013, 10:40
|
For the record I really am assuming the The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration isn't actually planning on implementing James Cameron and Professor Richard Parncutt's plan to shoot AGW 'Deniers.
|
|
| | | 606 | Mith
ID: 4310402110 Thu, Jan 03, 2013, 10:51
|
HR5736 appears to be a pet effort on the part of Mac Thornberry (R-TX).
He introduced it in the previous congress in 2010 as HR5729 with 23 bipartisan cosponsors, only to see it die in committee.
The 2012 version (which was only able to attract 2 cosponsors) will also most likely die in committee. Govtrack gives it a 5% chance to get out of committee and a 1% chance to pass. My guess is those chances get ratcheted down as soon as the website updates for the new congress.
So it doesn't appear this tool is going to make it into the kit.
If anyone is interested in the actual text of the bill, here you go.
If anyone is interested in Thornberry's case for the bill, here you go.
|
|
| | | 607 | Boldwin
ID: 1902939 Thu, Jan 03, 2013, 10:59
|
Very very interesting. I have never noticed the feature of a site doing a headcount of support on bills still in committee for the public! Outstanding! Do they do this for all bills in committee?
|
|
| | | 608 | Boldwin
ID: 1902939 Thu, Jan 03, 2013, 11:02
|
Also, to avoid confusion, MITH is defusing the 'Ministry of Truth' bill discussed in #600.
...he is not talking about the 5 hollow-point bullets for every citizen purchase in #603
|
|
| | | 613 | Boldwin
ID: 51036421 Sat, Jan 05, 2013, 01:21
|
"According to Politico, "Republican insiders" cite my stand against #NDAA indefinite detention as reason for committee purge." - Congressman Ammash's tweet
Count Boehner as a tool and nothing but a tool.
|
|
| | | 614 | Boldwin
ID: 13025520 Sun, Jan 06, 2013, 08:05
|
The “Perfect Citizen” program was first revealed to the American public by a story published in the Wall Street Journal on July 8, 2010.
The program was supposedly just in the planning stages at that point and would include sensors in private computer networks which would only be activated by unusual activity and wouldn’t constitute persistent monitoring.
However, when the WSJ gained access to internal emails from Raytheon Corp., the contractor awarded the secret contract worth up to $100 million according to sources familiar with Perfect Citizen (though the documents seem to indicate the contract is worth up to around $90 million), it was revealed that Raytheon didn’t see it as such.
One email stated, “Perfect Citizen is Big Brother.” Unsurprisingly, Raytheon refused to comment on the find. --- “The documents obtained by EPIC suggest that the program is operational,” stated EPIC.
Indeed, the documents seem to show a fully operational program even with the great deal of redaction in critical areas.
|
|
| | | 615 | Boldwin
ID: 1054104 Thu, Jan 10, 2013, 12:16
|
Centralized anything.
Education controllers play 'Hide the Bill Ayers':Though 46 states will spend an estimated $5 to $12 billion to implement a new set of national education standards called the Common Core, public officials are arranging these standards in hundreds of closed-door meetings. Democracy? Open meeting laws?
|
|
| | | 616 | Boldwin
ID: 1054104 Thu, Jan 10, 2013, 12:19
|
Source.
The kids are our future. Why would we want any say in it?
|
|
| | | 617 | Boldwin
ID: 1054104 Thu, Jan 10, 2013, 12:41
|
Eisenhower: "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
"We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together." To which end crony-capitalism is inimical.The United States, he continues, had been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. At that time, the U.S. was annually spending more on military security "than the net income of all United States corporations." An invisible effect of Obama's military pullouts and his crony-capitalist approach to government means that the Rand corporations, Raytheons and Wackenhuts have repurposed their developments on nation control from countries like Iraq and are now targeting the American citizen and the future of America.
|
|
| | | 618 | Boldwin
ID: 540371121 Sat, Jan 12, 2013, 00:28
|
In Oregon, they send you to jail for collecting rainwater on your own property. Thirty days and a $1500 fine.
Hard to figure out which day America died. But it's already dead.
|
|
| | | 619 | biliruben
ID: 41431323 Sat, Jan 12, 2013, 05:22
|
13 million gallons. He diverted tributaries, and had been warned for a decade. In the southwest that will get you shot.
|
|
| | | 620 | Tree
ID: 1910562515 Sat, Jan 12, 2013, 08:33
|
Hard to figure out which day America died. But it's already dead.
could you be more dramatic, Sarah Bernhardt?
shockingly, we have laws in this country. i know you have no respect for them, but most of us do.
|
|
| | | 621 | Boldwin
ID: 280241211 Sat, Jan 12, 2013, 12:52
|
On his own property.
|
|
| | | 622 | sarge33rd
ID: 4609710 Sat, Jan 12, 2013, 12:57
|
doesnt matter. You arent allowed to dam up, divert or otherwise preclude, water from going downstream.
|
|
| | | 623 | Pancho Villa
ID: 59645318 Sat, Jan 12, 2013, 13:51
|
The water is not his property. If every landowner on the Big Butte River built dams for their own personal reservoirs holding 13 million gallons of water, there would be anarchy.
Oregon law permits collecting rainwater. Once it hits the ground, it's no longer rainwater, it's a precious resource that falls within the public domain subject to regulation. As we've already seen in this area with the Klamath bucket brigade, water rights are a complicated and controversial issue that would only be exacerbated by landowners up stream deciding they can build dams and create personal reservoirs as they please.
A better example of private property overreach is the ridiculous law that fines homeowners for front yard gardens.
|
|
| | | 624 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169 Sat, Jan 12, 2013, 13:54
|
I don't know that the claim about diverting the river is altogether accurate, but the guy was clearly knowingly breaking the law, for a long, long time.
This article, I think, tries too hard to be even handed but it is pretty clear the guy knew he was wrong but didn't care.
|
|
| | |
| | | 629 | PV In GJ
ID: 1010151016 Sun, Jan 20, 2013, 19:51
|
That article is from Jan 9. The announcement created such an uproar, especially just prior to Sundance, that DABC has reconsidered.
|
|
| | | 630 | Boldwin
ID: 130112618 Sat, Jan 26, 2013, 19:17
|
Powerline:[AP article being discussed] Most of the jobs will never return, and millions more are likely to vanish as well, say experts who study the labor market. What’s more, these jobs aren’t just being lost to China and other developing countries, and they aren’t just factory work. Increasingly, jobs are disappearing in the service sector, home to two-thirds of all workers.
They’re being obliterated by technology.
Year after year, the software that runs computers and an array of other machines and devices becomes more sophisticated and powerful and capable of doing more efficiently tasks that humans have always done. For decades, science fiction warned of a future when we would be architects of our own obsolescence, replaced by our machines; an Associated Press analysis finds that the future has arrived.
For more than three decades, technology has reduced the number of jobs in manufacturing. Robots and other machines controlled by computer programs work faster and make fewer mistakes than humans. Now, that same efficiency is being unleashed in the service economy, which employs more than two-thirds of the workforce in developed countries. Technology is eliminating jobs in office buildings, retail establishments and other businesses consumers deal with every day. The AP is aware, of course, that blaming unemployment on technology has a long and disreputable history. But this time, they tell us, it is different: Technological innovations have been throwing people out of jobs for centuries. But they eventually created more work, and greater wealth, than they destroyed. Ford, the author and software engineer, thinks there is reason to believe that this time will be different. He sees virtually no end to the inroads of computers into the workplace. Eventually, he says, software will threaten the livelihoods of doctors, lawyers and other highly skilled professionals.
Many economists are encouraged by history and think the gains eventually will outweigh the losses. But even they have doubts.
“What’s different this time is that digital technologies show up in every corner of the economy,” says McAfee, a self-described “digital optimist.” “Your tablet (computer) is just two or three years old, and it’s already taken over our lives.”
Peter Lindert, an economist at the University of California, Davis, says the computer is more destructive than innovations in the Industrial Revolution because the pace at which it is upending industries makes it hard for people to adapt. But if the cycle of destruction and creation is speeding up, shouldn’t that mean that new jobs are coming along faster than ever? Or is the problem that the cycle of destruction and creation has been interrupted, so that jobs (and wealth) are being destroyed, but not many jobs, and not much wealth, are being created? ... there is more going on than mere increases in efficiency.
The AP stresses that the job loss phenomenon is global, pointing to unprecedented levels of unemployment in the European Union. But some would say the EU is poorly governed, just as the United States is. ... normaliz[ing] selected countries’ unemployment data to U.S. definitions... ... This comparison shows that the United States is doing quite poorly, even compared with countries that historically have had higher unemployment rates than ours. ... It seems obvious that in the U.S., the game-changer is metastasizing government spending, much of it wasteful, combined with trillions of dollars in government borrowing and oppressive regulation, which together have suppressed the wealth creation and investment that normally would have created millions of new jobs, along with trillions in new economic output.
In other words, the current recovery is uniquely awful because we have never before had such a left-wing federal government. It will be interesting to see whether the Associated Press gets around to this explanation in its three-part series. Shhhhhhh! Never tell the Malthusians in charge that the workers won't be needed for quite some time.
They have a solution for that.
|
|
| | | 631 | Boldwin
ID: 130112618 Sat, Jan 26, 2013, 19:18
|
Source
|
|
| | | 632 | Boldwin
ID: 45133619 Wed, Feb 06, 2013, 21:55
|
"Everybody must get droned!" #replacesongtitlewithdrone
- David Freddoso, Washington Examiner, Editorial Page Editor.
|
|
| | | 633 | Boldwin
ID: 28152622 Thu, Feb 07, 2013, 05:20
|
Every American has the right to know when their gov't believes it is allowed to kill them. My statement on DOJ memo: Here
“The Justice Department memo that was made public yesterday touches on a number of important issues, but it leaves many of the most important questions about the President’s lethal authorities unanswered. Questions like ‘how much evidence does the President need to decide that a particular American is part of a terrorist group?’, ‘does the President have to provide individual Americans with the opportunity to surrender?’ and ‘can the President order intelligence agencies or the military to kill an American who is inside the United States?’ need to be asked and answered in a way that is consistent with American laws and American values. This memo does not answer these questions.
I have not yet received an official response to the letter than I sent to Deputy National Security Advisor Brennan on this topic three weeks ago... - Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon
|
|
| | |
| | | 635 | biliruben
ID: 41431323 Sat, Feb 09, 2013, 09:15
|
Seattle has decided to shut down their drone program. Yay.
|
|
| | |
| | | 638 | Boldwin
ID: 511322113 Thu, Feb 21, 2013, 23:10
|
Power comes out of the control of monetary supply.
Secret of Oz
The clearest explanation I have ever run across about this paramount issue.
You cannot understand the course of history without understanding this information.
|
|
| | | 639 | biliruben
ID: 41431323 Thu, Feb 21, 2013, 23:58
|
It appears you should be expecting a fine of $250,000 from the FBI for this posting.
That's as far as I'm willing to go on the 2 hour odyssey.
|
|
| | |
| | | 641 | Boldwin
ID: 1317234 Sat, Feb 23, 2013, 10:51
|
For someone who doesn't like guns and bullets, he's stockpiling them and distributing them like he was planning to create Armageddon.
Combat rifles for Brookfield Zoo? Really? We need that? We need the extra expense of hollow point bullets to train zookeepers? We need blackhawk helicopters pinging blank rounds off buildings in one American city after another, while we are celebrating bringing the troops home? They managed to train the troops without doing that before.
At what point do people call their representative and ask WTF is going on?
|
|
| | | 642 | Pancho Villa
ID: 59645318 Sat, Feb 23, 2013, 11:11
|
Re #640
It's easy to gloss over a story like this when it's presented by full time conspiracy theorists like Wayne Madsen or Alex Jones, but there's a lot to ponder when you read the report from the local small town paper.
Friends and neighbors who knew Marshall had trouble believing he would have taken the life of his children. He was known as a good father, well-liked Little League coach, former pilot for Eastern and United Airlines and an easygoing guy with a good sense of humor.
“The actions don’t match the person we know,” said Merita Callaway, a county supervisor who lives four doors up the street from Marshall. She considered him a good friend. “I can’t tell you how many times we’ve had conversations over a cup of coffee together.”
“He was a wonderful man,” said Carolyn Greenwood, who is Marshall’s nextdoor neighbor and who has known him for more than 10 years. “I knew him long enough to know he was a regular guy. He was a good father, always there for his kids and a helpful neighbor.”
Additionally, it's always suspect when authorities are so quick to wrap up what would seem to be a complicated crime.
Calaveras County Sheriff Hewitt said the evidence doesn’t support anything other than a double-murder suicide.
“The investigation revealed there was no foul play involved in this crime,” Hewitt said. “All evidence and information at the scene confirmed this was indeed a double-murder suicide and there was no evidence to suggest there was an outside party who entered the house and committed a triple murder.”
I'm not sure how much experience the Calaveras County Sheriff's Department has in investigating double murder suicides by men who, by all accounts, appear to be good fathers, Little League coaches, and helpful neighbors, but in 2011, there was all of
one case of murder or non-negligent manslaughter in the county.
If ever there was an incident that screamed for an intensive investigation, this is it. What I find curious is how silent the right wing blogosphere is on this crime. I searched Drudge, Breitbart, Tea Party Patriots and others with nary a word of Phillip Marshall. I can only conclude that, because there's no real Obama connection, no Obama motivation to accuse him of ordering a hit like he was accused of in the death of Andrew Brietbart, these "watchdogs" are really just frauds. I've got to think this incident has a little more depth than this headline on Tea Party Patriots:
Hank Williams Jr compares Obama to Hitler
|
|
| | | 643 | Pancho Villa
ID: 59645318 Sat, Feb 23, 2013, 11:20
|
Thanks for the American Thinker post in #641. Searched their site for Phillip Marshall and it returned zero. Another fraud.
|
|
| | | 644 | Boldwin
ID: 1317234 Sat, Feb 23, 2013, 11:22
|
We on the right are kinda awash in assassinated members atm. Thanks for the help.
|
|
| | | 645 | Pancho Villa
ID: 59645318 Sat, Feb 23, 2013, 11:31
|
You on the right, like those on the left, aren't really interested in anything other than searching for items which support a pre-determined ideology.
Consequently, consensus is virtually impossible, even in the most obvious of situations.
|
|
| | | 646 | boldwin
ID: 581222411 Sun, Feb 24, 2013, 13:19
|
Dude, I started a thread called 'Follow the Trail of Dead Bodies' where your post belonged. I love that you posted it. I am only being reticent to comment on it hoping to not trigger the kneejerk rejection of it around here that my endorsement would bring.
|
|
| | | 647 | Boldwin
ID: 52137255 Mon, Feb 25, 2013, 11:39
|
Your DHS dollars hard at work
Tails I win, heads you lose. If you sign this, you are lying and I can take your stuff because you lied on a government form. Don't sign and I take your stuff because you wouldn't obey my order to sign....named her Buddy. It has state of the art electronics and a fairly new highly efficient propulsion system that the TechCrunch audience would be interested in.
Today was the day that Buddy was going to be delivered. That didn’t happen, because the Department of Homeland Security seized the boat.
Buddy has to clear customs, part of the DHS, since she was built in Canada.
My job was to show up and sign forms and then leave with Buddy (WA sales tax and registration fees come a week later).
DHS takes documents supplied by the builder and creates a government form that includes basic information about the boat, including the price.
The primary form, prepared by the government, had an error. The price was copied from the invoice, but DHS changed the currency from Canadian to U.S. dollars.
It has language at the bottom with serious sounding statements that the information is true and correct, and a signature block.
I pointed out the error and suggested that we simply change the currency from US $ to CAD $ so that is was correct. Or instead, amend the amount so that it was correct in U.S. dollars.
I thought this was important because I was signing it and swearing that the information, and specifically the price, was correct.
The DHS agent didn’t care about the error and told me to sign the form anyway. “It’s just paperwork, it doesn’t matter,” she said. I declined.
She called another agent and said simply “He won’t sign the form.” I asked to speak to that agent to give them a more complete picture of the situation. She wouldn’t allow that.
Then she seized the boat. As in, demanded that we get off the boat, demanded the keys and took physical control of it.
What struck me the most about the situation is how excited she got about seizing the boat. Like she was just itching for something like this to happen. This was a very happy day for her.
So now I have to hire a lawyer to try to figure all this out. And I will figure it out, eventually.
My point in writing this isn’t to whine. Like I said, this will get worked out one way or another.
No, it’s to highlight how screwed up our government bureaucracy has become.
A person with a gun and a government badge asked me to swear in writing that a lie was true today. And when I didn’t do what she wanted she simply took my boat and asked me to leave. - Former blogger of the famous TechCrunch Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Always
|
|
| | | 648 | Boldwin
ID: 3621851 Tue, Mar 05, 2013, 02:19
|
41% of democrats polled say the president should have the power to unilaterally kill whoever he wants to on US soil.
|
|
| | | 649 | Mith
ID: 29182720 Tue, Mar 05, 2013, 07:29
|
We all know how those numbers would differ if there was a Republican in the White House.
7 years ago you surely would have gotten north of 50% agreement from Republicans and probably less than 20% among Dems.
|
|
| | | 650 | Mith
ID: 29182720 Tue, Mar 05, 2013, 07:43
|
From 7 years ago: Newsweek Feb. 13, 2006 issue - In the latest twist in the debate over presidential powers, a Justice Department official suggested that in certain circumstances, the president might have the power to order the killing of terrorist suspects inside the United States. Steven Bradbury, acting head of the department's Office of Legal Counsel, went to a closed-door Senate intelligence committee meeting last week to defend President George W. Bush's surveillance program. During the briefing, said administration and Capitol Hill officials (who declined to be identified because the session was private), California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein asked Bradbury questions about the extent of presidential powers to fight Al Qaeda; could Bush, for instance, order the killing of a Qaeda suspect known to be on U.S. soil? Bradbury replied that he believed Bush could indeed do this, at least in certain circumstances.
|
|
| | |
| | | 652 | boikin
ID: 430211013 Tue, Mar 05, 2013, 09:58
|
re 650: So that makes it right? Obama does what Bush people thought was possible.
|
|
| | | 653 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169 Tue, Mar 05, 2013, 10:08
|
It doesn't make it right. I don't think that was the point. The point was that the GOP felt differently when it was a member of their party with his hand on the button.
Rights aren't as important as party for those partisans.
|
|
| | | 655 | Mith
ID: 4310402110 Tue, Mar 05, 2013, 10:28
|
No. Of course that wasn't the point. Yeesh.
|
|
| | |
| | | 657 | boikin
ID: 430211013 Tue, Mar 05, 2013, 11:15
|
maybe you should check the real Obama 3 thread around post 283, you will find me criticizing Obama for basically continuing the Bush Policy on Oil exploration. I guess that is not the same policy but I guess I could not criticize a Bush policy I did not know he had to authorize the execution of Americans without a trial. If I had known maybe I would have said something and since it seems like there are not posts criticizing Bush at the time, we will never know.
|
|
| | | 658 | Mith
ID: 4310402110 Tue, Mar 05, 2013, 11:51
|
I have no idea what offshore drilling policy has to do with this discussion.
For the record there are mountains of criticism of Bush's authoritarian anti-terrorism policies contained in this forum.
The point is that I doubt any of them were authored by Boikin. The extended point is that post 652 was really stupid.
|
|
| | | 659 | Frick
ID: 2193319 Tue, Mar 05, 2013, 13:08
|
So Hope and Change was nothing more than a campaign slogan?
I wasn't a fan of Bush's detainment without due process, but I can see where it might be necessary. Killing our own citizens seems like s step in the wrong direction, but again, I can see where it might be expedient. For the people who vilified Bush to claim that they are ok with this extension, simply because Bush opened the door. That makes them hypocrits and no different then the right IMO.
I don't think that is true of every poster here, just like I don't think that every right leaning person believes Obama is the devil. But, as I said in another thread, it does appear that the left has dramatically shifted their views now that "their" guy is in office. And yes, there has been some outcry, but nothing compared to the outcry that was leveled against Bush.
|
|
| | | 660 | Mith
ID: 4310402110 Tue, Mar 05, 2013, 13:25
|
For the people who vilified Bush to claim that they are ok with this extension, simply because Bush opened the door. That makes them hypocrits and no different then the right IMO.
I don't think that is true of every poster here...
Does it even apply to any poster here? Exactly who are you talking about, Frick?
it does appear that the left has dramatically shifted their views now that "their" guy is in office.
I agree people are fickle (see #649) though I'd say far more have likely changed their priorities rather than their actual opinions. By that I mean most people who disagreed with Bush's WOT policies also oppose Obama's continuation of some of them, but these days most of those people would rather talk about teaparty nutbags and GOP obstructionism.
|
|
| | | 661 | boikin
ID: 430211013 Tue, Mar 05, 2013, 14:47
|
Anyone know where can I find old Boikin posts criticizing those Bush policies?
That was answer to this question, Mith now as for actual authoritarian posts I don't actually remember but I am guessing you may or may not find any posts by me but you will also not find any supporting Bush's authoritarian positions either. So unless you want to stop guessing what people thought or said why don't you do some research before you jump to conclusions, then again a lot of the posters here do that way too much when judging other people.
|
|
| | | 662 | Mith
ID: 4310402110 Tue, Mar 05, 2013, 15:24
|
Boikin
You reactively accused me of hypocrisy in 652, charging that 650 was presented as an excuse for the memo regarding drone strikes on US soil.
In 656 I rebuffed the notion, noting that I have proven willing to criticize the current president on closely related topics.
I then suggested that the person who is calling me a hypocrite in this regard has not likely shown the same objectivity that I have here. And of course a suggestion (even a pointed one) is not a "conclusion".
Now regarding where my impressions of what other people think tend to come from, there's slightly less guesswork than you assume.
For example you sure went out of your way to defend, excuse and downplay the Bush Administration's authoritarian anti-terror policies in the "The Bush Administration as a military dictatorship" thread.
Skimming the discussion through the first 50 or so posts, your position seemed to be: ...sure he might have overreacted but that's what you should expect in a time of war.
|
|
| | | 663 | Mith
ID: 4310402110 Tue, Mar 05, 2013, 15:30
|
In short, you would have been well-served to heed your own "stop guessing what people thought" advice before you wrote #652.
|
|
| | | 664 | Seattle Zen
ID: 3603123 Tue, Mar 05, 2013, 16:09
|
If anything this horrible trend has shown, it is: once a Presidential power has been recognized, it's damn near impossible to get future Presidents to stop using it. So, debating, campaigning and protesting against new, expansive powers of vital importance.
|
|
| | | 665 | Mith
ID: 4310402110 Tue, Mar 05, 2013, 16:15
|
+1
|
|
| | | 666 | Frick
ID: 2193319 Tue, Mar 05, 2013, 16:42
|
I agree with 664.
Re: 660
There was very little coverage or outrage against the issue, here on the board or on the news. I think part of that is that the boards aren't as active in general, but that shouldn't affect the news coverage. But, I could have just missed it.
"I agree people are fickle (see #649) though I'd say far more have likely changed their priorities rather than their actual opinions. By that I mean most people who disagreed with Bush's WOT policies also oppose Obama's continuation of some of them, but these days most of those people would rather talk about teaparty nutbags and GOP obstructionism."
Can you see how someone could interpret the above statement to, when a Republican does it, boo/hiss. When a Democrat does it, let's talk about something else bad about the Republicans.
I agree that most of the left probably doesn't like the precedent, but that just makes 664 more important and rooting for "their team" a terrible attitude.
|
|
| | | 667 | Mith
ID: 29182720 Tue, Mar 05, 2013, 18:26
|
someone could interpret the above statement to, when a Republican does it, boo/hiss. When a Democrat does it, let's talk about something else
I hope they would interpret it that way since that's exactly what I meant.
The point is that most haven't changed their opinion on the issue, they've just changed how they prioritize the issue now that it's their team mucking it up.
|
|
| | | 668 | Boldwin
ID: 31251917 Sat, Mar 09, 2013, 19:04
|
Big Brother wants every word we utter.
|
|
| | |
| | | 670 | Boldwin
ID: 31251917 Sat, Mar 09, 2013, 21:28
|
First imam invited to lead prayer in congress, lauded on NPR, wined and dined by the NYT, lunch at the pentagon, father and son blown to smithereens by drones in separate drone attacks on restaurants.
Incoherent USA policies.
Why was it so hard to see them as enemies before? Why not just kill them and not the entire restaurant?
I'm not saying they didn't need to die. I am saying, get real. Get some common sense.
|
|
| | | 671 | sarge33rd
ID: 4609710 Sat, Mar 09, 2013, 21:46
|
I am saying, get real. Get some common sense.
You B, long ago surrendered any rights to make such a statement.
|
|
| | | 672 | Tree
ID: 3222128 Sun, Mar 10, 2013, 05:43
|
First imam invited to lead prayer in congress,
it's easy to peg your statements as misleading, because they are. if they're not outright lies, they're definitely incomplete and worded to get your point across, even if that wording changes what actually happened.
al-Aulaqi was the first imam to conduct a prayer service for the Congressional Muslim Staffer Association at the U.S. Capitol.[83][84] The prayers were for Muslim congressional staffers and officials for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). ( from wikipeda )
of course, this is not nearly quite the same thing as what you implied. even so, this happened during the Bush presidency.
is being honest THAT difficult for you?
|
|
| | | 673 | Boldwin
ID: 37321317 Wed, Apr 03, 2013, 18:21
|
Lying, everything the government tells you is entirely untrustworthy.Harvey Bailey, another well-known bank robber of the era knew the Barker gang well...he agreed with Karpis, observing that Ma Barker "couldn't plan breakfast", and was certainly no mastermind behind any gang activity. It is purported that Ma Barker's entire reputation as a criminal mastermind was concocted by Hoover to protect the FBI's public image after federal agents discovered they had killed a 62 year old mother. - wiki
|
|
| | | 674 | Boldwin
ID: 37321317 Wed, Apr 03, 2013, 18:26
|
Tree, Sarge
If finding out that people we are targeting for assassination in Pakistan restaurants...also have no trouble getting clearance to conduct their affairs inside the heart of our government...there is nothing so shocking that it would open your eyes.
|
|
| | | 675 | Boldwin
ID: 37321317 Wed, Apr 03, 2013, 18:28
|
I'd love to have been a fly on the wall when Huma Abedin read about that drone strike.
|
|
| | | 676 | Tree
ID: 17312318 Wed, Apr 03, 2013, 19:14
|
i really feel like the last 3 posts are from some crazy guy talking to himself on the subway, rehashing a conversation he may or may not have had 20 years prior.
|
|
| | | 677 | Boldwin
ID: 0331810 Tue, Apr 09, 2013, 01:00
|
You will no doubt begin seeing this striking photo everywhere. Even claiming it is capable of retrieving DNA samples and leaving behind RIFD chips.

I think one reason it is so striking is that it is what I would call an end-state spy drone. No further miniaturization would be necessary.
Snope's best guess is that it is just a CGI mockup for some DARPA wishlist, defense contractor proposal or think tank speculation.
My first guess was that it was about a generation or two past where they are right now, but then again whenever they do a retrospective on state-of-the-art spytech for a history channel documentary the tech is always at least two generations further than you would have guessed at the time.
I think one thing no one can deny is that this is exactly where we/they are headed.
|
|
| | | 678 | Boldwin
ID: 0331810 Tue, Apr 09, 2013, 01:15
|
Longer WP piece that appears to have been the basis for Snope's take on the subject.
|
|
| | | 679 | Boldwin
ID: 153271621 Wed, Apr 17, 2013, 05:45
|
SOP 303
The phone, cell phone and internet kill switch.There has been particular focus on government possession of any sort of 'kill switch' over cell networks and internet service since the embattled government of Hosni Mubarak shut down both in Egypt at the height of protests in 2011. --- In plain English, what AT&T responded with in the case of the San Francisco cell network shutdown is that a little-known rule, which the DHS initially denied even existed, was already in effect - and that wireless carriers simply obliged with city government in its request. - RT
|
|
| | | 680 | Boldwin
ID: 163511813 Thu, Apr 18, 2013, 18:03
|
George Soros...
DEAD
Most important question of 4/18/13...
Who was George Soros' apprentice???
|
|
| | |
| | | 682 | Tree
ID: 563131811 Thu, Apr 18, 2013, 18:24
|
George Soros...
DEAD
Most important question of 4/18/13...
i think the most important question of 4/18/13 is "What else, in addition to post 680, is Baldwin going to be wrong about today?"
well, at least on this forum. in real life, there's much more important things than you salivating over someone dying, when they aren't, in fact, dead.
|
|
| | | 683 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169 Thu, Apr 18, 2013, 18:28
|
Remember: Baldwin is apparently now reading the NY Post. There is almost nothing he now can't get wrong.
|
|
| | |
| | |
| | | 690 | Boldwin
ID: 184541216 Sun, May 12, 2013, 22:48
|
The last thing they want is to prevent illegal immigration, self-evidently. But they do want your biometrics so you can be tracked in all things, receive permissions and denials, and they'll use immigration as the excuse.
|
|
| | | 691 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169 Mon, May 13, 2013, 17:13
|
Finally, a real scandal.
An interesting sidelight will be to see which side the Far Right picks: The "MSM" or the Obama Administration.
My guess: They won't pick at all.
|
|
| | | 692 | Boldwin
ID: 594551321 Mon, May 13, 2013, 23:13
|
I don't know why that is more a 'real' scandal than all the other ones in this thread, but I'm agin it.
|
|
| | | 694 | Boldwin
ID: 494571610 Thu, May 16, 2013, 18:27
|
”All sick pathological people, in their desire to shake off a stifling lack of enthusiasm and a feeling of weakness, instinctively strive for the organization of a herd.” - Nietzsche, father of liberalism and author of Antichrist
He knew his followers.
|
|
| | | 695 | Seattle Zen
ID: 3310162612 Thu, May 16, 2013, 18:52
|
What was the next sentence, Baldy?
The ascetic priest senses this instinct and promotes it. Where there is a herd, it’s the instinct of weakness which has willed the herd and the cleverness of the priest which has organized it.
Sounds like he is talking about religion, not government, numbskull.
Sounds like he knew you, since he didn't have any "followers" and no one other than a few tin foil hats would say he was a "father of liberalism."
Yes, he was the author of The Antichrist, but scholars point out that the German title could also be translated as "The Antichristian". And that passage you quoted did not come from that book. Typical deceit not citing where it came from.
On the Geneality of Morals.
|
|
| | | 696 | Seattle Zen
ID: 3310162612 Thu, May 16, 2013, 18:54
|
On the Genealogy of Morals, actually.
|
|
| | | 697 | Boldwin
ID: 494571610 Thu, May 16, 2013, 18:56
|
Yeah, that explains why all the rugged individualists aren't in the liberal party.
|
|
| | |
| | | 699 | Boldwin
ID: 1849259 Sat, May 25, 2013, 16:22
|
The rise of a pre-eminent and unaccountable fourth branch of government.
The Agencythe vast majority of “laws” governing the United States are not passed by Congress but are issued as regulations, crafted largely by thousands of unnamed, unreachable bureaucrats. One study found that in 2007, Congress enacted 138 public laws, while federal agencies finalized 2,926 rules, including 61 major regulations.
This rulemaking comes with little accountability. It’s often impossible to know, absent a major scandal, whom to blame for rules that are abusive or nonsensical. Of course, agencies owe their creation and underlying legal authority to Congress, and Congress holds the purse strings. But Capitol Hill’s relatively small staff is incapable of exerting oversight on more than a small percentage of agency actions. And the threat of cutting funds is a blunt instrument to control a massive administrative state — like running a locomotive with an on/off switch.
The autonomy was magnified when the Supreme Court ruled in 1984 that agencies are entitled to heavy deference in their interpretations of laws. The court went even further this past week, ruling that agencies should get the same heavy deference in determining their own jurisdictions — a power that was previously believed to rest with Congress. In his dissent in Arlington v. FCC, Chief Justice John Roberts warned: “It would be a bit much to describe the result as ‘the very definition of tyranny,’ but the danger posed by the growing power of the administrative state cannot be dismissed.”
The judiciary, too, has seen its authority diminished by the rise of the fourth branch. Under Article III of the Constitution, citizens facing charges and fines are entitled to due process in our court system. As the number of federal regulations increased, however, Congress decided to relieve the judiciary of most regulatory cases and create administrative courts tied to individual agencies. The result is that a citizen is 10 times more likely to be tried by an agency than by an actual court. In a given year, federal judges conduct roughly 95,000 adjudicatory proceedings, including trials, while federal agencies complete more than 939,000.
These agency proceedings are often mockeries of due process, with one-sided presumptions and procedural rules favoring the agency. And agencies increasingly seem to chafe at being denied their judicial authority.
The rise of the fourth branch has occurred alongside an unprecedented increase in presidential powers — from the power to determine when to go to war to the power to decide when it’s reasonable to vaporize a U.S. citizen in a drone strike. In this new order, information is jealously guarded and transparency has declined sharply. That trend, in turn, has given the fourth branch even greater insularity and independence. When Congress tries to respond to cases of agency abuse, it often finds officials walled off by claims of expanding executive privilege.
Of course, federal agencies officially report to the White House under the umbrella of the executive branch. But in practice, the agencies have evolved into largely independent entities over which the president has very limited control. Only 1 percent of federal positions are filled by political appointees, as opposed to career officials, and on average appointees serve only two years. At an individual level, career officials are insulated from political pressure by civil service rules. There are also entire agencies — including the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Communications Commission — that are protected from White House interference.
Some agencies have gone so far as to refuse to comply with presidential orders. For example, in 1992 President George H.W. Bush ordered the U.S. Postal Service to withdraw a lawsuit against the Postal Rate Commission, and he threatened to sack members of the Postal Service’s Board of Governors who denied him. The courts ruled in favor of the independence of the agency.
It’s a small percentage of agency matters that rise to the level of presidential notice. The rest remain the sole concern of agency discretion.
In the new regulatory age, presidents and Congress can still change the government’s priorities, but the agencies effectively run the show based on their interpretations and discretion. The rise of this fourth branch represents perhaps the single greatest change in our system of government since the founding.
We cannot long protect liberty if our leaders continue to act like mere bystanders to the work of government.
|
|
| | | 700 | Boldwin
ID: 274342717 Mon, May 27, 2013, 22:12
|
McAfee and facebook censoring stories about:
Agenda21 movements of military vehicles some Monsanto and GMO protests death of seal team in Va exercise
Which makes those subjects ones I especially want to research.
|
|
| | | 701 | Mith
ID: 29182720 Tue, May 28, 2013, 07:17
|
I hear they are also censoring correspondences from family members of deposed royalty in Nigeria seeking to free up their wealth.
|
|
| | | 702 | Frick
ID: 432501512 Tue, May 28, 2013, 09:40
|
Re: 701
Thank you, that made the rough start to the week a little bit easier. Well played sir.
|
|
| | | 703 | Pancho Villa
ID: 59645318 Tue, May 28, 2013, 10:07
|
From the monumentally ridiculous link in #700
Facebook also was censoring posts critical of Monsanto and GMO’d crops featuring children in pictures!
On my Facebook news feed
June/1/2013 The invasion of Monsanto begins. Post on their wall and expose them. Post about how they lie, Infertility because of gmo foods, the NWO and the Illuminati. If you have anything else to say about them then do it. They have 18,000 fans while we have 167,000. Lets bring them down by spreading the news using their own propaganda page.
|
|
| | | 704 | Tree
ID: 39432289 Tue, May 28, 2013, 10:32
|
re 700 and 703 -
i have seen a fairly endless barrage of posts regarding Monsanto in my timeline.
i think when you have the combination of a victim fetish with an urgency for the End times, you get the kind of wildly paranoid posts that Baldwin tends to make.
|
|
| | | 705 | Mith
ID: 4310402110 Tue, May 28, 2013, 10:51
|
I've seen no shortage of anti-Monsanto links and a fair share of Agenda 21 nonsense over the past year at facebook as well.
Boldwin has either abandoned all pretense of personal dignity or is far less internet savvy than someone with well over a decade of daily heavy internet use should be if he can't figure out that it's the the shady looking advertisements all over the page you see (and cookies and other goodies don't see, I'm sure) at beforeitsnews.com that is sending up red flags to malware-sensitive platforms.
|
|
| | | 706 | Boldwin
ID: 57462820 Tue, May 28, 2013, 21:11
|
some Monsanto and GMO protests
Operative word, SOME. I state things pretty concisely. There is a reason for each word.
|
|
| | | 707 | Tree
ID: 564211423 Tue, May 28, 2013, 23:05
|
Operative word, SOME. I state things pretty concisely. There is a reason for each word.
what a cop out.
|
|
| | | 708 | Mith
ID: 29182720 Wed, May 29, 2013, 07:02
|
Its the dignity one.
|
|
| | | 709 | Tree
ID: 564211423 Wed, May 29, 2013, 10:35
|
There is a reason for each word.
the reason for the word "some" here is so that you could proclaim you being correct if only 2 out of 500,000 posts are deleted.
again, a cop-out.
|
|
| | |
| | | 711 | Boldwin
ID: 32532618 Thu, Jun 06, 2013, 19:39
|
For a government that doesn't believe in profiling, witness the amazing and power of the hunch.Terrorists don’t take away freedoms. Governments take away freedoms…and ours is doing a damn good job of it.
|
|
| | | 712 | Tree
ID: 651779 Fri, Jun 07, 2013, 10:17
|
"the hunch" is so amazing, he can't even be bothered to verify his quotes.
sorry, if you can't even properly attribute the quotes you lead off with, it speaks to your level of credibility.
|
|
| | | 714 | Boldwin
ID: 3955585 Sat, Jun 08, 2013, 07:47
|
When ultra-lib ex-Salon.com Glenn Greenwald and I agree on something...
Most congressmen weren't even allowed to know about this, most people in government who thot they were 'in the know' did not believe this was SOP, media has not been allowed to know about this or to start a public debate about it.
|
|
| | | 715 | Boldwin
ID: 3955585 Sat, Jun 08, 2013, 08:08
|
And here are the director of National Intelligence and the FBI director lying about it, denying warrantless non-specific, baseless domestic surveillance.
What oversight?
|
|
| | | 716 | Boldwin
ID: 3955585 Sat, Jun 08, 2013, 08:35
|
|
|
| | | 717 | Boldwin
ID: 3955585 Sat, Jun 08, 2013, 09:46
|
|
|
| | | 718 | Boldwin
ID: 31541109 Mon, Jun 10, 2013, 10:51
|
How easily we slide from unthinkable to accepting...
In about one month's time we've gone from lectures not to listen to those whispers that the government couldn't be trusted, that it was up to shady abuses of our rights, that those abuses tended to grow...
...to the developing meme that 'we've always been at war with Oceana'...we've always kinda suspected government was accessing our computers and our private accounts so just get over it, we implicitly gave up those claims to privacy when we gave government the go-ahead to protect us from terrorism.
It's not time to throw our hands up like we just don't care. 'It's time for that long overdue debate' about reaffirming in indelible ink, that 'penumbra of privacy rights' [that was so important we went into the baby butchery business just to preserve. If our privacy was all that important before...]detailing a vast government surveillance program code named PRISM. According to the leaked documents, the program allows the National Security Agency (NSA) back door access to data from the servers of several leading U.S. based Internet and software companies. The documents list companies such as Google, Facebook, Yahoo, Microsoft, AOL and Apple as some of the participants in the program. There have also been other reports indicating that the NSA is able to access real-time user data from as many as 50 separate American companies. Under the program, the NSA is able to collect information ranging from e-mails, chats, videos, photographs, VoIP calls and more. Most importantly is the fact that PRISM allows the NSA to obtain this data without having to make individual requests from the service providers or without having to obtain a court order. To say that this is a violation of the Fourth Amendment which forbids unreasonable searches and seizures would be a gross understatement. This is actually much more than that. This is a program designed specifically to serve as a Big Brother like control grid and to end privacy as we know it.
In some ways this is not really a new story. This is just confirmation of what many people involved in the alternative research community have known for years. Going as far back as the 1990s there were reports revealing how Microsoft provided the NSA with back door access to their Windows operating system. Google’s cozy relationship with the NSA has also been discussed off and on over the past decade. There have even been other whistleblowers that have come forward previously detailing a number of unconstitutional and unlawful abuses conducted by the agency. This includes revelations of how the NSA was spying on American service members stationed overseas. The only difference with this is that these newly leaked documents provide definitive details on just how wide reaching the NSA’s activities have become.
It is now painfully obvious that James Clapper the Director of National Intelligence when testifying before the Senate this past March blatantly lied when asked by Senator Ron Wyden if the NSA was involved in collecting data from the American people. Clapper flatly denied that the NSA was engaged in these types of domestic surveillance activities. What makes the situation such a joke is that the Obama regime is not focused on the fact that Clapper lied to the Senate which in of itself is unlawful. Instead they have been more focused on determining the source of the leak that exposed these broad abuses of power. This is probably not surprising considering that this is a regime that rewards corruption by promoting people involved in all sorts of questionable activity. ...now you tell us privacy is an outmoded concept? If the FF could have foreseen terrorism and the internet they would have wanted the constitution to 'grow' and shed these privacy rights?
By the time there is a government tendril attached to every last detail of our life will the individual whither away and 'the new man' spring up?
In a world already half full of pod people the response to the warning isn't necessarily encouraging.
|
|
| | | 719 | Boldwin
ID: 8514113 Tue, Jun 11, 2013, 04:14
|
I don't need this because I really don't communicate with people, but here is a really useful thing in this era...
Unsene
This is a pretty nice way to make 1984 work for their prying.
I will say that Big Brother isn't just looking for actually bad things. They are also looking for anyone trying to cover their tracks. They red flag you for paying with cash, for crying out loud, so becoming invisible is itself a risky proposition.
|
|
| | | 720 | biliruben
ID: 59551120 Tue, Jun 11, 2013, 09:37
|
I don't need this because I really don't communicate with people...
One of the most unintentionally true statements ever written.
|
|
| | | 721 | Boldwin
ID: 8514113 Tue, Jun 11, 2013, 10:09
|
Short of my buying a load of BS, how would you like to see me communicate, bili?
|
|
| | | 722 | Tree
ID: 9541110 Tue, Jun 11, 2013, 11:06
|
720 just made my day.
721 - how would you like to see me communicate
i think the point was that you don't communicate. at all. as evident by how far that flew over your head.
|
|
| | | 723 | Boldwin
ID: 365471111 Tue, Jun 11, 2013, 12:48
|
Reason.com re: WSJ piece: “The FISC has declined just 11 of the more than 33,900 surveillance requests made by the government in 33 years, the Wall Street Journal reported Sunday. That’s a rate of .03 percent, which raises questions about just how much judicial oversight is actually being provided.”
...there is no longer meaningful judicial review." - Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center
|
|
| | | 724 | Boldwin
ID: 365471111 Tue, Jun 11, 2013, 12:48
|
Want to see me and Tree mix it up, bili?
|
|
| | | 725 | Tree
ID: 9541110 Tue, Jun 11, 2013, 13:30
|
he wasn't talking about you and me. he was talking about you, and anyone else on this board.
when you say asinine things such as As all you voter fraud supporters, aiders and abetters..., you're not interested in communicating. instead, you're insulting and tossing out completely baseless accusations against your fellow posters, effectively ending any opportunity of actual conversation and communication.
|
|
| | | 726 | Mith
ID: 4310402110 Tue, Jun 11, 2013, 17:22
|
|
|
| | | 727 | Boldwin
ID: 365471111 Tue, Jun 11, 2013, 21:22
|
Very interesting graph, and I'd like to see names attached to dots...
...but let's not forget even the guy who wrote the Patriot Act says this isn't what they were intending to allow.
Excepting Feinstein and Lindsey Graham presumably, Schummer I bet is pleased, I'll have to look up how hard McCain is covering their behinds.
|
|
| | | 728 | Boldwin
ID: 365471111 Tue, Jun 11, 2013, 21:33
|
If you vote for government to be your mommy and daddy, don't be surprised when it monitors your Facebook activity. - Iowahawk
|
|
| | | 729 | Mith
ID: 4310402110 Thu, Jun 13, 2013, 17:06
|
For the lazy: names attached to the dots
Republicans: 211-Y 26-N Democrats: 68-Y 117-N
Yes an overwhelming majority of congressional Dems opposed the Patriot Act, just like they did under Bush, even when the current president is one of their own. Meanwhile, the GOP continued it's long-held status as the more authoritarian party, even with libertarianism more in vogue among American conservatives than ever before in my lifetime.
|
|
| | | 730 | sarge33rd
ID: 4609710 Thu, Jun 13, 2013, 20:05
|
Here is the REAL "big brothers tool box";
Indefinite Detention Of Americans Survives House Vote
"Republican opponents argued that such a move would just invite terrorists to come to the United States, citing the recent Boston bombings and the consulate attacks in Benghazi, Libya, as evidence that terrorists were determined to harm the U.S. They said that applying the Constitution on U.S. soil amounted to a free pass to people bent on trying to destroy the country."
Read that again...slowly. the GOP said that applying US Constitutional law, on US soil, weakens us. IOW..they just shat upon the constitution, and the black bags of "V for Vendetta", have been made a reality. TY GOP...the "Law and Order" party. My ass.
|
|
| | | 731 | Boldwin
ID: 28514135 Thu, Jun 13, 2013, 23:32
|
Sickening. At least Tea Party conservatives like Amash were fighting it.
|
|
| | |
| | | 733 | Mith
ID: 29182720 Fri, Jun 14, 2013, 01:52
|
There are actually 56 names on that list, which claims to be the 112th Tea Party caucus according to Michelle Bachmann. Of those 56 names - 49 voted for the extension of the Patriot Act, for a support rate of 88% - about the same rate of support for the Patriot Act as the greater GOP (89%), which you say is sickening.
You clearly have some misconceptions about the principles the Tea Party stands for.
Who would you say are your most reliable conservatives (your definition) from that list? Michelle Bachmann? Mike Pence? Allen West? Steve King? Todd Aikin? Louie Gohmert? Joe Wilson? Lamar Smith? They all voted for the Patriot Act extension.
I could just name the 7 who voted against it. But instead, here are the 49 who supported it:
Sandy Adams (FL-24) Robert Aderholt (AL-04) Todd Akin (MO-02) Rodney Alexander (LA-05) Michele Bachmann (MN-06) Joe Barton (TX-06) Gus Bilirakis (FL-09) Michael Burgess (TX-26) Dan Burton (IN-05) John Carter (TX-31) Bill Cassidy (LA-06) Howard Coble (NC-06) Mike Coffman (CO-06) Ander Crenshaw (FL-04) John Culberson (TX-07) Jeff Duncan (SC-03) Stephen Lee Fincher (TN-08) John Fleming (LA-04) Trent Franks (AZ-02) Phil Gingrey (GA-11) Louie Gohmert (TX-01) Vicky Hartzler (MO-04) Wally Herger (CA-02) Tim Huelskamp (KS-01) Lynn Jenkins (KS-02) Steve King (IA-05) Doug Lamborn (CO-05) Blaine Luetkemeyer (MO-09) David McKinley (WV-01) Gary Miller (CA-42) Mick Mulvaney (SC-05) Randy Neugebauer (TX-19) Rich Nugent (FL-05) Steve Pearce (NM-02) Mike Pence (IN-06) Ted Poe (TX-02) Tom Price (GA-06) Dennis Ross (FL-12) Edward Royce (CA-40) Steve Scalise (LA-01) Pete Sessions (TX-32) Adrian Smith (NE-03) Lamar Smith (TX-21) Cliff Stearns (FL-06) Tim Walberg (MI-07) Joe Walsh (IL-08) Allen West (FL-22) Lynn Westmoreland (GA-03) Joe Wilson (SC-02)
|
|
| | | 734 | Tree
ID: 564211423 Fri, Jun 14, 2013, 09:52
|
|
|
| | | 735 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169 Fri, Jun 14, 2013, 10:06
|
Outstanding posts, MITH. Worth of a blog post, at the very least.
|
|
| | | 736 | Boldwin
ID: 05581410 Fri, Jun 14, 2013, 11:59
|
You try voting against an act named The Patriot Act.
Yeah, very discouraging. I 'spose they'd say they were just voting for certain necessary provisions, but hopefully recent revelations of the 'security organs' being totally out of control and lying to their congressional overseers will change these votes.
--------------------------------------------------
Over the next three years, he learned just how all-consuming the NSA’s surveillance activities were, claiming “they are intent on making every conversation and every form of behaviour in the world known to them”.
|
|
| | | 737 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169 Fri, Jun 14, 2013, 12:04
|
Bwahahaha!
That cracking sound you all hear is the sound of the oxygen of reality hitting the Tea Party Nation.
"They must have been lied to!!! All of them! And they were confused by shiny words like 'Patriot!'"
Hahahaha!
|
|
| | | 738 | Boldwin
ID: 05581410 Fri, Jun 14, 2013, 13:05
|
1) Freedom shouldn't be a partisan issue.
2) You, PD have been minimizing the threat.
3) It is hard to insist on a muscular defense and vote against bills promising a muscular defense.
4) They have been reasonably careful to include language in these bills that would prevent abuse, and the FISA courts and the NSA have ignored that language.
5) Oversight committees have been diligent about questioning the NSA and the FBI and have been lied to.
6) Something needs to be done and done quickly before the public just accepts these abuses as a fait accompli...the very most unhelpful approach you could apply is to make it a partisan issue. Yes conservatives need to be even more strident in insisting on effective and respected privacy protections...and from their own party. Liberals need to act as if there was ever going to be another conservative president...tho with institutionalized and well protected voter fraud I can see why that would be difficult. Remember when you used to value free speech?
|
|
| | | 739 | Boldwin
ID: 05581410 Fri, Jun 14, 2013, 13:09
|
If you really believe Bush was a scary fascist do you really want him having access to every word you've ever uttered or ever will? Cause it's not like the Bush dynasty has run out of candidates.
|
|
| | | 740 | Mith
ID: 29182720 Fri, Jun 14, 2013, 13:11
|
From post 729:
an overwhelming majority of congressional Dems opposed the Patriot Act, just like they did under Bush
This is only partly true. A majority of House Dems supported the 2001 Patriot Act. Though the vast majority of the opposition (62 of the 66 votes against) was Democrats.
That changed by the 2006 reauthorization which passed the house thanks to only 13 Republican dissenting votes, despite Dems voting against 124-66.
The greater point remains, since at least the mid 20th century, the GOP has easily been and continues to be the far more authoritarian party.
Did anyone else notice a rather significant omission from Bachmann's list?
|
|
| | | 741 | biliruben
ID: 41431323 Fri, Jun 14, 2013, 13:12
|
Looks like the majority dems and been voting with their brains, not partisan at all.
Tea Partiers have a built-in excuse as to why they have avoided doing the same, I suppose.
|
|
| | | 742 | Mith
ID: 29182720 Fri, Jun 14, 2013, 13:14
|
Clearly "the base" does not distinguish themselves from the GOP's authoritarianism in any way.
|
|
| | | 743 | bibA
ID: 54522612 Fri, Jun 14, 2013, 13:58
|
If Dems vote against The Patriot act, it's because they want sharia law. If Tea Party members vote against it, it's because they know that it would be unpatriotic to vote against something called The Patriot Act.
|
|
| | | 744 | boikin
ID: 430211013 Fri, Jun 14, 2013, 14:16
|
wouldn't make more sense to let the Tea party off the hook and say yeah I was confused by the whole patriot act thing too and let them change their mind and vote against it?
|
|
| | | 745 | Tree
ID: 564211423 Fri, Jun 14, 2013, 18:51
|
post 743 is straight on. nice!
|
|
| | | 746 | Boldwin
ID: 256156 Sat, Jun 15, 2013, 07:26
|
You are going to need every ally you can muster to turn this around.
“We Had to Kill This Republic to Save It…”
This is the ultimate example of 'Beware of the military-industrial complex'.
Speak now or they will forever hold your piece.
|
|
| | | 747 | Boldwin
ID: 256156 Sat, Jun 15, 2013, 07:47
|
bibA thinks he jokes. There are a substantial number of leftists working consciously with muslims to destroy the West. It will be interesting and terrifying to see that reveal itself fully in wartime. I'm not even sure if a majority of democrats will be on America's side when it happens.
You get glimpses, lots of them. Diligent researchers should enjoy reading about the son of the leader of Somalia, operating here in the USA, covering for muslim rapists caught on security cameras in the act, and enjoying leftist support.
Everytime they build a monument to 9/11 leftists conspire with muslims to turn it into a victory celebration.
They say that the Flight 93 9/11 monument in the field at Harrisburg, PA
'just accidentally' happens to be the world's biggest qibla.
And we all remember how hard you fought to build a permanent victory mosque at 9/11 NYC.
|
|
| | | 748 | Mith
ID: 29182720 Sat, Jun 15, 2013, 09:56
|
Mecca is northeast from Shanksville?
Don't Muslims in the northeast US face east (or southeast) when they pray?
|
|
| | | 749 | Mith
ID: 29182720 Sat, Jun 15, 2013, 11:42
|
Wiki The vast majority of Muslim communities in North America face toward the northeast, following the great circle route. A minority faces towards the southeast according to traditional early Islamic methods including sighting the stars, sun, wind, etc.[14]
Most Qiblah-calculating programs (see list below) use the great circle method and place the Qiblah northeast from most points in North America.
|
|
| | | 750 | Boldwin
ID: 14538161 Sun, Jun 16, 2013, 02:38
|
The government artificially turning government critics into malicious websites in the eyes of security programs.
Hanging 'Visit this site, get a malicious toolkit attack.' on freedom loving websites.
[no you won't actually get an attack, tho I foresee the government going that route eventually]
|
|
| | | 751 | sarge33rd
ID: 45251611 Sun, Jun 16, 2013, 12:29
|
There are a substantial number of leftists working consciously with muslims to destroy the West.
What a worthless statement. Define "substantial number". Such a generalistic qualifier, leaves one with the out of denying that any quantifiable numeric, falls short of "substantial" and thus leaves the speaker free to claim they spoke truth. All while allowing the speaker, to spread fear, lies and hate.
I said it before, I'll say it again...I got $100, for the day we get an iggy button.
|
|
| | | 752 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169 Sun, Jun 16, 2013, 12:42
|
It isn't about the number, sarge. His worldview requires that "liberals" be actively trying to destroy his perceived country. It is why he is unwilling to differentiate between fact, and fiction masquerading as futurecasting.
On a board dedicated to fact-base discussions of the issues, this is annoying even on good days. Take it for what it is: Random fever-dream rantings of a far right who ceded actual rational discussions long ago to languish in the crack cocaine of wagons-circled, mean-spirited venting. There's really no good response to it, typically.
|
|
| | | 753 | Boldwin
ID: 50591616 Sun, Jun 16, 2013, 17:55
|
"your privacy is important to me," said the guy who's president only because of the release of 2 different sealed divorced proceedings. - IowaHawk, David Burge
|
|
| | | 754 | Tree
ID: 564211423 Sun, Jun 16, 2013, 18:10
|
i thot he was only president because of massive voter fraud...
|
|
| | |
| | | 756 | Boldwin
ID: 39562420 Mon, Jun 24, 2013, 21:07
|
|
|
| | | 757 | Boldwin
ID: 39562420 Mon, Jun 24, 2013, 21:12
|
i thot he was only president because of massive voter fraud...
He wouldn't have had the chance to win the presidency twice with illegal immigrants and multi-voters and the big city dead population and [illegal IRS supression of conservative advocacy groups the second time]...
...if he hadn't twice unethically gotten sealed divorce records exposed in earlier elections to lower office.
|
|
| | | 758 | Tree
ID: 32552418 Mon, Jun 24, 2013, 21:42
|
LMAO.
|
|
| | | 759 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169 Mon, Jun 24, 2013, 22:48
|
Like Coulter, most of the Right is now unknowingly satirizing themselves.
|
|
| | | 760 | sarge33rd
ID: 4609710 Tue, Jun 25, 2013, 01:27
|
about that IRS thing
The Internal Revenue Service targeted progressive groups applying for tax-exempt status in addition to conservative ones, according to IRS documents released by congressional Democrats on Monday.
The documents and an internal IRS report being sent to congressional committees reveal that the tax agency used terms that included "progressive" and "occupy" to flag progressive organizations for extra scrutiny before the 2012 elections.
The revelations greatly complicate the political scandal that has engulfed the IRS over the past few weeks. An inspector general report in mid-May revealed the tax agency had screened conservative groups with words like "tea party" in their name when considering applications for tax-exempt status. Lawmakers from both parties quickly denounced the creation of such "Be On The Lookout," or BOLO, lists. Republicans in particular argued the finding proved the IRS was trying to tip the scales of the election during the heat of the campaign.
dammit, there is that inconvenient truth thing again.
|
|
| | | 761 | Boldwin
ID: 215342423 Tue, Jun 25, 2013, 02:09
|
Weak spin belied by the ease liberal non-profits got exemptions, but enuff to keep the libs self-deluding and on the plantation.
|
|
| | | 762 | Boldwin
ID: 215342423 Tue, Jun 25, 2013, 02:57
|
See MITH post #123.
Interesting how long this stuff has been percolating and what it takes to wake the sleepwalking.
|
|
| | | 763 | Boldwin
ID: 215342423 Tue, Jun 25, 2013, 03:08
|
#244, that guy's proven right.
|
|
| | | 764 | Boldwin
ID: 505472513 Tue, Jun 25, 2013, 14:53
|
Yeah, but they persecuted liberal organizations too! NOT. A November 2010 version of the list obtained by National Review Online, however, suggests that while the list did contain the word “progressive,” screeners were in fact instructed to treat “progressive” groups differently from “tea party” groups. Whereas screeners were merely alerted that a designation of 501(c)(3) status “may not be appropriate” for applications containing the word ”progressive” – 501(c)(3) groups are prohibited from conducting any political activities – they were told to send those of tea-party groups off ”to Group 7822″ for further scrutiny.
That means the applications of progressive groups could be approved on the spot by line agents, while those of tea-party groups could not. Furthermore, the November 2010 list noted that tea-party cases were “currently being coordinated with EOT,” which stands for Exempt Organizations Technical, a group of tax lawyers in Washington, D.C. Those of progressive groups were not.
|
|
| | | 765 | sarge33rd
ID: 4609710 Tue, Jun 25, 2013, 15:50
|
lmao you keep trying to spread blatant lies and unsupported allegations, even in the face of contrary evidence.
lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala
^ that must be what you do, when you are typing lies on your keyboard.
|
|
| | | 766 | Frick
ID: 432501512 Tue, Jun 25, 2013, 15:59
|
I was't sure where to post this, as it applies to so many threads. I don't think I'll ever skim a Boldwin post again without thinking of this song.
Warning: NSFW language
|
|
| | | 767 | Boldwin
ID: 505472513 Tue, Jun 25, 2013, 16:14
|
They are 'stuxnetting you'...and smartgrid. The stazi never had it so good.Reuters documented last year that the U.S. and Israeli governments can remotely turn on a computer’s microphone:
Evidence suggest that the virus, dubbed Flame, may have been built on behalf of the same nation or nations that commissioned the Stuxnet worm.
The virus contains about 20 times as much code as Stuxnet...Flame can gather data files, remotely change settings on computers, turn on PC microphones to record conversations, take screen shots and log instant messaging chats.
Kaspersky Lab said Flame and Stuxnet appear to infect machines by exploiting the same flaw in the Windows operating system and that both viruses employ a similar way of spreading.
"The scary thing for me is: if this is what they were capable of five years ago, I can only think what they are developing now,” Mohan Koo, managing director of British-based Dtex Systems cyber security company.
From what we know the NSA has back door access into Apple, Microsoft, and Google. What kind of access we don’t know, but let us assume it is similar to what they did about 7 years ago to AT&T. They had a secret room at Fulsom St. in San Francisco and the AT&T engineers had no control and no access to a room full of NSA equipment that had direct access to everything AT&T could do.
Microsoft is the source of the operating system for Windows and Windows cell phones. Apple controls the OS for Macs, iPhones, and iPads. Google controls the Chrome OS, Chrome Browser, and Android cell phones. The companies regularly push operating system upgrades and security updates to users on a regular basis.
Imagine however that the NSA has access to these updates at the source and has the ability to alter these update in order to install some sort of spyware on your phone, tablet, or computer. The software could turn on your camera or microphone remotely, read all your private data, or erase everything and brick your phone or computer.
A high-level NSA insider confirmed to us that any computer's microphone can be remotely accessed.
Moreover – as documented by Microsoft, Ars Technica, CNET, the Register, Sydney Morning Herald, and many other sources – private parties can turn on your computer’s microphone and camera as well.
All sorts of programs are available to let you remotely commandeer a webcam, and many of them are free. Simple versions will just take photos or videos when they detect movement, but more complex software will send you an e-mail when the computer you’ve installed the program on is in use, so you can immediately login and control the webcam without the hassle of having to stare at an empty room until the person you’re stalking shows up.
The bottom line is that – as with your phone, OnStar type system or other car microphone, Xbox, and other digital recording devices – you shouldn’t say or do anything near your computer that you don’t want shared with the world.
After signing up with the German smart-meter firm Discovergy, the researchers detected that the company’s devices transmitted unencrypted data from the home devices back to the company’s servers over an insecure link. The researchers, Dario Carluccio and Stephan Brinkhaus, intercepted the supposedly confidential and sensitive information, and, based on the fingerprint of power usage, were able to tell not only whether or not the homeowners were home, away or even sleeping, but also what movie they were watching on TV.
Writing in Friday’s issue of the journal Science, the environmental scientist Jan Beyea foresees a world in which epidemiologists could harvest data on how people live from day to day — their use of electric blankets or microwave ovens, for example — and correlate such activities with the likelihood of developing certain health conditions. The meter data could serve as a check on information obtained from the questionnaires that are used in such studies, he said.
With data from thousands or millions of smart meters, researchers could design tools to measure how many times a day a refrigerator door was opened, relevant to dietary and obesity research, or sleep patterns, relevant to a wide range of health research, he wrote.
ZeroHedge's George Washington - NBC, Rueters, NYT, Microsoft, Ars Technica, CNET, the Register, Sydney Morning Herald, PC Magazine tech columnist John Dvorak,
|
|
| | | 768 | Tree
ID: 25412510 Tue, Jun 25, 2013, 16:17
|
God's Loophole is the best loophole of all.
|
|
| | | 769 | Boldwin
ID: 505472513 Tue, Jun 25, 2013, 16:54
|
|
|
| | | 770 | Frick
ID: 432501512 Tue, Jun 25, 2013, 17:20
|
There is a calculation that was performed by someone that shows that recording all call data in the US, would cost around $30M and take a 5,000 sq ft facility, much, much smaller than the facility that is being built in Utah.
What people are failing to realize is that while the NSA gets the metadata from carriers, like Verizon, they are more likely recording all internet data by tapping into the Tier 1 carriers like Level 3. I believe there are only a few Tier 1 carriers, so it isn't hard to think that the NSA has access to all traffic. That includes data and voice, since most voice traffic is converted to data to be sent long distances.
|
|
| | | 771 | Boldwin
ID: 505472513 Tue, Jun 25, 2013, 18:02
|
1) They have all signals recorded by satellite. This does not respect borders.
2) An high level NSA retiree harrassed the NSA about their blatant over-reach and illegality. When they built their interception of cable traffic, they built them in such locations that they naturally intercepted domestic calls, not in such a way as to intercept foreign calls only.
Research William Binney and Stellar Wind. Also Mark Klein.
For the record Dean Baquet, now the Washington bureau chief of The New York Times. As the new Washington bureau chief of The New York Times, Baquet now oversees the reporters who have broken most of the major stories involving the government surveillance program, often over objections from the government.
Note: So after the NY Times has the guts to report this important story, the man who was responsible for the censorship at the LA Times is transferred to the very position in the NY Times where he can now block future stories there.
|
|
| | | 772 | Boldwin
ID: 505472513 Tue, Jun 25, 2013, 18:14
|
Binney's NSA career culminated as Technical Leader for intelligence in 2001 - wikiHe explains that the agency could have installed its tapping gear at the nation’s cable landing stations—the more than two dozen sites on the periphery of the US where fiber-optic cables come ashore. If it had taken that route, the NSA would have been able to limit its eavesdropping to just international communications, which at the time was all that was allowed under US law. Instead it chose to put the wiretapping rooms at key junction points throughout the country—large, windowless buildings known as switches—thus gaining access to not just international communications but also to most of the domestic traffic flowing through the US. The network of intercept stations goes far beyond the single room in an AT&T building in San Francisco exposed by a whistle-blower in 2006. “I think there’s 10 to 20 of them,” Binney says. “That’s not just San Francisco; they have them in the middle of the country and also on the East Coast.”
|
|
| | | 773 | Boldwin
ID: 435462720 Fri, Jun 28, 2013, 07:05
|
Young Turks and a guy rocketing up my personal charts, Sam Seder.
|
|
| | | 774 | Mith
ID: 29182720 Fri, Jun 28, 2013, 13:23
|
1) They have all signals recorded by satellite.
For the record this statement is not true, whatever it might specifically intend. Frick is right about the simplicity of tapping fiber.
Look at how much more interested in all this the right is these days. Much better than 8 - 10 years back when they towed the line about having nothing to worry about if you aren't doing anything wrong.
|
|
| | | 775 | Frick
ID: 432501512 Fri, Jun 28, 2013, 13:35
|
They have all signals recorded by satellite.
It is possible to listen into a signal on a copper pair via induction. It is not possible to do that on a fiber line.
Are you saying that the US posses satellites that can process fiber signals from space? Or that satellites are recording everything on the airwaves and then sending back down?
Read some of the history of telecommunications switches and they are insanely complex. At one point AT&T and the NSA were hiring something like 90% of graduating mathemticians between them. There has long been an interesting relationship between the Telecommunication industries and governments.
|
|
| | | 776 | Boldwin
ID: 15522295 Sat, Jun 29, 2013, 06:22
|
1) They have all signals recorded by satellite.
For the record this statement is not true, whatever it might specifically intend. - MITH
Of course it is 100% true. They have recorded 100% of the electromagnetic radiation generated from the earth every day, whether it was domestic or international in origin, thus putting to bed any notion that the NSA [and CIA] don't have any domestic intelligence files.
They pick up the fiber traffic at the switching stations scattered throughout the country. As discussed earlier they should only have been allowed to intercept messages at the cable stations.
|
|
| | | 777 | Boldwin
ID: 15522295 Sat, Jun 29, 2013, 06:23
|
...Cable landing stations, where the undersea cable enters the country.
|
|
| | | 778 | Boldwin
ID: 55403011 Sun, Jun 30, 2013, 12:40
|
Here is one of my heroes [who has recently gone viral and the name 'Blogger Sam' took off to describe him] explaining trends:
I'm proud to have discovered him half a year ago before he was kool.
|
|
| | | 779 | Boldwin
ID: 29621113 Mon, Jul 01, 2013, 16:00
|
|
|
| | | 780 | Boldwin
ID: 15651722 Wed, Jul 17, 2013, 23:05
|
If they can't get it from the satellite or the fiber-optic cable, they just break into your house.Remember, if they can do that to spy on you, they can do that to plant evidence. Of course, neither agency is supposed to operate domestically, so there’s nothing to worry about here. - Instapundit Remember that the next time some ex-Acorn ex-felon working for the census asks you when your house is unoccupied. Yes, the form asks you, and it threatens you with penalties for lying about it.
|
|
| | | 781 | Seattle Zen
ID: 3603123 Tue, Aug 06, 2013, 23:50
|
Activists In DC Identify Long-Term Police Protest Infiltrator
This is awful, downright Nixonian.
Now, after months of piecing together evidence, attorneys Jeffrey Light and Sean Canavan working with United Students Against Sweatshop (USAS) have confirmed that under an assumed name, Metro police officer Nicole Rizzi has participated in USAS protests against companies doing business in Bangladesh who refuse to sign the Accord on Fire and Building Safety in Bangladesh following the death of as many as 1,129 workers in the Rana Plaza factory collapse.
USAS and its lawyers have numerous pieces of evidence placing Rizzi at protests under a pseudonym. District of Columbia Public Employee Information List records obtained by In These Times confirm that Rizzi has been on the DC Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) force since December of 2003.
USAS filed suit on Monday against the District of Columbia seeking an injunction to stop police from spying on the group’s activities.
|
|
| | | 782 | Perm Dude
ID: 41661813 Wed, Aug 28, 2013, 15:04
|
Turning every Muslim into a suspect.
My local paper ran this story (straight off the AP wire). The comments so far run strongly to the "its about time!" category. As in: "About damn time those towelheads started facing justice." So. Very. Sad.
|
|
| | | 783 | Boldwin
ID: 56453716 Wed, May 07, 2014, 17:57
|
Harry Reid's classic Orwellian Two Minutes of Hate:
On Wednesday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) yet again went off on the Koch brothers, this time blaming them for climate change.
“While the Koch brothers admit to not being experts on the matter, these billionaire oil tycoons are certainly contributing experts at contributing to climate change. That’s what they do very well. They are one of the main causes of this. Not a cause — the main cause,” Reid said on the Senate floor. Ignore that there is no such thing as AGW...or even GW for the last ever so long...ignore how absurd it would be to blame those two men for the entire climate of the earth...Just:
Feel the Hate
You Dems are just too cerebral for us knuckle-draggers to comprehend.
|
|
| | | 784 | sarge33rd
ID: 390471112 Wed, May 07, 2014, 19:39
|
Ignore that there is no such thing as AGW...or even GW for the last ever so long....
As B continues to rely upon FOX and Friends for his scientific resource.
|
|
| | | 785 | Boldwin
ID: 56453716 Wed, May 07, 2014, 20:51
|
Sarge, I've actually read scientific papers. I know the prominent scientists who have denied AGW, and their prominent careers. I've read the detailed scientific explanation why the 'hockey stick' was scientific fraud. I've read the e-mails where that 'scientist' discussed in detail with other fraudsters how they could perpetuate the hoax and avoid being exposed for the frauds they are. I understand exactly how the IPCC pressures, uses and abuses science and scientists. I understand how the peer review process has been subverted.
You are just mindlessly riding the bandwagon.
|
|
| | | 786 | sarge33rd
ID: 390471112 Wed, May 07, 2014, 21:04
|
No, you've read the agenda driven biased papers, financed by big oil and espoused by Rupert Murdoch and buy into the, lock=stock and barrel BECAUSE, they reinforce what you already WANT to believe. I;d prefer climate change WERENT real, but when 97% of scientists in that field tell me it is.......
|
|
| | | 787 | Bean
ID: 5292191 Wed, May 07, 2014, 21:34
|
I believe most will tell you that its real, some arent sure if its man made, but are pretty sure we arent helping
|
|
| | | 788 | Bean
ID: 5292191 Wed, May 07, 2014, 21:38
|
And Btw, the series Cosmos that Fox is currently airing is very much atune with climate change, most certainly is pro evolution and will tell you for certain that the world was not made in 7 days nor is the human species only 6000 years old.
Its enough to make a right winger crazy when their news source spews this nonsense.
|
|
| | | 789 | Perm Dude
ID: 431013412 Thu, May 08, 2014, 00:19
|
Very, very few climate scientists believe global warming is not a fact.
In other words, the people who actually study it for a living believe nearly to a person in the fact of climate change.
Years from now the Far Right will be look back at their insistence that the smart people who study the actual science should not be trusted with embarrassment. Right now they are doing with climate science what they did with journalism: Accuse the other side of gross bias, and set up an echo chamber of gross bias in opposition to that in order to achieve "balance" on the issue.
|
|
| | | 790 | Tree
ID: 438482411 Thu, May 08, 2014, 14:33
|
as Baldwin pointed out in 783, people who believe as he does would prefer to make intellect nearly criminal.
he may have attempted to be sarcastic, but when one side paints educated men and women as "out of touch" because they are educated, there's a problem.
|
|
| | | 791 | Boldwin
ID: 20432813 Thu, May 08, 2014, 17:08
|
The founder of the Weather Channel.According to a recent study by researchers at George Mason University and the University of Texas at Austin, more than 25 percent of the forecasters surveyed agreed with the statement, “Global warming is a scam.” Several well-known meteorologists, including John Coleman and Anthony Watts, have been vocal in their beliefs that global warming is a myth. In fact, John Coleman, founder of The Weather Channel, calls global warming “the greatest scam in history.” Nobel Prize winner Ivar Giaever.resigned as a Fellow from the American Physical Society (APS) on September 13, 2011 in disgust over the group’s promotion of man-made global warming fears.Dr. Giaever wrote to Kirby of APS: “Thank you for your letter inquiring about my membership. I did not renew it because I cannot live with the (APS) statement below (on global warming): APS: ‘The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.’
Giaever announced his resignation from APS was due to the group’s belief in man-made global warming fears. Giaever explained in his email to APS: “In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible? The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this ‘warming’ period.” Physicists Will Happer and Freeman Dyson.
Bjorn Lomborg, a Danish-based scientist, famous for his book The Skeptical Environmentalist.
Japanese scientist Kiminori Itoh, the author of Lies and Traps in the Global Warming Affair. David Bellamy, a British botanist and environmentalist.
Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan emeritus professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences
Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution.
Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow.
Peter Stilbs, professor of physical chemistry at Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm.
Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London.
Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute.
Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.
Robert M. Carter, former head of the school of earth sciences at James Cook University.
Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa.
Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University.
William M. Gray, professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University.
William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology.
David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware.
Anthony Lupo, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Missouri.
Murry Salby, former chair of climate at Macquarie University.
Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia.
Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center
George H. Taylor, former director of the Oregon Climate Service at Oregon State University.
Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks.
Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory.
John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC reports.
Keith Idso, botanist, former adjunct professor of biology at Maricopa County Community College District and the vice president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change.
Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists.
Former climate-alarmist Fritz Vahrenholt:Vahrenholt’s skepticism started when he was asked to review an IPCC report on renewable energy. He found hundreds of errors. When he pointed them out, IPCC officials simply brushed them aside. Stunned, he asked himself, “Is this the way they approached the climate assessment reports?”
In American Physical Society president Robert Byer’s response to the 16 climate skeptics, he failed to recognize that he was arguing against a direct quote from his own organization, and that he was completely unaware that there has been no global warming for the past 15 years. As Michael Crichton put so succinctly: Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science, consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
Here is an excellent scientific summary provided by James A. Peden, former Atmospheric Physicist at the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh of how the AGW hoax was launched, why it marches on without genuine scientific support.
And of course you are all well aware that there are petitions signed by thousands and thousands and thousands of scientists disputing the myth that there is some settled scientific consensus on AGW. [as if the scientific method was a search for the widest held position. Science wouldn't discover the first thing with that method]
|
|
| | | 792 | sarge33rd
ID: 593111219 Thu, May 08, 2014, 17:53
|
so, you quote from amongst the 3% who disagree with the 97%. Big freakin whoop.
|
|
| | | 793 | Bean
ID: 5292191 Thu, May 08, 2014, 19:22
|
Imagine if the trident commercial had proclaimed "3 out 100 dentists agree". We'd all be wearing dentures.
|
|
| | | 794 | Tree
ID: 438482411 Thu, May 08, 2014, 20:08
|
the first two that he makes the biggest deal about are a weatherman and a nobel prize winner.
i'm not sure why one weatherman's opinion is somehow more relevant than 1000 others, but i do enjoy Baldwin - who has blasted the Nobel Prize before - now using it to establish credibility.
|
|
| | | 795 | Perm Dude
ID: 431013412 Thu, May 08, 2014, 21:14
|
Rebuttal of Coleman Best point: Coleman continues to confuse "weather" with "climate." Any surprise?
As with the other thread, the Far Right tries the spaghetti theory of political discourse: Throw a lot of stuff on the wall and see what sticks.
What do botany and nuclear physics have to do with each other? Neither is climate science.
In the meantime, they try to wedge genuine scientific disagreement on some of what the facts on the ground mean as though this is evidence of non-consensus. These people consistently demonstrate that they neither understand, nor desire to understand, the rudiments of how science works. [Probably because they don't like smart people. And they aren't interested in something which might prove them wrong].
The 5 bullet points at the beginning here generally summarize where the science has led us on this issue. From there, there is a splintering of opinion (as you might expect) as we drill down into the data.
At this point, many on the Far Right might as well be advocating against the germ theory of disease for all the grasp they have on the science.
|
|
| | | 796 | Boldwin
ID: 13425822 Thu, May 08, 2014, 23:54
|
What do botany and nuclear physics have to do with each other? Neither is climate science.
Look at the process.
Non-scientists in the IPCC simply force the scientists to redact their scientific input until each country's negotiators is willing to sign off on it.
And you are critical that I provided you a well rounded list of high powered, qualified scientist AGW deniers?
The IPCC report to policy makers isn't even written by scientists.
|
|
| | | 797 | Boldwin
ID: 13425822 Thu, May 08, 2014, 23:56
|
Coleman came to his conclusion by not just his own scientific background, but asking the experts off record what the real scoop was, when they didn't have to worry about political arm twisting and career threatening.
Notice how the experts all come out against AGW they retire.
|
|
| | | 798 | Boldwin
ID: 13425822 Thu, May 08, 2014, 23:57
|
Notice how the experts all come out against AGW after they retire.
|
|
| | |
| | | 800 | Bean
ID: 5292191 Fri, May 09, 2014, 00:31
|
Why does Fox air an apocryphal series like Cosmos since we all know that climate change is a hoax? Is it possible that they are hedging their bets? Waiting to say I told you so?
Oh I simply cannot wait to see how this movie ends, its so titillating.
|
|
| | | 801 | Boldwin
ID: 510591420 Thu, Feb 05, 2015, 15:56
|
Fair and balanced...hey the hoaxers deserve to be heard.
|
|
| | | 802 | Boldwin
ID: 510591420 Thu, Feb 05, 2015, 15:57
|
|
|
| | | 803 | Boldwin
ID: 49572022 Thu, Jul 09, 2015, 17:08
|
Mental Rape is real and it has been going on in this country for decades unopposed.
While those not easily manipulated respond with logic and reason, the social psychologists aren't playing on that level.
"Conditioning and nudging the masses into groupthink is a very old trick of all wannabe dictators."Yet it feels like we’ve awakened to an ambush. A lot of Americans watched in shock while cultish mobs suddenly attacked the RFRA that Pence initially defended. But the groundwork for mass hysteria like this was stealthily laid for decades, and the minefields sown.
Family breakdown led to community breakdown, which we can see in the decline of trust in society. Ignorance was cultivated in the schools through political correctness and squashing free debate. The academy’s disparaging of western civilization virtually wiped out respect for any serious study of history and civics, as well as for the Socratic method and the rules of civil discourse. Political correctness sewed confusion into the language, particularly regarding identity politics. Youth are now set to be programmed for conformity through the K-12 “Common Core” curriculum mandates.
All of that and more promotes the semantic fog that allows for mind rape. [Say hello Foucault and Derrida - B] It amounts to an act of “logicide,” to borrow a term from Meerloo, whom I will continue to quote below. To kill logic and reason that might stand in their way, wannabe dictators “fabricate a hate language in order to stir up mass emotions.” Leaders in Indiana, Arkansas, and Louisiana have been unable to understand this tactic and are grossly unprepared to deal with it. So they simply surrendered. In effect, they joined the mob, further endangering everybody’s freedom. The Link Between Crowds and Power
The whole image of such mass delusion in America is surrealistic, especially to comfortably insulated Americans who believe our first freedoms could never really be thrown away in the face of such a full-frontal, PC-induced attack. Most cannot grasp that such mobs are mentally detached from reality. And participants in the mob action cannot comprehend that they are actually cutting off their own freedom of expression, as well as everybody else’s.
Why would anyone want to build such a culture of coercion? In a word, power. “Equality” is not the reason for what is happening with such mobs. It is the pretext for what they are doing. Like all such deceptions, its sole purpose is as a vehicle to transfer power from individuals to an increasingly centralized state. The fuel, as usual, is the emotional blackmail of people of goodwill, the uses of mass mobilization to exploit that goodwill, then, finally, to render all such goodwill meaningless.
Meerloo published “The Rape of the Mind: The Psychology of Thought Control, Menticide and Brainwashing” in 1956 after years immersed in the study of social psychology and countless interviews with victims of mental coercion, including Nazi officers and American prisoners of war in Korea. This treasure of insights was written for the layman. It is an absolute must-read for anyone who hopes to uphold the dignity of the individual. The book offers the psychic defenses so lacking among those who submit to logicide.
“The transformation of the free human mind to an automatically responding machine” is essentially the story of the transformation of the United States of America we are watching in real time today. Delusion is an important element, because tyrannies do not stand up to logic. It seems very sudden, but it’s not. We’re only at this tipping point because we let our defenses down. In fact, if the First Amendment collapses, it would simply indicate a return to humanity’s tribal default position, in which a sort of Nietzschean “Will to Power” rules the day. [Nietzsche was in fact consciously trying to destroy civilization and reduce mankind to a pagan 'Lord of the Flies' tribal rule of the tyrant, his idea of the natural state of affairs - B]
Mass delusion is an important tool of oppressors because they can’t survive where free exercise of expression and association is practiced. Unfortunately, delusion can be induced anywhere.
“It is simply a question of organizing and manipulating collective feelings in the proper way. If one can isolate the mass, allow no free thinking, no free exchange, no outside correction and can hypnotize the group daily with noises, with press and radio and television, with fear and pseudo-enthusiasms, any delusion can be instilled.”
Free Speech Is the Only Antidote to Mass Delusion
“The Rape of the Mind” could have served as a terrific manual to inoculate many against political correctness and groupthink, had it not collected so much dust since it was published in 1956. More of us could have learned how free speech is essential to preventing mass delusion.
Free expression is always the prime target of tyrants because it promotes logic, the search for truth, and friendship. America is exceptional precisely because it rejects the tyrants’ rule.
Yet as our speech becomes more restricted, we end up more separated from one another and more susceptible to mass delusions. As Meerloo wrote: “Where thinking is isolated without free exchange with other minds, delusion may follow.” He added, chillingly, “Is this not what happened in Hitler Germany where free verification and self-correction were forbidden?”
Of course, it’s really hard for control freaks to do their work on us if we are speaking freely with one another in friendship, and especially if we all understand what they are up to and can call them on it in one voice. So their first order of business is to separate us. A sense of enforced isolation is a cruel and effective tool for instilling loneliness and then delusion in people.
According to Meerloo, manipulators accomplish this through the knowledge that “far below the surface, human life is built up of inner contradictions.” Our hopes and fears and longing to avoid social rejection are exploited through the dictates of political correctness, which is the tool that separates people today, especially in that one place where ideas and ideals are supposed to be tested most vigorously in adulthood: the university.
By squashing free thought in the one place where it is supposed to be especially respected, political correctness circumvents Meerloo’s warning that “the only way to strengthen one’s defenses against an organized attack on the mind and will is to understand better what the enemy is trying to do to outwit him.”
Of course, the fear of isolation isn’t always enough to silence some people. So manipulators repeat lies and sloganeer endlessly to condition their subjects to repress unauthorized speech and thought: “The techniques of propaganda and salesmanship have been refined and systematized; there is scarcely any hiding place from the constant visual and verbal assault on the mind. The pressures of daily life impel more and more people to seek an easy escape from responsibility and maturity.”
It’s sobering to realize that the above words predate the Internet by nearly half a century.
Love and Laughter Dissipate Delusion
As more people succumb to PC conditioning and cede their freedom of thought, it becomes more difficult for the rest of us to maintain integrity of mind. Our audience shrinks. As we encounter more and more drone-like personalities in daily life, the world seems to sink into surrealism, like so many in Rod Serling’s old “Twilight Zone” episodes.
Meerloo testified to this feeling of disorientation: “Many victims of totalitarianism have told me in interviews that the most upsetting experience they faced in the concentration camps was the feeling of loss of logic, the state of confusion in which they had been brought – the state in which nothing had any validity.”
That’s because in the mass centralized state, “peaceful exchange of thoughts in free conversation will disturb the conditioned reflexes and is therefore taboo.” On a hopeful note, Meerloo writes that “love and laughter break through all rigid conditioning.”
I think the reason there is so little “comedy” that’s funny today is the genre itself has been hijacked by the humorless PC crowd. Why is their humor so unamusing and so dependent upon mean-spiritedness? Consider this possibility: “The totalitarian mind is like the schizophrenic individual; it has a contempt for reality. Think for a moment of Lysenko’s theory and its denial of the influence of heredity. The totalitarian mind does not observe and verify its impressions of reality; it dictates to reality how it shall behave, it compels reality to conform to its fantasies.”
Along these lines, Meerloo offers a prescription: “We must learn to treat the demagogue and aspirant dictator in our midst just as we should treat our external enemies in a cold war – with the weapon of ridicule. The demagogue himself is almost incapable of humor of any sort, and if we treat him with humor, he will begin to collapse. Humor is, after all, related to a sense of perspective. If we can see how things should be, we can see how askew they can get, and we can recognize distortion when we are confronted with it.”
So, in the end, freedom truly depends upon breaking down the walls of separation that tyranny builds. It means cultivating the art of friendship, [point well taken - B] boldly exercising our rights to free association and to communicate our thoughts to others. It means cultivating knowledge instead of cultivating ignorance.
After all, political correctness is primarily a tool for crushing people’s ability to have open conversations in friendship and mutual respect. In this context, it seems very much like a tool to bring all personal relationships under state control. And it shouldn’t surprise us that this is being done today in the name of equality for certain kinds of personal relationships. Tyrannies always pretend to promote the very thing they seek to destroy.
|
|
| | | 804 | Boldwin
ID: 49572022 Tue, Jul 14, 2015, 23:14
|
Stalinist judicial system. If you disagree with 'Our Dear Leader' you must be crazy no matter how many doctors say you are perfectly sane.

Stalinist judge appointed by the most crooked campaign finance politician in American history, unconscionably persecutes Key Republican/Conservative intellectual author over microscopic infraction compared to judges' mentor Clinton.
Don't tell me Dems aren't headed towards re-education camps and worse for their political enemies.
D'Souza will be fortunate to escape being drugged into a stupor or lobotomized. It was a nice country while it lasted.
|
|
| | | 805 | Perm Dude
ID: 431013412 Thu, Jul 16, 2015, 22:53
|
D'Souza will be fortunate to escape being drugged into a stupor or lobotomized. It was a nice country while it lasted.
Difficult to tell that isn't the case now. I guess tweeting fake pictures of Clinton with a Confederate flag, or whining about having to serve any community service time for his crime, or being laughed at by Megyn Kelly while interviewing him are clues that he's not dead. But thinking? Probably not anymore.
|
|
| | | 806 | Boldwin
ID: 49572022 Thu, Jul 16, 2015, 23:34
|
Kelly was laughing with him at the judge.
|
|
| | | 807 | Boldwin
ID: 49572022 Thu, Jul 16, 2015, 23:37
|
And the Clinton's have a rich history of supporting the battle flag while in the Ark. governor's seat. You really don't want to go there.
|
|
| | | 808 | Boldwin
ID: 49572022 Thu, Jul 16, 2015, 23:40
|
Conservatives consider him nearly on the level of Bill Buckley or Thomas Sowell and this judge has waaaay over-reached. This stalinist move is gonna have blow-back.
|
|
| | | 809 | Boldwin
ID: 49572022 Mon, Jul 20, 2015, 21:29
|
Cities have just annexed the suburbs. [thanks to Obama and HUD] As I had predicted.
They are going to sue any suburb which refuses to import an equal share of inner city rot. As usual all Federal funds will be withheld if the blackmail is resisted and court costs and legal penalties will mount.
With this, unless HUD is dismantled, your suburb just got annexed and you will be taxed for inner city problems and the evils you escaped will chase you into the suburbs.
|
|
| | |
|
|