On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 7:43 PM, Sam wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 2:56 PM, denstar > >> http://epic.org/privacy/terrorism/fisa/acluvnsaop081706.pdf >> Let me know what you think. > > Read it. It was overturned.
If I read it right only the data-mining stuff was dismissed. The rest stood. Right? >>> I think they had a warrant for MLK. >> >> So it was legal, according to your logic. Heck, even without a >> warrant. It's the same people anyways. > > Actually Bobby Kennedy personally signed it as AG. I think the request > to sign it came form the President. Should we do away with this chain > of command? Do you believe in coincidence? Belafonte was "just" talking about Bobby K in that transcript I linked to about Powell. Something about BK changing and then dieing for it? And look, at least we have a record of this stuff. We can learn from it, debate it, care or not care... but at least one of us can't say: "those were just rumors, nobody's lines were tapped -- or, /maybe/ lines were tapped, but they were all bad people". You're saying we don't need the records. We should just trust people in power not to abuse it. >> Tho they might be RUSSIAN SPIES! > > Actually his friends had ties to Soviet spies so JFK asked him not to > hang with the bad brothas but he declined. So he got wired. Wasn't he > one of your hero's? MLK or JFK? MLK more than JFK but they're both cool cats. Especially MLK, woohoo! Nobody's perfecto... and that, of course, is perfecto. >>> Circuit Court overturned Taylor's ruling in a 2-1 vote. >> When was that? The last thing I saw was this: > > http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0253p-06.pdf > >>>> Illegal wire taps, for one. Paying a lot of money to invade themselves >>>> for two. >>> They were legal. >> So were the ones on MLK, right? > > Unfortunately. Better to know, than to not know, right? >> You don't have a problem with COINTELPRO? > > Do I need to look it up or are you going to give me a summary? Guess it's been over a year since I bitched about it last. Man does time fly! Domestic surveillance. One of my themes. I'm against it, if you couldn't guess. Plus, now we got twitter and FB. >> Basically, you don't have a problem with domestic spying so long as >> it's "legal"? > > You can't always trust the law. But you have to trust them sometimes. > If we don't live by laws we have chaos. Don't be fooled; it's still chaos. >> You're a letter of the law kind of guy, eh? Like your loopholes? > > Not me. Not all the time. :) >>> Enemy spies. >> Ah yes. Friendly spies do things like offer you a nice cup of tea, we >> can't get rid of them. > > Friendly spies are called CIA. I thought it was a tangled web and whatnot. Intrigue. Double agents and sleepers and whatnot. >>> People were fired for being questioned, suspicion and all that. Most >>> were in but at different levels. >> >> I wasn't there, but I read that most kept their jobs. The folk who >> got fired for suspicion were your average Joe. >> >> Humans are just dicks like that. Look out for the Evil Eye! > > Most of that happened in the 40's while McCarthy didn't get involved until > 1950. You'll notice that I use McCarthy when talking about him specifically and McCarthyism when I talk about "The Crucible" and "Red Scares", etc.. But anyways, read this Leftest Propaganda: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_blacklist >>>> People killed themselves because they got blacklisted, yo. >>> You lie. >> So you're saying it was more like murder? Hrm. Is "mob mentality" a >> hate crime? > > Nobody died. Nobody went to jail. All that happened in the 40's. Late 40s to late 50s for the most part, for that "scare". I'm sure no witches were harmed as a result of the hunts, either. Are you for real? I'm not quite sure when you're joking sometimes. ;) >> Have you really read much history? The Red Scare (the one I'm talking >> about) had it's tentacles all over the place. >> Fear is an amazing tool, don't you think? I wonder why I'm fond of Faith... > > We just finished two world wars, China flipped and the USSR and China > had the bomb thanks to spies. It was scary times and all real threats. It's always scary times, isn't it? With real threats? Some seem more eager than others to turn that to their advantage. And not always intentionally for evil, either. The road to hell... >> Like I blurred Watergate. Only it's more of a link, than a blur. >> History repeating, Salem witch hunts, McCarthyism, civil rights groups >> in the 70's, 80's, 90's, 00's... > > Wow, you connected them all together? The world is a scary place > through your eyes:) The world is a scary place. Beautiful, too. I like to take it all in. Overall, it's fantastic! Woohoo! >> But I guess you could sorta flip through them real fast and they'd >> seem to blur into one concept or some such. > > You have to flip through them really fast if you want to connect them. It's a theme, man. "Everyone's" safety is more important than an individual's right to privacy. Sam, am I tripping, or have you been a supporter of the "if you are not doing anything wrong you've nothing to fear" meme? >> So now it's like, way worse than ever. The back scratching, that is. >> Before it wasn't so bad, but now, now we should revolt? Because of >> health care, specifically? > > Right back at ya. Yes, I can see how this bill is "worse" than the Patriot Act was for America. And you really believe that, don't you? That this health care bill is un-American? >> Not out of control spending in general, but health care? Because it's >> "socialist"? > > Because it's corrupt. I thought we agreed that politicians are corrupt. The system is broken, etc.. Health care, specifically this stuff that the ink literally isn't even dry on, is the big corruption we should be fighting? Look, I don't care if we die broke, so long as we die American, if that makes any sense. >>> Blatant like allowing BP to bypass inspection on a deep water rig >>> after donating millions? >> The debate isn't about whether or not shit happens, but if shit >> happens in equal amounts. >> I have stated, and backed up with anecdote, that I don't think the >> amount of shit is the same. > > Depends what you're looking for. All those years of Bush corruption > and not a single charge. > What about Obama, I see a lot more charges in 1.5 years already than > Bush had in eight. That's actually heartening, if you ask me. Unless you're implying that politicians are rank, but Bush43 didn't smell. Which would make your head hurt. Unless you didn't consider Bush43 a politician! Is that it? >> Anyways, Apple is following it's cycle too. Right back into the >> ground unless they can be more adaptable than Colin Powell. > > Sounds like you don't have an ipad? No. I have an older macbook pro. It's been a really good machine, too. I would have totally bought another (with the apple care of course-- you'd be insane to not basically lease the damn thing from Apple- have you /seen/ how much parts cost?!?!) without much thought had they not started to regress again. It was bad enough as it was, but the new ones? Come on, no removable battery? You can't take the keyboard case apart to blow crap out yourself, the giant trackpads are kinda funky (probably a driver issue), etc.. AppleCare isn't what it used to be, and the Apple Store... *sigh* I thought I'd be forced to get another one (sadly, I need to be able to do mac stuph), until I saw there's ways to get VMs to run OS X now. I was *so* happy! Anyways, I used to hate apple, with a passion. Actually wasn't too fond of Atari business practices either, but that's another story. I'll never hate them like I hated them, though. I realized something at some point that would make that hard. >>> Honest? Suggesting a 12-year-old to abstain is not honest? >> Suggesting? If there's only one option, can you really call it a suggestion? > > Yes, why not. I don't mean /can/ you can you. You can call a duck a horse, you know. Or name a horse "duck", if you like. (/me wanders off for a bit) I get it tho. Like how I always say: "You have at least two options: whatever 1 is and death." I really dig that. But most people aren't too hip to death. At least in "our" culture. >> We are sexual creatures, like it or not, and the fun starts before 12, for >> some. > > Especially if we give them instruction. Sex sells, my friend. We push it pretty hard, as a culture/society, too. And nature doesn't need that much help. :) >> But I wasn't talking about experimentation or good/bad-touch. >> I was talking about "only" abstaining. Is that the only option you give >> yours? > > She's only 7. Whoops, I had been thinking about the future, must have imagined I was there for a second. Alright, now that I'm back in this time, let me correct my tense: Is that the only option you will give yours? >>> Again, so you're against ethical laws? >> Ethics aren't /quite/ the same thing as morals. I think ethics are >> more like a system than morals are. > > But they are. All the backscratching you complain about is morally > wrong and ethically illegal. I think we all have a conscious. Some listen more than others, but I'm pretty sure we all have that little voice in our head... Anyways, we don't really care, we've covered that. Both of our "causes" are screwed, because people just don't fucking care. Me included. We could do some fancy entertainment deal that would sorta make the masses move, but, I don't know. I want folks to want it because it's good, not because they are grouped into it. But I don't really care that much. If it takes political correctness, like "going green", so be it. Here's to hoping that liberty becomes vogue once again. Er, maybe vogue isn't the right word... anyways, you catch my drift. Apathy! Woohoo! >> I don't think it's ethical (or moral) to ban anal sex, or discriminate >> based on gender, etc.. > > I thought you said AS wasn't banned. > You don't think discrimination should be banned? Far from it. I think we should discriminate discrimination-ers. discriminate /against/ discrimination-ers, even. >> How do you feel about illegal stuff? If it's illegal, it's wrong? >> Like how you think if it's legal it's right? (unless it's a democrat >> (it's usually them, they're the worst) who is also a lawyer (again, >> democrats are generally lawyers or poor minorities (probably illegals, >> really) using the law in a way that it wasn't meant to be used of >> course.) > > Wow, you totally misread me on that, or you're building a straw-man. > I don't think anyone likes all the laws and the ones we don't like we > can try and change. Or don't get caught. It's a lot easier to just bitch when the bitching is good. You'd be amazed how often that is all it takes. You're fine and dandy with warrantless wiretaps now, but when they're coming for you and yours, you'll be singing a different tune. But then it will be, bum bum bum bum: too late. ;) >> Actually, promoting the ABC's vs. Abstinence Only *is* regulating sex. >> And sexually transmitted shit, and better mental health and whatnot. > > What about the parents? Don't they have a right to decide if their > twelve year old is ready to do the deed? Wow. That still seems kind of young for "doing the deed" to me. I'd recommend one stay a virgin for as long as possible. That shit's like *gold* when you get to 18+. But I'll inform as much as my kid can absorb. It's a process... I doubt many folks have "the talk", tho we like to talk about "the talk". I don't remember a "the talk", but damn did we talk alot, it would be easy to overlook the memory. I'm super grateful for the stories that my folks told me tho. Information rocks! Teach your children well. Start out with the good touch bad touch stuff, work your way up to Love. "Of Love and Lust". Heh. Theodor Reik. Someday I'll finish that one. Thought provoking, iirc. >> I can see you trying to blur the sex ed, consent and pedophilia into a >> concept -- much like I blur stuff -- but I don't exactly see what the >> concept is. > > If you're willing to decide when to teach kids to have sex what's to > stop you from choosing the age of the partner? You really see sex as being what it's about, don't you? "Teach your kids to have sex"? That sounds kind of sick. Maybe a sick straw man. Cool! I'm talking about information here, really. If you think you can keep your kid from getting informed, or control what she takes in, you are sadly mistaken, I can tell you that much right now. Man are children crazy smart, wile e. little things. So fast, so fast they grow. *sigh* If you think it's about teaching your kid to have sex, perhaps you should not worry about it. They can figure it out on their own, too, you're right. Carry on. As you were. wot wot. >> How do those others relate to a logical (or scientific, if you prefer) >> approach, versus a religious (or moral, if you prefer?) one? > > Common sense. Yeah some cultures mate the kids off young but I believe > it could do psychological damage. Sex can create so much stress, let > them be kids and worry about the other stuff later. Not telling them about sex won't prevent them from knowing, and in some cases, experiencing. Sex is a huge part of our culture or if you prefer society. You can't escape it. Don't you remember being a kid? Did you ever "play doctor"? I won't ask when... but how old were you? ;) >> As many folks have personally stated on this list, Planned Parenthood >> is a valuable resource. I concur. > > PP does offer a valuable service but it also offers a very dishonest > one. A few bad apples maybe... You are specifically referring to abortion here, right? Calling it dishonest is like, giving emotion to a inanimate object. The rock is happy. My chair is honest. It smells like the color purple. >> There is a lot more to it than reducing unplanned pregnancy. > > That's the problem, they have an agenda. More sex, more abortions > equals more money. You haven't really dealt with abortions, like in real life, have you? If you grok the real deal, statements like this are pretty comical. What are you afraid of, Sam? Not you specifically, because we've covered that pro-choice bit, but you know, "you" who believe and espouse information like that. It was like your "educators are happy when there are no jobs" comment. Hopefully a jibe, not a comment. >> And if you're going to be against killing, you need to be against all >> killing, or else it's a double-standard (your favorite theme!). > > I;m not against abortions, I'm against promoting abortion as a method > of birth control. You should too since you want to teach younguns > about condoms. Who cares, so long as we cut down on the babies, right? The world is about to fucking end, Sam! And all because of health care. How apropos. >> So what's the logic? > > I'm a thinker :) I would have guessed a man of action. :) >>> Who died from abstinence only education? You mean the twelve-year-old >> Are you arguing with the data? Is that too, a grand conspiracy? > > I haven't seen data, you got? HIV/AIDS statistics from Africa, and India, I think. Sorta like that deal Judah was talking about with the insurance lotto, data like that. Imagine how inhumane it would be to equip one group with knowledge, and tell the other one, "just don't do it", and see who fared better, neh? >> *Really* AO works better than the ABCs, but the liberal doctors and >> statisticians colluded to make it appear the opposite. > > Only for the age group it targeted. When do we start equipping our children for life? There are really people out there who are dumb enough to think that telling the kids to "wait" is enough. I don't think you're one of them, but you defend them for some reason. I'm not sure why. Why? Should we avoid teaching that the earth is round-ish, in case some children aren't married? Sounds silly and non-sensical, neh? =)p >> *It doesn't have to about trust*. That's my whole point. You bitch >> about oversight and then go on about "trusting" people in the >> government. >> With checks and balances and as little emotion as possible, you don't >> need much "trust". > > My point is nobody checked on Obama, yet you're happy. You shouldn't be. Your definition of nobody is weird. Aren't you all up on his jock? I heard he wasn't really even born in America. >>> Can you please provide the link connecting the Saudi Royal Family to >>> Osama Bin Laden? >>> At least Ayers repented...didn't he? >> I never claimed there was a link. I was talking about protecting >> ourselves from terror attacks, and the wisdom of focusing on Iraq. > > Don't back up to fast you might trip :) Not /that/ kind of link. A personal check to Bin Laden from a Saudi Prince with the note: "to kill infidels". Give me a break. =) Why would I think the Saudis "need some work"? They're not alone, IMO there were several better places to throw our weight than Iraq. You don't think Iraq was the best move, do you? >> How would you feel about the Weathermen attacking China? > > That would be cool, they'd probabbly be dead. Yes, I'm not sure where that came from either. Something like feeling responsible for harm your countrymen do in the name of the country or something. Gah. It's kind of hard to explain. If everyone had religion separate from government, it would be easier to explain. Some places still mix the two tho. To each their own... but yuck. >> I remember when Regan said our schools were failing. Statistics are >> freaking cool, aren't they? > > You're happy eith the schools? As long as the teach the ABCs? School sucks dude. Unless it's one for young mutants, or some such. Those are swell, just swell. >> And No Child Left Behind is loved by all, as is every other government >> initiative (state or local), including road work. > > Why do you not like Kennedy's plan? Because Bush signed it? Same reason you don't like Health Care. It can be fixed tho. We can hone it. >> What did you expect? You folks got Bush43 in there. Twice. > > I just wish he pushed harder to regulate the banks. Sure, that would have worked. Who would have thought that we'd have a S&L.... oh.... yeah... Ah well. Maybe that would have actually resulted in something far worse than what we got. You can never really tell, really. Hindsight isn't really 50/50. >> You paint a grim picture. I had no idea it was so bad. Oh no! >> They'll have the precedent they need to start knocking on the doors of >> folks who are foolish enough to say "Christmas" over an unencrypted >> line, too! >> >> Guess you should have thought of that before they came for *you*, though, >> right? >> >> Damn. I can't even remember what that poem was called. "The >> Hangman", or something. Oh: >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came... > > Principle, stand up in the beginning or not at all. The earlier the better, let us say. And over the "correct" issues. LOL. >> That is what we need to focus on. Screw this defeatist attitude. >> Health care reform is a damn-sight better goal than invading Iraq. > > A nation is saved, a nation destroyed. Which is which? War is hell. And if it's about saving people, what about Darfur, etc.? >>>> It's the people who matter, they're the ones with the power. When >>>> they realize it. >>> Yeah right. >> I swear it is true. And one individual can be a firebrand. > > If true there would be no tyrants, some nations need assistance. We > got it when we needed it. And others could afford it. It's a cycle, it appears. Odd that you can justify massive debt to help others because of abstract principles, but when it's for "us" because of concrete reasons... REVOLT! >>>> Not that the protests and riots and whatnot weren't amazing, in their own >>>> way. >>> Then they were amazing now... >> I don't think the National Guard was called out to the last Tea Party deal >> here. > > So disorder is amazing and civilized protest is corporate? It wasn't all disorder then (and there was a *lot* of protesting). Most of it was pretty orderly. I don't think the national guard killed anyone, even! The Tee Party does seem pretty organized for true grass roots, don't you think? Sorta Obama vs. Dean deal. Dean's being more "natural" IMO. Can you imagine the Democrats saying "we will use the protesters ""platform"" to form our own"? Crazy times we live in, eh? >> The CEO's invest their personal income in jobs and facilities? > > Not always, if it's a tiny company yes. Mostly it's the companies > money that takes the risk. If the risk is too much they all lose so > they play it safe. Big companies use the money to pay the lobbyists. ;) Work smarter, not harder, right? >> I thought that was your position. That the ones getting raises will >> use the money to invest in jobs and facilities. Problem solved. > > Your intentionally twisting my comments again. I wasn't trying to. I thought that's how the theory worked. That people are naturally altruistic, we don't really need taxes or regulation and whathave you. It is in the powers that be's best interest to "bring up" those beneath. The money for the subsidies have to come from somewhere, right? I hear a lot about health care, very little about other issues. Lip service to the rest of the "platform". An urge to just put us back to where we were after Bush43, when times were "good", and religion wasn't getting "pushed out". >>> Strip the military ala Carter/Clinton? I don't think so. >> We need to tighten our belts a little, is all. > > Sometimes. I see how it is. Discretion. Yup yup. >>> Why are you so against trying? Why do we need to tech children all about >>> sex? >> If we teach A, we need to teach B and C too. > > Why? Is there a reason or did you just read it in a pamphlet? I guess we can just let them find out about B and C themselves. Save 'em something to be surprised about. "Hey, cool, an STD!, Woohoo! It's awesome that I didn't know about getting tested at Planned Parenthood sooner!" "So long as I'm screwing people, I might as well screw as many as I can!" Yes, those are swell surprises. We shouldn't prepare our wee ones for stuff like that, oh no. >> He is a content expert as far as this stuff goes. It would be in his >> best interest to team up with like minded people, that's what he seems >> to do. > > Why? Who is he? He sounds like a guy that has an agenda. He seems like a rabble rouser. I like their agenda. I lament the lack of it from the Tea Party. Too bad they got stuck on a "side" (or the side stuck to them). >> He seemed to think that it was fake grass, so to speak. > > Rahm Emanual started that rumor, seems to be catching on. I big part of Hightower's "agenda" seems to be following corporate money. He seemed strongly opposed to corporate stuff, not a particular party. Seems like his head is on straight, but I don't know the man, and what would that matter, really. >> If it's solely about health care, and budget cuts elsewhere are off >> the table, screw that, it is a corporate initiative. > > Why would you think that? Why don't you ask them rather than Hightower? Heh. I looked. The number 1 goal is supposed to be: "Identify constitutionality of every new law" Funny how I thought the whole deal was about health care. Poor bastards, that seems like a good list (the percent is the number of votes for each issue): 1. Identify constitutionality of every new law: Require each bill to identify the specific provision of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to do what the bill does (82.03%). 2. Reject emissions trading: Stop the "cap and trade" administrative approach used to control pollution by providing economic incentives for achieving reductions in the emissions of pollutants. (72.20%). 3. Demand a balanced federal budget: Begin the Constitutional amendment process to require a balanced budget with a two-thirds majority needed for any tax modification. (69.69%) 4. Simplify the tax system: Adopt a single-rate tax system; eliminate the internal revenue code and replace it with one that is no longer than 4,543 words. (64.90%). 5. Audit federal government agencies for constitutionality: Create a Blue Ribbon taskforce that engages in an audit of federal agencies and programs, assessing their Constitutionality, and identifying duplication, waste, ineffectiveness, and agencies and programs better left for the states or local authorities. (63.37%) 6. Limit annual growth in federal spending: Impose a statutory cap limiting the annual growth in total federal spending to the sum of the inflation rate plus the percentage of population growth. (56.57%). 7. Repeal the health care legislation passed on March 23, 2010: Defund, repeal and replace the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. (56.39%). 8. Pass an 'All-of-the-Above' Energy Policy: Authorize the exploration of additional energy reserves to reduce American dependence on foreign energy sources and reduce regulatory barriers to all other forms of energy creation. (55.5%). 9. Reduce Earmarks: Place a moratorium on all earmarks until the budget is balanced, and then require a 2/3 majority to pass any earmark. (55.47%). 10. Reduce Taxes: Permanently repeal all recent tax increases, including those to the income tax, capital gains tax and estate taxes, currently scheduled to begin in 2011. (53.38%). Heh. The constitution. Awesome. >> You'd have to be thick to think that's the only place we need reform, >> and otherwise we're good. > > Yep So why so hesitant to even put things like the defense budget on the table? Remember this: http://videosift.com/video/US-Defense-Budget-Explained-with-OREO-Cookies-Flash-ver LOL. >>> Pork yes. Defense...depends. >> Defense is a good chunk of our budget, right? Everything depends, but >> you knee-jerked when I mention it... > > You mixed in with pork like it was all useless. We spend most of our money on defense, right? >> Every government initiative has needed refinement, I don't know many >> that sprung forth close to perfection. > > Again with the something, no matter how awful, is better than the > system most people were satisfied with? So most people were satisfied with the existing system now? Or did 70% or whatever number you quoted earlier want reform (just not "this" reform, you said)? Which is it? Do we want and need it, or were things fine as they were? >>> Nothing about the unemployment hovering around 10%? >> >> And that is solely because of health care reform, and Obama? > > Obama, and his actions have stalled the recovery, health care was the icing. You must be smarter than I, to know so much about economics. Lots of people tell me it's not that complicated, but I don't buy it. Heck, even easy stuff like "supply and demand" trips me out sometimes. >> At least people were treading the water while it was rising, eh? > > Treading water? Is that what happens if you don't get a raise every > year you drown? Maybe you're not saving Is the cost of living a constant in your world or what? And I, personally, /was/ saving- the little bit that I could, but medical crap wiped that out but quick (and it took so long to build it up! boohoo), so now I need a new job or else I'll continue to slide further into debt. I don't like not having enough money. I have only my own lack of initiative to blame, coupled with a fear of change (even tho I like change). If I can't get a better job, even just slightly better, I'm not going to blame anyone (or thing) but myself. But I'm strong like that. I feel like I can affect the world in amazing ways. That an individual can be a game changer, yadda yadda. When I'll actually realize this awesome potential is anyone's guess, if ever... I'll settle for a wonderful life if I have to. ;) Anyways, to blam Obama for the current mess is more silly than blaming Bush43. So there! :Den -- Life must be understood backwards; but... it ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology-Michael-Dinowitz/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:320422 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
