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. >> 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? > 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? >> 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. > You don't have a problem with COINTELPRO? Do I need to look it up or are you going to give me a summary? > 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. > You're a letter of the law kind of guy, eh? Like your loopholes? Not me. >> 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. >> 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. >>> 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. > 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. > 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:) > 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. > 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. > Not out of control spending in general, but health care? Because it's > "socialist"? Because it's corrupt. >> 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. > 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? >> 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. > We are sexual creatures, like it or not, and the fun starts before 12, for > some. Especially if we give them instruction. > 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. >> 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 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? > 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. > 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? > 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? > 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. > 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... > 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. > 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. > So what's the logic? I'm a thinker :) >> 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? > *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. > *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. >> 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 :) > How would you feel about the Weathermen attacking China? That would be cool, they'd probabbly be dead. > 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? > 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? > What did you expect? You folks got Bush43 in there. Twice. I just wish he pushed harder to regulate the banks. > 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. > 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? >>> 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. >>> 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? > 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. > 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. >> Strip the military ala Carter/Clinton? I don't think so. > We need to tighten our belts a little, is all. Sometimes. >> 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? > 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 seemed to think that it was fake grass, so to speak. Rahm Emanual started that rumor, seems to be catching on. > 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? > You'd have to be thick to think that's the only place we need reform, > and otherwise we're good. Yep >> 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. > 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? >> 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. > 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 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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:319962 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
