It gets even worse

[OryHara]

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,717...l?tw=wn_index_1

 

This just makes me even more pissed than ever. This is just strait up f***ing ILLEGAL. And as a citizen, I want JUSTICE SERVED.

 

[Mod edit: We're all about free speech here. However, constitutional scholars tell us that there are certain kinds of speech which aren't protected. One of those is a threat against the President. OryHara didn't make a direct threat, but it was close enough to probably get him in trouble. As such, we've removed it. Dissent is one thing. Letting that spill over into hatred and/or violence is another. - Mash]

 

Mash: Is beat them with a rubber hose ok?

[Devil]

ever see v for vendetta? thats the type of world we are heading for and this is just one of the first steps. "Christians" (I put Christians in quotations because no true Christians would support a world without free will. Free will is the greatest gift God ever gave us.) ruling our lives, deciding everything for us. its called the New World Order and the Bushes are all for it.

[Ouch]

Have you guys seen that movie "Jesus Camp" - that is scary!

[killbot1000]

this is kinda scary, he really really needs to get out of office, I dont care about terrorists, this is worse...atleast its the path to worse heheh.

[wildcat69410]

Don't call it some Christian World Order {censored}. That's not at all what it's about. It's just Bush taking things WAY too far. Don't try to mix that with Christianity, that's just stupid.

[domino]

What is the likelihood that this bill will actually become a law?

 

What i'm worried about is they can label sharing on P2P as corporate espionage and most likely become, for a better name, a terrorist act against American corporate organizations. The film and record industry can ride the coat tail of this bill and eventually use it as a springboard to launch there own surveillance campaign.

[Mebster]

Don't call it some Christian World Order {censored}. That's not at all what it's about. It's just Bush taking things WAY too far. Don't try to mix that with Christianity, that's just stupid.

Actually he mixes what Christianity with what he does every day by invoking Gods name before he begins his illegal and immoral acts. He's a Christian and believes he's doing Gods work. So in reality its quiet easy to mix it even though it shouldn't be. It's his fault for dragging Christianity into it.

 

I'm not saying all Christians are like this, because they're not, but this one definitely is. And boy does he feel holier than ever . After all he got the miracle of being elected twice even though most consider him to have made the US more dangerous, less respected, less employment, tarnishing the constitution by infringing on civil liberties and so is considered by some (growing it seems) to be the worst president ever.

 

 

- V for Vendetta: With the BNP rising in power in the UK and the rest of the world going down as fast as it is. Seems we've taken huge leaps to the path of being in that position and probably will be in the next few years. Scary!

[rollcage]

The way that he thinks that he is doing the right thing (what god wants him to do) makes him more or less the same as the muslim extremeists that our country has been fighting for the past 5 years.

[Mebster]

The way that he thinks that he is doing the right thing (what god wants him to do) makes him more or less the same as the muslim extremeists that our country has been fighting for the past 5 years.

I couldn’t agree more. Sure we have Muslim extremists who want to blow up the west. Then there's Bush, a Christian extremists who wants to blow up the east.

 

The same judgement should apply equally to all who are evil. Even if your father was and now you are the president.

 

I honestly think America needs too stop electing idiots and start electing someone who actually cares for things other than money and oil. Someone who cares that we have a stable world and one that isn't being killed of by its population (war and climate change). Also America needs to take a hard look at its foreign policy. I know a lot of people say this but it's true. I honestly believe a lot of the aggression would simply stop if America was seen as being more objective than it has been for a long time. Even if that means the east doesn't like the outcome, at least they can respect it for being fair. Then when the hostilities go down the presidents and their aids would have no chance in passing laws that infringe on your (USs) civil liberties.

 

Just my humble take on it.

[wildcat69410]

I honestly think America needs too stop electing idiots and start electing someone who actually cares for things other than money and oil. Someone who cares that we have a stable world and one that isn't being killed of by its population (war and climate change). Also America needs to take a hard look at its foreign policy. I know a lot of people say this but it's true. I honestly believe a lot of the aggression would simply stop if America was seen as being more objective than it has been for a long time. Even if that means the east doesn't like the outcome, at least they can respect it for being fair. Then when the hostilities go down the presidents and their aids would have no chance in passing laws that infringe on your (USs) civil liberties.

 

I'd actually like to see an example of a politician who doesn't care for money. There really isn't one, and in the same way, there isn't a perfect leader. Whenever you look at the leader of a country, their first goal is to protect and procure the future of their own country. If you want world peace, you might want to take a look at the Miss America Pageant. Whenever you have a world where you have and encourage individualism, and ambition, then you're going to have a world with fighting and war. We can't find utopia, and although I can agree that we need a good leader, your goals listed are a little lofty.

 

As for the East, no matter what decision we make, they will never respect it as fair. Any decision that they do not like, they generally do not like it because they don't believe it is a fair ruling. I don't see the point in changing our foreign policy just because some people don't like it. When we begin changing our foreign policy, even moreso our domestic policy, just because some other nation dislikes it. I believe such a measure is pointless.

[Jeezoflip]

I'd actually like to see an example of a politician who doesn't care for money. There really isn't one, and in the same way, there isn't a perfect leader. Whenever you look at the leader of a country, their first goal is to protect and procure the future of their own country. If you want world peace, you might want to take a look at the Miss America Pageant. Whenever you have a world where you have and encourage individualism, and ambition, then you're going to have a world with fighting and war. We can't find utopia, and although I can agree that we need a good leader, your goals listed are a little lofty.

 

As for the East, no matter what decision we make, they will never respect it as fair. Any decision that they do not like, they generally do not like it because they don't believe it is a fair ruling. I don't see the point in changing our foreign policy just because some people don't like it. When we begin changing our foreign policy, even moreso our domestic policy, just because some other nation dislikes it. I believe such a measure is pointless.

 

No.

[gwprod12]

NO!

[wildcat69410]

No what?

 

I have a point. You can't point out to me a leader, democrat, republican, independent, libertarian, that does not value money in some way shape or form.

 

The goal of a leader of a nation isn't for the international community to like him, it isn't even for his own people to like him, it's for him to make decisions that will benefit the country in the best way possible. Some leaders make good decisions that benefit the country, and others make bad. But in no way can we judge a leader by the way other country's leaders like him.

 

In the same way, we cannot judge our foreign policy by the way other nations' like it. Our foreign policy isn't created to benefit them, it's created to benefit ourselves, and gives us a way to make decisions on a day to day basis on how to interact with the countries around us. I'm not saying our foreign policy is perfect by any means, but to simply assume that by making "fair" decisions (when being "fair" has no standard definition or perspective), that the Middle East will respect us.

 

It's simply stupid to assume that other nations will simply respect us if we believe are decisions are fair.

[OryHara]

I couldn’t agree more. Sure we have Muslim extremists who want to blow up the west. Then there's Bush, a Christian extremists who wants to blow up the east.

You hit the nail on the head. I always say Look to thine own eyes first. Bush never has stepped back and looked at himself. I would imagine he has no idea how horrible he is, or he could and not care, which would make him even more dangerous.

 

I have a point. You can't point out to me a leader, democrat, republican, independent, libertarian, that does not value money in some way shape or form.

I beg to differ. I could loose everything tomorrow, and wouldn't care as long as I, and my loved ones were alive.

[Mebster]

I'd actually like to see an example of a politician who doesn't care for money. There really isn't one, and in the same way, there isn't a perfect leader. Whenever you look at the leader of a country, their first goal is to protect and procure the future of their own country. If you want world peace, you might want to take a look at the Miss America Pageant. Whenever you have a world where you have and encourage individualism, and ambition, then you're going to have a world with fighting and war. We can't find utopia, and although I can agree that we need a good leader, your goals listed are a little lofty.

A lot of countries are already rich and so the leaders already have the money there. The reason those people try and elect a honourable man/woman who will not drill a tunnel from the money to him but instead ones that go from the money to his people. But at the same time if his people all become fat-cats enjoying live but are being cursed and attacked at home and away then I’m sure a time would come when they might want him to do something which would stop people hating them so much. Maybe show the world that he...they stand for more than just money.

 

As for the East, no matter what decision we make, they will never respect it as fair. Any decision that they do not like, they generally do not like it because they don't believe it is a fair ruling. I don't see the point in changing our foreign policy just because some people don't like it. When we begin changing our foreign policy, even moreso our domestic policy, just because some other nation dislikes it. I believe such a measure is pointless.

This is typical talk (I guess so is mine).

When France was one of the only few countries who insisted that Israel stops it 's aggression on Lebanon at once, I found a new form of respect for it, one that I never had. Even though I hated the fact that they have banned my sisters in France from wearing a head scarf to cover themselves, as their religion requires them to do, this show of humanity meant I wanted to show my gratitude. People will always respect leaders and country if they do what is humanely right and not ones that have ulterior motives.

 

Why is it that the leader is willing (or at least should - not often does) change his foreign policy if his people want it changed but not when the rest of the world want it. If Iran has a foreign policy to stop selling oil to any nation that insulted the president, soon the world would insist this be changed as it would affect global oil prices and would hit many families hard.

If Iran said it would support and aid the Taliban because it felt they were the rightful rulers of Afghanistan and not the US then surely a point would come as the death count of US, British soldiers rises the world would insist that Iran stop what it's doing.

What if the whole of the Middle East decided not to recognise Israel and so would occupy the land as and when they please. Given Israel humiliating loss with a minor gorilla group I doubt they would be able to take much from all the Arab nations. As the world watches Israel getting destroyed as Lebanon has been, would a point not come when the world insisted they change their view?

 

No.

NO!

What does the NO mean?

 

You hit the nail on the head. I always say Look to thine own eyes first. Bush never has stepped back and looked at himself. I would imagine he has no idea how horrible he is, or he could and not care, which would make him even more dangerous.

I'm sure someone has told him how horrible he is. Can Bush get more dangerous? I seriously hope not. But evil has no limit.

[kernalzero]

1-9-09 is too fuc&ing long to wait for that {censored} to leave office. He's ruined this countries global image, he's persued policies that are outragous, both foreign and domestic, and he needs to be removed from office, he thinks he can do no wrong be cause he's delusional thinking he's doing god's work!!!! He's not even doing work for the US!!!!...I've said it before and I'll say it again: Clinton got impeached for getting a {censored} and saying he didn't...this guy kills how many people, sends troops into harms way, ruines the public image of the US, initiates programs violating the constitution and from what he's trying to do with terrorism...he's made no change in the threat level, he might have made things worse. Now we've got Iran and Venezula pissed off (although it's not really safe for iran to have weapons). And why are we still an embargo on Cuba?!?!? I want some damn cigars!

 

I'd like to jump on the band wagon of calling Bush a terrorist. He's trying to use the military might of this country for whatever he's trying to do in the middle east...What makes him think he's so special that he can solve a problem that has been going on for 5000 years?? and if he's hearing the voice of god telling him what to do...his ass needs to be removed from office and started on respiradol to treat his paranoid schizophrenia!

[wildcat69410]

I beg to differ. I could loose everything tomorrow, and wouldn't care as long as I, and my loved ones were alive.

 

No offense, but I meant the leader of a Country, not a family.

 

A lot of countries are already rich and so the leaders already have the money there. The reason those people try and elect a honourable man/woman who will not drill a tunnel from the money to him but instead ones that go from the money to his people. But at the same time if his people all become fat-cats enjoying live but are being cursed and attacked at home and away then I’m sure a time would come when they might want him to do something which would stop people hating them so much. Maybe show the world that he...they stand for more than just money.

 

Although I can certainly see where you're coming from, I don't exactly believe that Bush is intentionally doing any of this to gain money. Sure, he may have made some decisions that could have benefited Haliburton (the most of which is simply left-wing rumors). However, in this instance, I don't exactly see how wiretaps financially benefit Bush personally, or even the Government. This is strictly a "security" measure.

 

This is typical talk (I guess so is mine).

When France was one of the only few countries who insisted that Israel stops it 's aggression on Lebanon at once, I found a new form of respect for it, one that I never had. Even though I hated the fact that they have banned my sisters in France from wearing a head scarf to cover themselves, as their religion requires them to do, this show of humanity meant I wanted to show my gratitude. People will always respect leaders and country if they do what is humanely right and not ones that have ulterior motives.

 

Although very noble indeed, you sort of prove my point. You do indeed, in some way shape or form, dislike France a bit for prohibiting women to wear scarves over their faces. Why do you not like it? Because it goes against your religion, and therefore is "unfair". However, when France steps up and tells Israel to stop its agression against the Muslim state of Lebanon, it is something you wanted, so it is "fair". Basically, each side will have its own perspective of what is fair and what is not fair. To try to play both sides, or even play that ever shrinking middle is a virtually impossible goal.

 

Why is it that the leader is willing (or at least should - not often does) change his foreign policy if his people want it changed but not when the rest of the world want it. If Iran has a foreign policy to stop selling oil to any nation that insulted the president, soon the world would insist this be changed as it would affect global oil prices and would hit many families hard.

If Iran said it would support and aid the Taliban because it felt they were the rightful rulers of Afghanistan and not the US then surely a point would come as the death count of US, British soldiers rises the world would insist that Iran stop what it's doing.

What if the whole of the Middle East decided not to recognise Israel and so would occupy the land as and when they please. Given Israel humiliating loss with a minor gorilla group I doubt they would be able to take much from all the Arab nations. As the world watches Israel getting destroyed as Lebanon has been, would a point not come when the world insisted they change their view?

 

The world insists a lot of things to be changed, but it is plainly obvious that a lot of people don't listen. That's why, in my opinion, the UN isn't as effective as it once was. UN Regulations are just bullcrap that people ignore, and it has lost a lot of integrity and respect over the years. You have a point in a lot of your cases, although I don't see how Bush's Policy is necessarily as extreme as some of the cases you mentioned here.

 

At some point, this Foreign Policy should be changed, but not because the International Community dislikes it. We should only chage it when it loses its effectiveness. Although I believe that we should have a strong international community, the day that the US begins to care more about what the International Community thinks of them rather than what is best for their country, is the day that the US as we know it goes down the drain.

 

What does the NO mean?

 

Thank you!

 

I'm sure someone has told him how horrible he is. Can Bush get more dangerous? I seriously hope not. But evil has no limit.

 

Evil's a pretty strong word there... Although he is violating some civil liberties with a lot of these acts he has instituted, we're at a time of war. These acts should be repealed at a later time, for sure, but currenly our priority should be security. That's all that Bush is trying to do, secure the Nation. Illegal wiretaps is certainly not the best way, but if it means preventing another Terrorist attack, I don't really see the problem with it.

[OryHara]

but if it means preventing another Terrorist attack, I don't really see the problem with it.

If it comes to pass that my VoiP line is tapped illegally, then Bush, the NSA, and AT&T, will have legal action brought against them. Which will turn into THEIR problem.

[Mebster]

Watch from around 2mins onward. The reports question is an excellent one. And obviously stupid Bush doesn't understand the question and so takes it on his own tangent.

9min onward is quiet an interesting statement too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ag3QsL2hbXI

[wildcat69410]

If it comes to pass that my VoiP line is tapped illegally, then Bush, the NSA, and AT&T, will have legal action brought against them. Which will turn into THEIR problem.

 

Okay, so you'd rather have an untapped VOIP line than a couple thousand lives? I can understand that. But seriously now, no sarcasm, I can understand where you are coming from. I don't want my civil liberties infringed upon either. But if you can't stand your VOIP line being tapped in order to save a few lives, then I guess that's sorta your problem too.

 

Now sure, my statement is a little extreme there, as if every line tapped is going to save x amount of lives, but this is a time of war, and I think we should take that into consideration.

[rollcage]

Okay, so you'd rather have an untapped VOIP line than a couple thousand lives? I can understand that. But seriously now, no sarcasm, I can understand where you are coming from. I don't want my civil liberties infringed upon either. But if you can't stand your VOIP line being tapped in order to save a few lives, then I guess that's sorta your problem too.

 

Now sure, my statement is a little extreme there, as if every line tapped is going to save x amount of lives, but this is a time of war, and I think we should take that into consideration.

 

The only thing that I don't like about the way the NSA tapped the lines was that it was done without a warrant. I have no problem with the government listening in on me (i have nothing to hide) if they give a judge a good reason. That's the only thing, get a warrant, it's not that hard and it keeps theri actions constituational. Even if it has to be made easier to get a warrant, I would still like someone to have control on how the government handles this.

 

I'm sure that this has prevented at least one attack, so I'm not going to boo it too much, but I don't want it to get to the point that they just start listening to conversations because they have nothing better to do at the moment.

[kernalzero]

good video Ace. That dumbass always has press conferences like that...you know where he doesn't know what he's talking about, looks confused, etc. I just don't understand how he's still in office...is the general public in this country so uneducated and retarded that they can't see how foolish bush is? He got reelected so I guess yes! People have the right to question their government's actions and critisize them. I think that concept has been lost in the past 5 years because those who speakout against this insanity are said to be helping the terrorists or not patriotic which is {censored}.

 

The best thing I've heard so far is " I don't want to FEEL safe from terrorists...I want to BE safe" and I think the only way to do that is to get rid of Bush and start looking into some of the country's foreign policies. They obviously aren't in our best interest if we are under constant threat because of them!

 

Rollcage, I agree there needs to be a warrant...without that we lose the system of checks/balances and we might aswell become a military state without civil liberties. it used to be no taxation without representation...it's now no evesdropping without legal justification

[wildcat69410]

good video Ace. That dumbass always has press conferences like that...you know where he doesn't know what he's talking about, looks confused, etc. I just don't understand how he's still in office...is the general public in this country so uneducated and retarded that they can't see how foolish bush is? He got reelected so I guess yes! People have the right to question their government's actions and critisize them. I think that concept has been lost in the past 5 years because those who speakout against this insanity are said to be helping the terrorists or not patriotic which is {censored}.

 

Hey, I'm for questioning the Government's motives just as much as you are. However, I tend to question both perspectives, not blindly question the one that everyone else seems to be. I agree that invading on people's civil rights is sure as hell wrong, but we've apparently accomplished something. We've interecepted terrorist attacks, and although we've gotten help, wiretaps were involved in making the arrests. Now does this make all wiretaps good and useful? No. But you have to understand that they have some merit.

 

The best thing I've heard so far is " I don't want to FEEL safe from terrorists...I want to BE safe" and I think the only way to do that is to get rid of Bush and start looking into some of the country's foreign policies. They obviously aren't in our best interest if we are under constant threat because of them!

 

Whether our Foreign policies were loved by other Countries or hated, we'd still have the same problems we do now. If we're to change our foreign policies simply because we're attacked by terrorists, do you know what we'd be doing? Simply giving into their demands, allowing them to complete their goal, which according to you, is to change our foreign policy. How much safer will we be if we tell terrorists out there that if they attack us enough, we'll change anything.

 

Rollcage, I agree there needs to be a warrant...without that we lose the system of checks/balances and we might aswell become a military state without civil liberties. it used to be no taxation without representation...it's now no evesdropping without legal justification

 

A little bit of an extreme interpretation, but you certainly have a point. At what level do we end sacrificing personal freedoms for societal security? That's a fairly difficult line to judge, and a line that should be moved considering the circumstances, but only to a limit. At what level should we set that line at, is there a perfect example of a Nation out there that balances both civil rights and security extremely well? (Don't give me a country that isn't disliked)

[OryHara]

Okay, so you'd rather have an untapped VOIP line than a couple thousand lives? I can understand that. But seriously now, no sarcasm, I can understand where you are coming from. I don't want my civil liberties infringed upon either. But if you can't stand your VOIP line being tapped in order to save a few lives, then I guess that's sorta your problem too.

 

Now sure, my statement is a little extreme there, as if every line tapped is going to save x amount of lives, but this is a time of war, and I think we should take that into consideration.

What I want from you is an explanation. In NAZI GERMANY, hitler had appointed a man into a position called 'The Minister of Propaganda'. Believe it or not yea, that was a real position. Now tell me, and explain it VERY well into detail. How does tapping my VoiP line save lives? I want to hear it out of your mouth. I want to know how committing illegal acts, and crimes against citizens save lives? Why can't they go through the courts and get a order from a judge, like everyone else?

 

You haven't explained any of your statements with facts. All you and the republican part seem to know how to do is repeat the same thing over and over without explanation. You right-wingers are starting to sound like parrots, just repeating what your glorious leader in D.C. tells you to say and believe. Why can't you think for yourselves?

[wildcat69410]

What I want from you is an explanation. In NAZI GERMANY, hitler had appointed a man into a position called 'The Minister of Propaganda'. Believe it or not yea, that was a real position. Now tell me, and explain it VERY well into detail. How does tapping my VoiP line save lives? I want to hear it out of your mouth. I want to know how committing illegal acts, and crimes against citizens save lives? Why can't they go through the courts and get a order from a judge, like everyone else?

 

Okay, first off, explain to me how you know the Government is tapping YOUR VOIP LINE! You seem to have this utmost ignorance and ego to believe that the United States Government, of all organizations, seem to want to specifically tap YOUR LINE! Your line may be included in the broad wiretapping statement, but does that mean that the US is going to necessarily tap your line? No! It doesn't have near the resources to do that.

 

Therefore, the broad wiretapping is used to intercept a communication signal from one terrorist to another. It may be something simple, like mentioning of certain things, ideas, etc, that might spark enough interest to create a followup tap. If, in that tapping, the US finds enough evidence to believe that a terrorist plot is in the mix, then they will take action and arrest those responsible. Sounds pretty simple to me.

 

Reasons for not going through a judge is primarily because the information is time sensitive. If we had to wait x amount of hours for a warrant to go through, then there is a strong possibility that an act would be performed BEFORE the time was allotted. Plus, court records are public, and when a warrant is applied for, it would be fairly simple for a terrorist to find out, and then simply cease all forms of current communication.

 

You haven't explained any of your statements with facts. All you and the republican part seem to know how to do is repeat the same thing over and over without explanation. You right-wingers are starting to sound like parrots, just repeating what your glorious leader in D.C. tells you to say and believe. Why can't you think for yourselves?

 

This coming from the guy who just tried to argue civil liberties with me, the entire basis of the left wing party. All you left wingers are starting to sound like hypocrites to me...