Truly living on another planet or too stoopid to live.

Rather, it seems, misrepresenting the argument.

It was an old gambit when Schopenhauer described it:

https://www.teach12.com/ttc/figs/38waystowin.asp

You're Goddamn right, Veteran71. Harry Reid's a despicable piece of shit who shouldn't even be in office. Of course, he's symptomatic of the "Parliament of Whores"--er, the U. S. Congress. The vast majority of these hacks are owned by PACs, lobbyists, big contributors, and the like.

Piss on Reid, Rockefeller, Feinstein. . . .

Sitting before your sanity and your wisdom is like a warm lamp on a frosty morning. Not only can I see, I feel better about it.

We have known Bush is corrupt and power hungry for over seven years now, we have known Republicans are unpatriotic for even longer, and by now we should know that the Democrats are not the saviors we once hoped they would be. So what now? It's our turn.

I've just written my Senators, Congressman, (and Harry Reid himself), requesting they push for Harry Reid to step down/resign as majority leader. He, like fellow noodle spine, Nancy Pelosi, have proven for over a year now, that they lack the commitment, for whatever reason, to push the mandate given by the vast majority of Americans, to stop the Bush/Cheney Crime Cartel from further destroying our Nation, Constitution, and Rule of Law.

He, like Pelosi, are a disgrace to both the Democratic Party, and the American people who put them in the majority. I urge all those who share the hope for a future unencumbered by further neocon damage to our Nation, to do likewise.

Nothing gets done these days by just voting in different representation. They've all seem to have forgetten why they are there.

I sent Mr. Reid an e-mail with one word on it .The word "Resign" and it sure felt good to send it .I also know that it means nothing to him . Also sent anti immunity e-mails to my 2 rubber stamp corrupt republican senators and my inept congress critter "McHenry "( Is he the stupidest looking little man ever or what? ) all to no avail, they don't care what I think. The dozens of snail mail reply letters tell me that.

Perhaps it's beyond your abilities to understand that we aren't talking about wiretapping or eavesdropping? I'd also be interested in hearing how computerized tracking of an entire networks worth of linkages goes back into history.

I never suggested that computerized tracking of networks goes back into history. Read it again, this time more slowly, and bring someone to help you with the big words. I said "tracking domestic communication" has gone on through history, and the regime that does it has generally used it to keep tabs on its political opponents. You can't refute that. While the current discussion, yes, revolves around monitoring of the network rather than wiretapping and evesdropping, it is undeniable that we do not know the full extent of this program. Preventing us from knowing the full extent is the precise purpose of BushCo's push for telecom immunity. Remember, this program used to be about tracking the phone calls of a handful of terrorists, and always with a warrant. Then it turned out there were no warrants. Then it turned out that they were tracking the phone calls of hundreds of millions of Americans. So, you need to accept that this program could well go beyond network tracking.

But let's assume that's as far as it goes. There is clearly an intelligence value to that tracking, or else they wouldn't be doing it. Right? So, if they directed this tracking at, say, Democratic candidates or particularly investigative journalists, logic dictates that they would derive this same value. And, given the current legislation, there would be no way to know how this was being abused.

Am I going too fast for you?

The question here is whether seeing the patterns of one random number (phone number) interacting with other random numbers, is a loss of his freedom.

Again, Shooter, these patterns are clearly of value to our intel services, or else they wouldn't be tracking them. If our government is gathering valuable intel on its citizens without a warrant, that is a loss of freedom.

Way to go guys. Maybe you can successfully expose every legitimate method of surveillance America has,

Shooter, this method is not legitimate. For that reason, BushCo is clamoring for telecom immunity. You don't need legal immunity for behavior that is legitimate. What part of that don't you understand?

Please, Shooter, I invite you to prove your banal stupidity once again.

Some farkin' eeedjit wrte:

@ Hag, Paulpsd7

I was going to ignore this, like the ramblings of a street person on the corner, but you just had to bring it up again didn't you. Since I can knock off two birds with one post, it is now worth the effort to review Paulpsd7's effort.

First, worrying about a government that can track domestic communication is supported by history. Throughout history, most if not every regime with this ability has used it to spy on their political opponents. Them's just the unfortunate facts. In fact, FISA was enacted as a direct response to the Nixon Admin's practice of doing precisely that.

Perhaps it's beyond your abilities to understand that we aren't talking about wiretapping or eavesdropping?

Rrrrrrriiiggghhhhtt. This guy with a room temperature (Celsius) IQ -- or is it just a mile-deep dishonesty? -- is trying to say this is not about "wiretapping or eavesdropping". After all, we're just talking about the interception of telecommunications, and the tapping of OC3s by wiretap equipment like the Narus 6400.

Truly living on another planet or too stoopid to live.

Cheers,

Par for the course, as you might say. No worries, though. I'll be there the next time, and the time after that, and the time after that....

Good on you, William. Keep their feet to the fire on things that actually matter.

Say, didja see/read Gore's speech:

http://tinyurl.com/8hxjv

And he's a leader in other matters as well, Iraq, global warming, and this:

http://tinyurl.com/3x2fla

I say we forget these bastards that are so busy tearing each other down on silly things, and pick the folks that have the balls to not just masticate about "change" but to stand up and say things that will make a difference.

How about this ticket (from a brokered convention):

Gore/Dodd 2008

(or, if you prefer, the other way around).

Let's pick a ticket that serves us, not them (the rstwhile candidates that think themselves far more important than they act).

Cheers,