It is currently Sat Aug 30, 2014 5:15 pm

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 12 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Are telecom companies working with government?
PostPosted: Fri Jan 27, 2006 8:45 pm 
Offline
SuperMember!
SuperMember!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 6:19 pm
Posts: 2533
Yahoo, Microsoft and America Online have all revealed they have complied with subpoenas to provide the government with details on how users are utilizing their search engines. The Justice Department claims it needs the information in order to help the government fight pornography. At least one company, Google, is fighting the subpoena. And the telecom companies may also be connected to the growing controversy over President Bush’s order for the National Security Agency to conduct domestic spy operations.

Last week, Democratic Congressman John Conyers wrote to 20 leading telephone and Internet companies asking if they had cooperated with the government in the domestic surveillance.

How far is the patriot acts arms able to stretch? Seems like it's around the world now as they gather information and restrict it and merely need an excuse to do so. We are in the beginnings of a state of societal control physically, psychically and spiritually.

Now that the Internet can be used as a training ground for terrorists, by showing the tools and the methods required , there is no need for training facilities anymore. The only solution seems to be to shut down the web completely or reign in the flaws in the system and make it a limited access more controlled entity. Internet cafes and ways of evading detection are some of the ways used to abuse it, but it has proven to also be a tool of investigation and capture by such organizations as the NSA and the CIA in their work against foreign subversion. So the dilemma is that there is a definite abuse of freedoms of individuals by a few, like porn, insurgents, computer corporations, and servers, but it provides a means to eavesdrop on people who are doing illegal activities as well. Now that it's public, they can do their best to appease the situation and go back to secret surveillance like with their wiretapping. We need a free access portal to the world where information flows freely. We can't use a few excuses to shut down our freedoms of information.

This is supposedly about pleasing China and its restrictions, but how far will this go? We know what the government will do and the lengths they will go to for their paranoid fear of losing power and control.

One more blow to our freedoms. They have their eye on us again.

Now about Alberto Gonadsez, The puppet A.G.! Who has their hand stuffed up his butt? Making excuses for the president and barefaced lying to the public and using rhetoric and hyperbole to set the agenda for repression and removal of the constitution. This man is twisting the logic of truth to its limits. A master tactician and strategist, he is using his slimy ways to set up the means for Bush to weasel his way out of this dilemma and justify his power into a thrust for what, one more term? These guys are good at changing the law, and with a judiciary that is friendly, the die is cast and it's a winner every time. It means that America is in more serious trouble than they're letting on internally and internationally. These are the acts of a desperate man on the verge of death, doing whatever he must to survive. It reminds me of a cartoon I once read. Deadman was driving down the road getting a B.J. and missed a corner and was heading for a cliff. As he was skidding in the dirt, his last words were, "Oh, If I can only hit that family there enjoying the view I may be able to survive." The caption for the father of the family as he pushes his wife and kids out of the way was,"What a hero, he swerved out of the way just to save me and my family." Of course as Deadman goes flying over the cliff it reads "Oh shit I missed them, AAAAAAaaahh." They're on a collision course for us and they aren't going to miss.

Here's some of what Gonzo said.

Quote:
Now, some contend that even if the President has constitutional authority to engage in the surveillance of our enemy in a time of war -- and that's what we're talking about here -- that that authority has been constrained by Congress with the passage in 1978 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. As you know, generally FISA requires the government to obtain an order from a special FISA court before conducting electronic surveillance. Now, we do not have to decide whether, when we're at war and there is a vital need for the terrorist surveillance program, FISA unconstitutionally encroaches or places an unconstitutional constraint upon the President's Article II powers. We can avoid that tough question because Congress gave the President the force resolution, and that statute removes any possible tension between what Congress said in 1978 in FISA and the President's constitutional authority today.

Now, you may have heard about the provision of FISA that allows the President to conduct warrant-less surveillance for 15 days following a declaration of war. That provision shows that Congress knew that warrant-less surveillance would be essential in wartime. But no one could reasonably suggest that all such critical military surveillance in a time of war would end after only 15 days. Instead, the legislative history of this provision makes it clear that Congress elected not to decide how surveillance might need to be conducted in the event of a particular armed conflict.

Congress expected that it would revisit the issue in light of events and likely would enact a special authorization during that 15-day period. And that is exactly what happened three days after the attacks of 9/11, when Congress passed the force resolution permitting the President to exercise all necessary and appropriate incidents of military force. Thus, it is simply not the case that Congress in 1978 anticipated all of the ways that the President might need to act in times of armed conflict to protect the United States. FISA, by its own terms, was not intended to be the last word on these critical issues.

Second, some people have argued that, by their terms, Title III and FISA are the exclusive means for conducting electronic surveillance. It is true that the law says that Title III and FISA are the exclusive means by which electronics surveillance may be conducted, but as I have said before, FISA itself says elsewhere that the government cannot engage in electronics surveillance except as authorized by statute. It is noteworthy that FISA did not say the government cannot engage in electronic surveillance except as authorized by FISA and Title III. No, it said except as authorized by statute, any statute, and in this case that other statute is the force resolution. Even if some might think that that's not the only way to read the statute, in accordance with long-recognized canons of construction, FISA must be interpreted in harmony with the force resolution to allow the President, as commander-in-chief during time of armed conflict, to take the actions necessary to protect the country from another catastrophic attack. And so long as such interpretation is fairly possible, the Supreme Court has made it clear that it must be adopted in order to avoid the serious constitutional issues that would otherwise be raised.

Third, I keep hearing, “Why not FISA? Why didn't the President get orders from the FISA court approving these N.S.A. intercepts of al-Qaeda communications?” We have to remember that we're talking about a wartime foreign intelligence program. It is an early warning system with only one purpose: to detect and prevent the next attack on the United States from foreign agents hiding in our midst. It is imperative for national security reasons that we can detect reliably, immediately, and without delay whenever communications associated with al-Qaeda enter or leave the United States.

Now, some have pointed to the provision in FISA that allows for so-called emergency authorizations of surveillance for 72 hours without a court order. I think that there is a serious misconception about these emergency authorizations. People should know that we do not approve emergency authorizations without knowing that we will receive court approval within 72 hours. FISA requires me, the Attorney General, to determine in advance that a FISA application for that particular intercept will be fully supported and will be approved by the court before an emergency authorization may be granted. And that review process itself can take precious time.

To initiate surveillance under a FISA emergency authorization, it is not enough to rely on the best judgment of our intelligence officers alone. Those intelligence officers would have to get the signoff of lawyers at the N.S.A. that all provisions of FISA have been satisfied. Then lawyers in the Department of Justice would have to be similarly satisfied. And finally, as Attorney General, I would have to be satisfied that the search meets the requirements of FISA. And then we would have to be prepared to follow up with a full FISA application within the 72 hours.

We all agree that there should be appropriate checks and balances on our branches of government. The FISA process makes perfect sense in almost all cases of foreign intelligence monitoring in the United States. Although technology has changed dramatically since FISA was enacted, FISA remains a vital tool in the war on terror and one that we are using to its fullest and will continue to use against al-Qaeda and other foreign threats. But as the President has explained, the terrorist surveillance program operated by the N.S.A. requires a maximum in speed and agility, since even a very short delay may make the difference between success and failure in preventing the next attack, and we cannot afford to fail.


Attorney General Alberto Gonzales speaking at Georgetown University Law Center yesterday. Gonzales left immediately after his talk without taking questions. Protesters followed. Also, panelists responded to what the Attorney General had to say. One of the panelists was David Cole, law professor at Georgetown and author of several books including Terrorism and the Constitution: Sacrificing Civil Liberties in the Name of National Security.

Quote:
DAVID COLE: FISA, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, was enacted by Congress in 1978 after revelations of rampant wiretapping and surveillance on Americans in the name of national security. And there was the Church Committee held extensive hearings and wrote an extensive report, criticizing this practice and calling for reforms. FISA was one such reform.

It regulates electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence and national security purposes. It permits such surveillance, but with minor exceptions not invoked by the Department of Justice, it requires a warrant from a FISA court. To get such a warrant, you don't have to show probable cause of a crime, you just have to show probable cause that the person you're targeting is a member of a terrorist organization. So if, in fact, that's all they were targeting, they could have gone through the FISA courts. They didn't.

Congress, in FISA, specifically said that FISA and the Title III, which governs ordinary criminal wiretaps, are the exclusive means for any wiretapping by officials within the United States. They are the exclusive means. That means the only means. Congress also said it's a crime to conduct electronic surveillance without statutory authorization in two places: in 50 USC Section 1809 and in 18 USC Section 2511. Both of those statutes, I think, the President violated.

And finally, and most importantly, Congress specifically contemplated the exact question addressed today; that is, authorization for wiretapping during wartime. Section 1811 in FISA is entitled “Authorization During Time of War.” So this is not some un-contemplated issue; Congress specifically addressed it. And what they said was when we’ve declared war, the President can conduct warrant-less wiretapping, but only for 15 days. And they said in the legislative history, this is so if the President needs further authority, he can come to us and ask for that authority. The President didn't do that here. He simply went ahead and did it without asking for their authority.

Now, the D.O.J.'s argument, and repeated here by the Attorney General, is that the AUMF, the authorization to use military force, somehow implicitly overrides all of this and authorizes the President to conduct warrant-less wiretapping. There's several problems with that argument. First, the authorization says nothing about warrant-less wiretapping. Second, as I’ve indicated, Section 1811 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act specifically addresses discretion of warrant-less wiretapping and says 15 days and no further. And that provision applies when Congress has declared war, the most serious and grave act Congress can do. Here Congress only authorized the use of military force. So if Congress said a declaration of war only gives you 15 days, how can it be that an authorization to use military force somehow gives him four years and more of unchecked power?

In addition, when Attorney General Gonzales was asked by reporters why he didn't go to Congress and ask for additional authority, he said, ‘Well, we talked to some members of Congress, and they said it would be difficult, if not impossible, to get that additional authority.’ So how can you argue on the one hand, Congress gave us the authority, but on the other hand, we didn't go to Congress to ask for the authority because if we did, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to get it?

Now, when you're a law student, they tell you if you can't argue the law, argue the facts. They also say if you can't argue the facts, argue the law. If you can't argue either, apparently, the solution is to go on a public relations offensive and make it a political issue, because that's what the Bush administration has done here, sort of taking the pulpit, through the President, through the Attorney General, through Michael Hayden, through the Vice President, to say over and over and over again, it's lawful, as if the American people will somehow come to believe this if we say it often enough.

And I think in light of that, the sort of clearly blatantly political nature of this, I'm proud of the very civil disobedience that was shown here today to express the opposite political view. Now, David Brooks, in commenting on the Alito hearings which discussed these issues, said, ‘Anytime the Democrats are seen talking about law, and the Republicans are seen to be talking about national security, that's a winner for the Republicans.’ And that may be true as a political matter. In fact, Karl Rove said exactly the same thing just last week, that there's a political gain here that they see by invoking fear and national security over law.

But that's precisely why we have law in the first place. It's in recognition that political pressures will push government officials toward violation of rights and towards accretion of government power. This administration has taken the view -- in this case; in the torture case; in the cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment issue -- that it can literally override the law and violate criminal statutes. Now, it's on a political campaign to entrench that power. What's at stake here is whether we are a government of laws, rather than a government of men.

AMY GOODMAN: David Cole, law professor at Georgetown, one of the panelists responding to the speech made by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales at Georgetown University Law Center yesterday. President Bush heads to the National Security Agency today in the weeklong Bush administration campaign that could be called, "Why We Spy."


Excuses innuendo's vague assumptions and conclusions left to the populace to weigh. It seems as though when it comes to saying "I guess so, coulda, woulda, shoulda, some, thus, likely etc."- Alberto's not afraid of making a firm commitment. The natives had a name for him as in "Walking Eagle, Possessor of Split Tongue". What a system set up for abuse. It allows for ambiguity when required. Was this the founders first intention? It seems that each time a conflict is approached then the decisions for settling are capable of manipulation beyond what was first intended or implied. Kinda like a bible and the way it has been bastardised to allow for social control, death and mutilations in the name of the Lord. Have mercy on us.

The original terms have disappeared and have been replaced by sentences meaningless unto themselves and vague allusions replace firm statements which were intended to give the thought behind it a special significance. There is no argument here to question his speech or reason, just silence and acceptance for his speech. Such is the nature of power and authority in a Machiavelliean structure.

It is good that the law students rose and turned, dressed in their Abu Ghraib black hoods, facing away from him in silence, with Ben Franklins famous words spread for all to read. How appropriate that these law students took the only action that would be allowed. Peaceful assembly in silence is indeed golden at moments like this. Is it worth freedoms sacrifice for a little security?

When will these clowns learn that they're entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts.


Thanks to Democracy Now for the quote.

_________________
Completely sane world
madness the only freedom

An ability to see both sides of a question
one of the marks of a mature mind

People don't choose to be dishonest
the choice chooses them

Now I know how Kusinich feels.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 1:31 am 
Offline
SuperMember!
SuperMember!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 2:02 am
Posts: 1148
Location: Mill Valley, CA
It appears that one company, Qwest, is being given some kudos for trying to refuse the gov'ts request to wiretap on their services.

Quote:
One company refused the NSA. The former chairman of Qwest Communications decided that in the absence of a warrant his company wouldn’t allow access. If the Qwest lawyers and executives had the intelligence to question the government’s actions, then so did the other companies. But they didn’t, and they should face the consequences.


And from this article a bit more about Qwest:
Quote:
... its legal department felt there should be a court order, and said, 'If you give us one, we'll comply with it.' Of course, there was never a forthcoming court order, which should say something about the intentions of the administration and those that were seeking access to that information."

_________________
Which way is up?

I haven't used this screen name elsewhere.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2008 10:35 am 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 29, 2004 11:46 pm
Posts: 14444
Location: NC
[url=http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20080124_the_end_of_privacy/]The End of Privacy
[/url]

WE'RE ABOUT TO BECOME EVEN MORE OBSERVED AND CENSORED! :evil: :evil: :evil:

By Elliot Cohen

Amid the controversy brewing in the Senate over Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) reform, the Bush administration appears to have changed its strategy and is devising a bold new plan that would strip away FISA protections in favor of a system of wholesale government monitoring of every American’s Internet activities. Now the national director of intelligence is predicting a disastrous cyber-terrorist attack on the U.S. if this scheme isn’t instituted.

It is no secret that the Bush administration has already been spying on the e-mail, voice-over-IP, and other Internet exchanges between American citizens since as early as and possibly earlier than Sept. 11, 2001. The National Security Agency has set up shop in the hubs of major telecom corporations, notably AT&T, installing equipment that makes copies of the contents of all Internet traffic, routing it to a government database and then using natural language parsing technology to sift through and analyze the data using undisclosed search criteria. It has done this without judicial oversight and obviously without the consent of the millions of Americans under surveillance. Given any rational interpretation of the Fourth Amendment, its mass spying operation is illegal and unconstitutional.

But now the administration wants to make these illegal activities legal. And why is that? According to National Director of Intelligence Mike McConnell, who is now drafting the proposal, an attack on a single U.S. bank by the 9/11 terrorists would have had a far more serious impact on the U.S. economy than the destruction of the Twin Towers. “My prediction is that we’re going to screw around with this until something horrendous happens,” said McConnell. So the way to prevent this from happening, he claims, is to give the government the power to spy at will on the content of all e-mails, file transfers and Web searches.

McConnell’s prediction of something “horrendous” happening unless we grant government this authority has a tone similar to that of the fear-mongering call to arms against terrorism that President Bush sounded before taking us to war in Iraq. Now, Americans are about to be asked to surrender their Fourth Amendment rights because of a vague and unsupported prediction of the dangers and costs of cyber-terrorism.

The analogy with the campaign to frighten us into war with Iraq gets even stronger when it becomes evident that along with the establishing of American forces in Iraq, the cyber-security McConnell is calling for was, all along, part of the strategic plan, devised by Dick Cheney and several other present and former high-level Bush administration officials, to establish America as the world’s supreme superpower. This plan, known as the Project for the New American Century, unequivocally recognized “an imperative” for government to not only secure the Internet against cyber-attacks but also to control and use it offensively against its adversaries. The Project for the New American Century also maintained that “the process of transformation” it envisioned (which included the militarization and control of the Internet) was “likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor.” All that appears to be lacking to make the analogy complete is the “horrendous” cyber-attack—the chilling analog of the 9/11 attacks—that McConnell now predicts.

Apparently, the Bush administration had hoped to continue its mass surveillance program in secret, but as many as 40 civil suits were filed against AT&T and other telecoms, threatening to blow the government’s illegal spying activities wide open. Unable to have these cases dismissed in appellate court by once again playing the national-security card, the administration drafted and tried to push through Congress a version of the FISA Amendments Act of 2007 that gave retroactive immunity to telecom corporations for their assistance in helping the government spy en mass on Americans without a court warrant. The administration’s plan was to use Congress’ passage of this provision of immunity to nullify any cause of civil action against the telecoms, thereby pre-empting the exposure of the administration’s own illegal activities.

Two versions of the FISA bill emerged, one from the Senate Intelligence Committee drafted largely by Cheney himself, which contained the immunity provision, and another from the Senate Judiciary Committee that did not contain the provision. Although Senate Majority leader Harry Reid inauspiciously chose the former to bring to the Senate floor, the bill was surrounded by much controversy. There had been well organized grass-roots pressure to stop it from passing, and the House had already passed a version that did not include the retroactive immunity provision. Thus, in the face of a filibuster threat by Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), Reid postponed the discussion until the January 2008 session.

Now Reid has tried to put off the FISA Amendments Act once again by asking Republicans to extend, for one more month, the Protect America Act of 2007, an interim FISA reform act that is due to sunset in February. However, Cheney has urged Congress to pass his version of the FISA Amendments Act now. “We can always revisit a law that’s on the books. That’s part of the job of the elected branches of government,” Cheney said. “But there is no sound reason to pass critical legislation ... and slap an expiration date on it.”

Cheney’s point about the possibility of later revisiting the FISA Amendments Act after it becomes law may foreshadow replacing it in the coming months with a law based on McConnell’s plan, which is due to emerge in February. This would mark a gradual descent into divesting Americans entirely of their Fourth Amendment right to privacy—first by blocking their ability to sue the telecoms for violating their privacy and then by giving the government the same legal protection. After all, the FISA Amendments Act still requires the government to get warrants for spying on American citizens even if it does not afford adequate judicial oversight in enforcing this mandate. McConnell’s proposal, on the other hand, would make no bones about spying on Americans without warrants, thereby contradicting any meaningful FISA reform.

President Bush has already made clear he would veto any FISA bill that did not give retroactive immunity to the telecoms. However, if McConnell’s soon to be unveiled spy-at-will plan is turned into law, a separate law giving retroactive immunity to the telecoms would be unnecessary. All Bush and Cheney would need to do to protect themselves from criminal liability would be to make the new spy-at-will law retroactive in effect from the inception of the illegal NSA surveillance program. This would also be sufficient to deflate the civil suits filed against the telecoms because the past illegal spying activities that these companies conducted on behalf of the government would then become “legal.” Indeed, the Bush administration has already done this sort of legal retro-dating and nullifying of civil rights and gotten it through Congress. For example, the Military Commissions Act of 2006 conveniently gave Bush the power to decide whether someone—including himself—is guilty of torture, irrespective of the Geneva Conventions, and it made this authority retroactive to Nov. 26, 1997.

Whatever the final disposition of FISA in the coming weeks or months, the administration is now bracing to take a much more aggressive posture that would seek abridgement of civil liberties in its usual fashion: by fear-mongering and warnings that our homeland will be attacked by terrorists (this time of the menacing hacker variety) unless we the people surrender our Fourth Amendment right to privacy and give government the authority to inspect even our most personal and intimate messages.

It would be a mistake to underestimate the resolve of the Bush administration. But it would be a bigger mistake for Americans not to stand united against this familiar pattern of government scare tactics and manipulation. There are grave dangers to the survival of democracy posed by allowing any present or future government unfettered access to all of our private electronic communications. These dangers must be carefully weighed against the dubious and unproven benefits that granting such an awesome power to government might have on fending off cyber-attacks.


Elliot D. Cohen, PhD, is a media ethicist and critic. His most recent book is “The Last Days of Democracy: How Big Media and Power-Hungry Government Are Turning America Into a Dictatorship.” He is a first-prize winner of the 2007 Project Censored Award.

Whether or not it'll do any good to let our Congress critters know how we feel about this, they should all be inundated with protest calls, letters, and emails!

_________________
Image

"Behind every great fortune lies a great crime."
Honore de Balzac

"Democrats work to help people who need help.
That other party, they work for people who don't need help.
That's all there is to it."

~Harry S. Truman


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2008 2:00 pm 
Offline
SuperMember!
SuperMember!
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2007 11:37 pm
Posts: 1646
Location: Denver
Just when you think that Washington simply can't be any worse, they lower the bar....yet again.

I believe that a person who was 100% moral would probably barf while deliberating on the integrity of modern day Washington.

_________________
"If the people allow private banks to control their currency the banks and corporations will deprive the people of all their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered." - Thomas Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 4:47 am 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 29, 2004 11:46 pm
Posts: 14444
Location: NC
[url=http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/20080129_feingolds_quick_and_easy_guide_to_fisa/?ln]Feingold’s Quick and Easy Guide to FISA
[/url]

Lawmakers who take a principled stand on the tough and often complex issues that face our nation typically struggle to condense the relevant intricacies into a comprehensible sound bite. Here, Sen. Russ Feingold bucks the trend as he explains the administration’s plan for spying on Americans.

This comment at the link sums it up pretty well:


Quote:
Trust us my back side. Whenever you hear that from the mouth of any politician, you know you’re in trouble. I must say they are really hard up if they read all my emails or listen to phone calls.

The real Americans(?)that should be monitored 24/7 are all those who hold public office, especially those in the White House. After all, they are supposed to be the ones who work for us and as their “employers” We The People should be the ones who read their emails and listen to their phone calls. The secretive, underhanded and dishonest policies this administration has done in the last 7 years more than proves that. If they really wanted to gleam information that is not in the best interest of America, they don’t have to go any further than their own backyards.

_________________
Image

"Behind every great fortune lies a great crime."
Honore de Balzac

"Democrats work to help people who need help.
That other party, they work for people who don't need help.
That's all there is to it."

~Harry S. Truman


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 5:06 pm 
Offline
SuperMember!
SuperMember!
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2007 11:37 pm
Posts: 1646
Location: Denver
Feingold hits the nail on the head.

If our government is truly interested in stopping mega-terrorism, it likely needs to spy....on the government.

The purpose of terrorism is to spread fear. Which seems to be the latter day purpose of our government.

I have given up on this nation for the time being. I think there is a maximum 5% of the population who cares enough to educate themselves. I also suspect that it would be about 5% of the population that the government created by the Patriot Act would deem to be "dissident."

The entire objective of this New World Order is to create multi-national unions that will be the pre-cursor to a one world government controlled by RFID spy chips.

Complain....educate....speak out....read up....whatever. The consequence will be getting your chip turned off.

_________________
"If the people allow private banks to control their currency the banks and corporations will deprive the people of all their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered." - Thomas Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 2:39 pm 
Offline
SuperMember!
SuperMember!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 6:19 pm
Posts: 2533
Pretty much defines my assessment. They need to be watched, not us. We can't trust these people, because as uncontrollable as the masses are in their eyes, they are equally insane. So the madhouse is running the world and the patients are the masters.

The chip is making its debut here in BC where the first experimental Drivers licences are being issued with the Vchip installed. only those who use the border were chosen. Amazing they knew who to ask isn't it- NOT.

There's nothing real anymore, just shadows we catch faint glimpses of and desire to have or own. Plato's cave is everything he described it to be- 2,500 years ago- and very little has changed. Information rules and they know us like a book- one where they tell us what to read and believe and we cooperate for securities sake or whatever other excuse they give us.

See what happens when they don't know we're listening.
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/43.html
(The Spin story- posted in elections as well under also rans)

I'd say TV works with government, so why not telecom companies, as well as Microsoft, Mac etc.

The web is littered with corporate copasetic participants only too willing to help control. Big Brother is watching and he's got his ear to the ground as well. Next- read my mind? Then you'll know everything!

_________________
Completely sane world
madness the only freedom

An ability to see both sides of a question
one of the marks of a mature mind

People don't choose to be dishonest
the choice chooses them

Now I know how Kusinich feels.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 3:10 pm 
Offline
SuperMember!
SuperMember!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 1:53 am
Posts: 2541
Location: Illinois
DO.g's wrote:
Next- read my mind? Then you'll know everything!


Everything? Wow! I can't read your mind, so please tell me, what's the secret of the universe?

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 7:03 pm 
Offline
SuperMember!
SuperMember!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 6:19 pm
Posts: 2533
I meant the collective mind reading, not the individual. Like the thought police concept. Aren't you a socialist too? That means you and me as well.

42 is a good answer but it's not right. The correct answer to the meaning of the universe is -"Why should I tell you and take away all the fun of learning yourself"?

This answer also applies to the meaning of life when you climb the mountain to the guru's cave. The meaning of the bible is one of those things you have to repeat over and over again because it is just too weird to believe without reinforcing.

Always answer a question about belief with another question and you are no longer accountable or questioned about your beliefs. Simple n'est ce pas?

When they can spy on your mind, they'll no longer need these tools to operate. Just turn on the equipment and try to hide something from them.

_________________
Completely sane world
madness the only freedom

An ability to see both sides of a question
one of the marks of a mature mind

People don't choose to be dishonest
the choice chooses them

Now I know how Kusinich feels.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 7:33 pm 
Offline
SuperMember!
SuperMember!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 1:53 am
Posts: 2541
Location: Illinois
DO.g's wrote:
The correct answer to the meaning of the universe is -"Why should I tell you and take away all the fun of learning yourself"?


Yes, I know what you are saying. The answer is not really important. We are the part of the universe which can look at it all and say, WTF.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 09, 2008 11:55 am 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 29, 2004 11:46 pm
Posts: 14444
Location: NC
Reid Files 15-Day Extension of Surveillance Law

To guard against the expiration of a temporary surveillance law Feb. 16, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid , D-Nev., has filed a bill that would extend it for 15 days.

The Senate is expected to pass a six-year bill overhauling the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act on Feb. 12, but that gives lawmakers little time to work out a compromise between the Senate bill and a House-passed version before the Presidents Day recess begins and the temporary law expires.

Reid filed the latest extension Friday “in case we can’t finish the conference negotiations in time,” spokesman Jim Manley said.

Democrats had pressed for a 30-day extension of the current law when it was on the verge of expiring Feb. 1, but President Bush rejected the notion, eventually supporting a 15-day extension instead.

Bush has said he will not accept another extension of the law.

The expiring law allows the executive branch to conduct surveillance of foreign targets without a warrant, even when that foreign target is communicating with someone in the United States. The secret court created by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act has limited authority to approve some of the procedures used to conduct such spying.

_________________
Image

"Behind every great fortune lies a great crime."
Honore de Balzac

"Democrats work to help people who need help.
That other party, they work for people who don't need help.
That's all there is to it."

~Harry S. Truman


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 3:02 am 
Offline
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 6:42 am
Posts: 2046
Location: Surprise, AZ USA
Stephen Colbert - The Word - AT & Treason


With the House still talking about giving these bums immunity, Colbert hits the nail on the head again.

_________________
I'm not a member of any organized party. I'm a Democrat.”-Will Rogers

A Proud Liberal...This Day in History...Namnesia Antidote


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 12 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Blue Moon by Trent © 2007
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group