posted April 25, 2009 04:23 PM            

Lindaland
Global Unity
Big Brother Control Over Internet (Page 2)

profile | register | preferences | faq
UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone!
This topic is 5 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic: Big Brother Control Over Internet
katatonic
Knowflake
Posts: 1565
From: ca, usa
Registered: Jan 2008 posted April 08, 2009 06:55 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
excuse YOU, but i will not give out names for the same reason that you do not give out your personal details. these are people i know and they are not leftists! i don't get my information from rags on the internet....go fly a kite, herbert!
IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake
Posts: 15169
From: Pleasanton, CA, USA
Registered: May 2005 posted April 08, 2009 08:36 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well Sunshine, assuming you found Americans who'd been wire-tapped, you'd probably be asked for proof of their having been wire-tapped, because the average American doesn't have access to the logs of who's been monitored. He's issued a challenge not easily met, and he expects that will keep him out of any intellectual hot water. What you and Kat have to do is give him an equal and opposite challenge like, "Prove that I, as an American not associated with terrorists, was not wire-tapped by the Bush administration." Then you can kick back, and pull the same BS he's pulling with you guys. Nobody here is going to have access to those records, so he's basically pranking you.
IP: Logged

sunshine_lion
Knowflake
Posts: 2190
From: ann arbor mi
Registered: Apr 2008 posted April 08, 2009 08:46 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i know you are right any proof i had would let you know personal things about people i know, because tht is all i have for proof.
whatever, he knows it hasn't changed just as well as we do.
obama has nothing to do with the problem, but it does exist.
IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake
Posts: 15169
From: Pleasanton, CA, USA
Registered: May 2005 posted April 08, 2009 08:59 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Google "court wire-tapping" (not in quotes like that) just for kicks to see where the issue stands. Apparently the Bush Administration did let some evidence slip.
IP: Logged

Node
Knowflake
Posts: 1444
From: Crowded House
Registered: Nov 2005 posted April 08, 2009 09:34 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually this one is pretty easy. Does anyone remember the White House emails that contained evidence that high profile members of the Media were targeted for surveillance by the Bush admin? That was in Feb. The emails were in storage, not too tidy. Members of the military wives were tapped, that was also documented in the emails. And most of it was pillow talk. This was all over the news, all three. Radio, print, etc etc.
I thought the point of the thread was Obama over the constitution. That the bill is illegal. When in fact surveillance has been conducted since the inception of the internet. The real point of the Post is to say that Bush can do it but Obama cannot. Silliness.
And and the emails? A matter of public record. Blagoavich's cellphone convo is one I haven't looked into.
IP: Logged

Node
Knowflake
Posts: 1444
From: Crowded House
Registered: Nov 2005 posted April 08, 2009 09:44 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
part of a previous link in my first post.
What: The Justice Department asks a judge to approve Patriot Act e-mail monitoring without any evidence of criminal behavior.
When: Decided Feb. 2, 2006 by U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan in Washington, D.C.
Outcome: E-mail surveillance approved.
What happened: As part of a grand jury investigation that's still secret, the Justice Department asked a federal magistrate judge to approve monitoring of an unnamed person's e-mail correspondents.
The request had a twist: Instead of asking to eavesdrop on the contents of the e-mail messages, which would require some evidence of wrongdoing, prosecutors instead requested the identities of the correspondents. Also included in the request was header information like date and time and Internet address--but not subject lines.
The federal magistrate judge balked and asked the Justice Department to submit an additional brief to demonstrate that such a request would be legal.
Instead, prosecutors asked Judge Hogan to step in. He reviewed the portion of federal law dealing with "pen register" and "trap and trace" devices--terms originating in the world of telephone wiretapping--and concluded it "unambiguously" authorizes the e-mail surveillance request.

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake
Posts: 11832
From: Madeira Beach, Florida
Registered: Aug 2001 posted April 08, 2009 10:26 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
acoustic is forever attempting to get people to disprove something...prove negatives. That's never acceptable. Prove you didn't pi$$ into the wind.
On the other hand, I asked a straightforward question and asked for the names of any 3 citizens out of 300,000,000 citizens of the US whose constitutional rights were breached by Bush or the Patriot Act.
This is not the first time everyone took a pass...after first alleging Bush, through the Patriot Act violated citizens Constitutional Rights.
In the case Node cites you will notice the Justice Dept WENT to a federal judge to get permission.
Notice also that the proposed bill would not require any operation of law, policy, procedure a judge or anything else to bypass the provisions of the 4th Amendment and let the government snoop through all Internet users private online records without so much as any "probable cause".
Of course, the usual suspects...leftists who are forever screeching and shrieking about civil rights are the very people proposing the legislation...to violate the civil rights of US citizens. Par for the course.

IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake
Posts: 15169
From: Pleasanton, CA, USA
Registered: May 2005 posted April 09, 2009 01:31 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What's that, Jwhop? You can't manage proof that you, me, Sunshine, and Kat haven't been monitored via wire tap? Seems like a pretty simple, straightforward task to prove what you obviously believe to be true. Obviously we've all got easy access to secret government methods and intelligence data. What's taking you so long? I'm kind of surprised you had to resort to balking at the request when the proof should presumably be right at your fingertips. Anyone can play this game.
IP: Logged

katatonic
Knowflake
Posts: 1565
From: ca, usa
Registered: Jan 2008 posted April 09, 2009 01:40 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
okay jwhop, let's have YOUR private details here in the open. you're so keen on names. which will not persuade me to give up someone else's name on the oh so secure and private internet.
IP: Logged

Mannu
Knowflake
Posts: 4676
From:
Registered: Mar 2006 posted April 09, 2009 03:11 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
I mean, what if 1000 were wire tapped and found innocent. Why would their names be released? They would be public if they were found guilty. There are plenty of muslim americans who were detained unnecessarily in jail by the patriots act. It was all over the news paper. I mean I feel bad for some targetted Americans for being singled out this way.
My emails were tapped by some indian agency and instead of reporting to the FBI, I let him go. I mean, if i was guilty of what they were accusing me of, i would have been arrested but nope didn't happen or didn't happen yet. That jerk was some social website cop. He doesn't know what he is dealing with -- i.e. I know how to play this game LOL. But it is such utter waste of time if the innocents plays this game.
However, I agree that we are being subjected to the same $hit here. Just deal with it because its gonna happen anways sooner or later. Just as a Cop needs a warrant to make arrests the government needs this act to pass to go after anybody considered high risks. Its possible few officers will abuse that privelege. Its because of their personalities.
Also note that its easy to sniff anyones computer . Theres plenty of ready made software available outthere.
IP: Logged

fatinkerbell
Knowflake
Posts: 17
From: Namyang, Gyeonggi Province, South Korea
Registered: Apr 2008 posted April 09, 2009 03:24 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the most entertaining thread on linda-goodman.com. Sorry. I just could not resist saying that
------------------
Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter, and those who matter don't mind.
IP: Logged

Mannu
Knowflake
Posts: 4676
From:
Registered: Mar 2006 posted April 09, 2009 03:32 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IP: Logged

fatinkerbell
Knowflake
Posts: 17
From: Namyang, Gyeonggi Province, South Korea
Registered: Apr 2008 posted April 09, 2009 03:35 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Upon reflection, I think I should say a little more: It just seems sad to me that politics should be so divisive... It's clear that people who regularly have a go at each other in the global unity thread have intense feelings for or against personalities: In other words - either you hated Bush or you loved Bush. Either you hate Obama or you love him. And no matter what Bush did or what Obama does, if you're a supporter you stick by your man and if you're a detractor all he does is suspect. So actually instead of trying to reason together to arrive at common ground, y'all are just having the greatest time flining mud all around. It's a lot of fun to watch but it totally makes me sad. Why not reason over the issue of privacy ... it can't be all that clear-cut. There must be a way to agree that security and privacy are both necessary ... the question is only to what degree...
------------------
Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter, and those who matter don't mind.
IP: Logged

Mannu
Knowflake
Posts: 4676
From:
Registered: Mar 2006 posted April 09, 2009 04:04 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Didn't Linda Goodman say this "We're affectionate, emotional, imaginative and often lonely people."?
Its just a game all these type of people plays with each other. And it can be fun if you are not attached to it. That is if you are not a liberal Heheheh...Just kidding.
IP: Logged

sunshine_lion
Knowflake
Posts: 2190
From: ann arbor mi
Registered: Apr 2008 posted April 09, 2009 05:47 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
actually jwhops, disproving the point is the american way. supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, but of course it is more about disproving guilt.
you said i ****** in the wind and you have a witness, i say i didn't, i pay a fine for wind p!ssing.
drive through a red light, they send the ticket in the mail, pay it or disprove it, no?
i know just from conversations of a political nature on the internet that if the subject matter has been anti american sentiment and or trigger words like, bomb or suc, my computer would sieze up for five minutes or so while some government hack sorted through the chit chat paddywack and find out if it was serious enough to go warrant attention.
both with obama and bush. you have to take my word for proof, i am not a liar. it happened when bush was in office and it will happen now. probobly right now, as i have used two trigger words. it happened a few months ago when i got into it with vdi, and prior to that when the bush admin was in. you either accept my word or not.
if we were neighbors and my cat tore up your tulips, and you showed me the tulips, i would probobly believe you with out seeing the cat in the flower bed. so, you either believe me or not. it happened.
IP: Logged

sunshine_lion
Knowflake
Posts: 2190
From: ann arbor mi
Registered: Apr 2008 posted April 09, 2009 05:51 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
sometimes jwhops the stinky sh!t actually does stick to the wall. not mine of course, but if it is poop flinging here, this time my buddy, it stuck.
fatinkerbell, yes both are necessary, but the point is, our constitutional rights are being violated by it. proof is hard to find although we all know it to be true, and jwhops wants to say it is obama, when the truth is it has happened, will happen and is happening now. cell phone conversations too.
IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake
Posts: 11832
From: Madeira Beach, Florida
Registered: Aug 2001 posted April 09, 2009 08:24 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well surely katatonic, you can find examples of Bush/Patriot Act violations of American civil rights without resorting to naming your friends. Haven't leftists been raging, whining, screeching and shrieking about Bush for 8 years. Surely Bush must have gone after many others...other than your friends...don't you think?
I only asked for 3 names out of 300,000,000 Americans. Are you telling me you can't find at least 3 Americans who have come forward with allegations their civil rights were violated by Bush?
acoustic, you always validate my opinion and never disappoint me with your faulty arguments. With regard to your arguments, I have adopted the philosophy.."He who expecteth nothing isn't going to be disappointed". Of course we don't ask people to prove something ISN'T true. That's an argument in absurdity. Our entire legal system is based on proving the affirmative, not the negative. We don't ask people...in the United States to prove they didn't do something. The burden of proof always rests on the accusers...those who allege wrongdoing....as you have many times and gotten blown out of the water with your false accusations.
sunshine_lion, I'm not prepared to argue that my posts here haven't been read by NSA personnel...since I've frequently mentioned bomb, bomber, bombing and O'Bomber which rational people would assume are trigger words the NSA would be...and should be looking for.
Sorry you don't understand the scope of the proposed new act to snoop into all Internet user files with NO good faith belief any crime is being committed or intended to be committed. At least with CARNIVORE there were/are key words being searched for which trigger a closer look.
As a Leo, you owe it to all Leos to not make allegations you can't prove or at the least show some collateral proof the allegations are true. Statements like.."everyone knows that" "We all know that's true" don't pass the smell test. Makes the rest of us look bad. That crap being thrown against the wall doesn't pass the smell test either.
Don't overlook the fact I supported Hillary when she was being robbed as a candidate in the Primary. The fact Hillary was robbed of the nomination proves there's nothing democratic about the democrat party.
PS sunshine: Be a good neighbor and keep your cat out of my Petunias.
Welcome to the Global Unity Forum fatinkerbell. I hope you will continue to be entertained.
IP: Logged

sunshine_lion
Knowflake
Posts: 2190
From: ann arbor mi
Registered: Apr 2008 posted April 09, 2009 09:01 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
jwhop- on the hillary item, i appreciate the support
on the other issue - until i go to law school or have to write a term paper citing 28 refence materials, i can argue as i wish. i totally give props to those who display more tenacity in citing refernces. until i get more time on my hands, and take that class on how to debate properly, you will have to accept the fact that i can be a lazy leo and still make a point.
we do all know certain things. when it rains, do i need to send you a cloud in a plastic baggie to prove it happened?
ok jwhops, you win this round. no one is offering proof. but, then again, i don't see your proof that it is not happening.
IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake
Posts: 15169
From: Pleasanton, CA, USA
Registered: May 2005 posted April 09, 2009 09:45 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'll be back later with a word on the latest ravings.
IP: Logged

sunshine_lion
Knowflake
Posts: 2190
From: ann arbor mi
Registered: Apr 2008 posted April 09, 2009 09:58 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
jwhops - i wont be back, i will miss talking. someone who has been trying to hurt me for years found my user id information and i truly cant post anymore. i will miss you all, no big goodbye thread, maybe someday in a few years i can get a new user name and come back. i dont know. so now all i can do is watch every once in awhile. this sucks. anyway, take care all.
IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake
Posts: 15169
From: Pleasanton, CA, USA
Registered: May 2005 posted April 09, 2009 10:48 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow! Yeah, just get another ID, and come back. That sucks.
IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake
Posts: 15169
From: Pleasanton, CA, USA
Registered: May 2005 posted April 09, 2009 10:53 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With regard to Jwhop,
If this were a court, dear sir, there would be a prosecution (Kat, Sunshine), and a defense (You). Yes, they would have to make their case, but YOU would also have to make your case. You would indeed have to prove that innocent Americans haven't been subjected to wire-tapping. There is nothing remotely unreasonable in asking you to prove the negative, and you're under just as much pressure to do so.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of more than 50 challenges to warrantless wiretapping, only in the Al-Haramain case has evidence emerged that names U.S. citizens subjected to surveillance.
The case stems from classified documents that the Bush administration accidentally sent to the charity's Oregon chapter. Lawyers Wendell Belew and Asim Ghafoor, who represented the charity when it was being investigated by the Treasury Department, learned that their attorney-client discussions had been subject to eavesdropping by the National Security Agency. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-wiretap28-2009feb28,0,110533.story

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IP: Logged

Mannu
Knowflake
Posts: 4676
From:
Registered: Mar 2006 posted April 09, 2009 12:02 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I like the often liberal statements of 'I know' compared to the conservatives ' I think'.
IP: Logged

katatonic
Knowflake
Posts: 1565
From: ca, usa
Registered: Jan 2008 posted April 09, 2009 12:08 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MANNU thank you for the easter laugh!!
fatinkerbell and herbert;

repeatedly i have stated that although i voted for obama i am no accolyte. i watch and see what happens. the fact that i voted for obama does not mean he is faultless and should be protected when he steps foul. however herbert of all people should understand how ridiculous his over the top namecalling and witchhunting are...
i am here trying to say, this bill, NOT YET PASSED by the way, is only saying out loud what has been going on since the very early days of the internet. people who poohpooh profiling are kidding themselves, and electronic spying is the EASIEST kind.
no herbert, i don't consider you have won anything. i am not here to testify in a court of law and i will not name private citizens here on the internet especially without their permission. that doesn't make me a liar, and as sunshine pointed out, you can't prove i am. just because you challenge me to jump off a skyscraper doesn't mean i'm a coward if i refuse.
in fact, fatinkerbell, i have been saying all along that this party-line name-calling juvenile style of arguing goes nowhere. i am not defending the democrats, just pointing out fallacies and bigotry. and i don't need to swear any oaths or produce witnesses to do so.
wiretapping of phones was going on before the internet. a warrant was legally required but that doesn't mean there always was one. our information has been culled since before i was born and will continue to be available to the authorities until they decide to govern not rule, which may be a long time coming.
the fact that HAVING all that info is not necessarily useful really doesn't change the fact that they do it. they have more information than they know what to do with so for the most part we are reasonably safe. however, as in a kafka novel, you never know when you will fall into the absurd pit that is created by governmental inefficiency.
to think that your vote in the presidential election is "my bit done" is, well, take it from one leo to another, LAZY. to think that a republican warhawk would have done any better is pie-in-the-sky. we will never know.
IP: Logged

katatonic
Knowflake
Posts: 1565
From: ca, usa
Registered: Jan 2008 posted April 09, 2009 12:15 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
as for cell phones they can record what's going on around them even when not in use. unless you take the battery out you are carrying a recorder which can be listened to at will...
IP: Logged

This topic is 5 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5
All times are Eastern Standard Time

------------------
What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world is immortal"~

posted April 25, 2009 04:29 PM            

Lindaland
Global Unity
Big Brother Control Over Internet (Page 3)

profile | register | preferences | faq
UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone!
This topic is 5 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic: Big Brother Control Over Internet
AcousticGod
Knowflake
Posts: 15169
From: Pleasanton, CA, USA
Registered: May 2005 posted April 09, 2009 12:21 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
as for cell phones they can record what's going on around them even when not in use. unless you take the battery out you are carrying a recorder which can be listened to at will...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh, I sincerely doubt this.
IP: Logged

katatonic
Knowflake
Posts: 1565
From: ca, usa
Registered: Jan 2008 posted April 09, 2009 12:30 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
well i can't prove that either! but i have heard it from more than one intelligent non-sensational source.
IP: Logged

Node
Knowflake
Posts: 1444
From: Crowded House
Registered: Nov 2005 posted April 09, 2009 12:53 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kat that sounds plausible. Course I'm OCD / paranoid.
If computers can be activated remotely, why not? EX: The ON Star system in some cars. If they [on star] can turn your car off and on [ignition] if the technology has been refined enough they can turn your cell off and on remotely as well. Interesting, non the less.
Cops track criminals with GPS on cell phones, but it has to be turned on.
IP: Logged

Mannu
Knowflake
Posts: 4676
From:
Registered: Mar 2006 posted April 09, 2009 12:53 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
scary -- i doubt it too. will check with an engineer.
all this tappings, reminds me of the movie 'enemy of the state'. we need a version 2 telling us about our cell phones.
IP: Logged

katatonic
Knowflake
Posts: 1565
From: ca, usa
Registered: Jan 2008 posted April 09, 2009 04:57 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

as to the case where the feds went to the justice dept for "permission":
"The federal magistrate judge balked and asked the Justice Department to submit an additional brief to demonstrate that such a request would be legal.

Instead, prosecutors asked Judge Hogan to step in. He reviewed the portion of federal law dealing with "pen register" and "trap and trace" devices--terms originating in the world of telephone wiretapping--and concluded it "unambiguously" authorizes the e-mail surveillance request."
in other words - though they went through the motions of doing it legally, when the first judge "balked" they just went around him and used someone they knew would back them up. what is that term? oh yes, kangaroo court...
IP: Logged

fatinkerbell
Knowflake
Posts: 17
From: Namyang, Gyeonggi Province, South Korea
Registered: Apr 2008 posted April 09, 2009 08:51 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But seriously ... constitutional rights are not an absolute. Nothing in the world is. It is something to strive for ... to work hard for. There are so many bad things that could happen to me every single day: I could be struck by lightning, raped, starve, be robbed, etc. How bad will it be if someone in some office somewhere sees what I'm writing in my e-mails and what games I'm playing on my computer and what I'm writing in documents ... I mean, I wouldn't even know about it! How can it hurt me? It can't be that bad? OK admittedly I'm playing a bit of devil's advocate here, but I'm just saying maybe people tend to over-react?
------------------
Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter, and those who matter don't mind.
IP: Logged

Node
Knowflake
Posts: 1444
From: Crowded House
Registered: Nov 2005 posted April 10, 2009 07:46 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
they just went around him and used someone they knew would back them up.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Exactly, particularly given Hogan's trial record.
IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake
Posts: 11832
From: Madeira Beach, Florida
Registered: Aug 2001 posted April 10, 2009 10:44 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh gee, something else acoustic doesn't know anything about...the law.
Hahaha, our entire criminal justice system is based on the presumption of innocence. Now, acoustic wants to overturn centuries of jurisprudence and say the accused must prove their innocence. What trash.
Memo to all legal scholars here. The burden of proof rests entirely, 100% on the prosecution to prove with an affirimative prosecution that so and so did such and such and that such and such is a crime. Got that? The prosecution must prove "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" the defendant is guilty of the crime they're accused of committing. The Defendant doesn't have to prove a damned thing and doesn't even have to testify in their defense. The burden of proof is entirely on the accuser. In the case of a criminal prosecution, the accuser is the prosecutor.
No defense attorney with 2 brain cells to rub together would let you anywhere near a jury acoustic. If you got by the Judges questioning in the Jury Selection phase of the trial, the defense attorney would lay a preemptive challenge on you and get you dismissed.
Likewise, any prosecutor in a terrorist case would dismiss you immediately. Your nutty support for and attempts to glorify terrorists would get you sent packing...PDQ.
The file labeled "Things acoustic Knows Nothing About" is overflowing.
So, after 3 days, the best effort here to produce citizens names whose civil rights were violated by Bush or the Patriot Act consists of one person named Al-Haramain...who btw didn't have his civil rights violated at all. Perhaps you failed to read the fact this was a terrorism case. Perhaps you also failed to read or have any knowledge of the fact the FISA Court of Review has recently ruled that Bush DOES HAVE THE RIGHT TO WIRETAP AND OTHERWISE SURVEILLE TERRORIST SUSPECTS...WITHOUT A WARRANT. Bush always had that right. The FISA Court didn't give Bush or any other President that right. That right has always existed. In fact, Bush and any other President has the Constitutional DUTY to keep the nation safe and broad powers to carry out that DUTY.
"The Obama administration on Friday lost its bid to halt a lawsuit charging that President George W. Bush broke the law when he authorized warrantless spying on terrorism suspects"
What is it about the case you cite Node that you don't understand? The Justice Department went to Judges to get a warrant. There was no issue of a "warrantless search" involved. Judges may disagree about legal aspects of a case. That's the reason we are treated to split decisions in appeals courts...all the way up to and including the Supreme Court of the United States.
The proposed law does away with the general requirements to get a warrant to search the personal files of ALL Internet users regardless of whether or not they're suspected of illegal activity. This proposed law has the effect of declaring that ALL Internet users are actual or potential criminals. What is it about that you don't understand?
sunshine_lion, I'll miss talking to you too.
IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake
Posts: 15169
From: Pleasanton, CA, USA
Registered: May 2005 posted April 10, 2009 07:03 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah, I see you're having trouble with logic again.
We wouldn't have defense attorneys if none were necessary, now would we? It's inconceivable that a defense attorney would not make a case for his/her client's innocence. It's as plain and simple as that. No further elaboration should be necessary for an issue as simple as this. If you can't understand that, then maybe you don't belong discussing matters of law.
I'm not addressing [beyond saying this] your BS about me being a terrorist supporter/glorifier, because it's outright absurd. What did you get your feelings hurt that I asked you to show some intellectual integrity, and stop pranking the other people here?
IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake
Posts: 11832
From: Madeira Beach, Florida
Registered: Aug 2001 posted April 10, 2009 08:11 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You lose again acoustic. You're digging yourself a very deep hole.
The burden of proof in a criminal case rests solely on the prosecution who must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant committed the illegal act they are charged with. The defendant is presumed innocent and doesn't have to prove a damned thing...unless as a defense, the defendant claims some special circumstance which would absolve him/her of guilt.
One of those special circumstances would be an "insanity plea". In that case, the defendant would be required to show...by a showing of evidence he/she is insane and not responsible for his/her actions.
Another special circumstance would be a claim of "diminished capacity" at the time the crime was committed. Again, this would require a showing of evidence on the part of the defendant.
In these cases the defendant is not disputing they did the crime. They are alleging they are not legally responsible in having done so.
In all types of "Not Guilty" pleas, the prosecution has the sole burden of proof to prove the defendant did what is being alleged to have been done...beyond a reasonable doubt.

Burden of Proof
The prosecution has the burden to prove the defendant is guilty. The defendant is not required to prove he/she is not guilty. Juries must presume that the defendant is not guilty until such jurors are convinced from the evidence that the defendant is guilty. If a juror has a reasonable doubt as to the truth of any of the claims required to be proved by the prosecution, such juror must find the defendant not guilty. If a juror has no reasonable doubt as to the truth of any of the claims required to be proved by the prosecution, such juror should find the defendant guilty. http://www.coffeycountyks.org/serv_att6.html

Gee, calling terrorists ballsy for killing unarmed civilians IS glorifying them.

IP: Logged

Node
Knowflake
Posts: 1444
From: Crowded House
Registered: Nov 2005 posted April 10, 2009 09:13 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gee Whopmeister after sooo many years isn't it getting a little Old????
One service, beyond the hilarity of your often intoned No ONE, and I repeat No one has proved me wrong I have issued challenges challenges I say!!! And no one has proven me wrong.
They have, many times, and you refused to accept it, do you post truth on occasion? Of course, and I am going to sound lame here but with your posting style it applies...a broken clock is right twice a day....I wouldn't mind so much meself If opinions were not often couched [and posted] as fact.
Opinions are just that, and if they were presented as such. Much of Lindaland is very open minded. This is an astrology site after all.
The service you have provided for me is that with my fixed dominate chart, OK add some stilettos if it floats, you make me feel like a willow.

And I am. Able to listen and accept differing points of view as viable. But when opinions are posted as fact, and those opinions are usually biased, bigoted, and unable to support themselves..even with [according to you] unimpeachable logic....that is where most riders get off your train.
IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake
Posts: 11832
From: Madeira Beach, Florida
Registered: Aug 2001 posted April 11, 2009 11:37 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Node, as usual, you're off base. I don't ask people to "prove me wrong". That's acoustics's nonsense. Sometimes, I ask people to prove the derogatory things they say here are true. While I understand your problems with backing up what you say here, that doesn't give you carte blanche to mischaracterize my posts by stating I'm "asking people to prove me wrong".
As is usual with you Node, you avoid the main issue, the core issue with off point comments. Comments such as your latest attempt to steer the focus of this thread away from the intrusive bill authorizing warrantless searches by government snoops traipsing through the personal files of all Internet users without any probable cause. The example you cite of Bush complicity was a case where the Justice Department actually went to judges to get an actual warrant. Off point.
Did you come up with "a broken clock is right twice a day" all by yourself?
If I were characterizing your posting style I would say.."Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while". I know that's a true statement and I'm prepared to wait for you to get aroundtoit.
Btw, nice pic of a "weeping willow".

IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake
Posts: 15169
From: Pleasanton, CA, USA
Registered: May 2005 posted April 12, 2009 12:49 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You're lucky that typing on my cell phone is so laborious, and that I don't have internet at my new place. Know who wouldn't turn to you for a legal defense? Virtually any innocent entity after reading what you just wrote. You are so god-damned wrong and lazy it astounds me. Good night.
IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake
Posts: 11832
From: Madeira Beach, Florida
Registered: Aug 2001 posted April 14, 2009 10:37 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You're lucky you are in no position to make an even bigger fool out of yourself acoustic.
Having seen the prosecutors own words regarding the law as it relates to criminal defendants and their presumption of innocence before criminal courts and juries, you still persist in your foolishness.
You have no understanding of the meaning of affirmative prosecution, burden of proof required by the prosecution and don't understand that the defense in almost every case consists of poking holes in the prosecution's case by cross examining prosecution witnesses, experts and evidence to impeach their testimony...in order to create "reasonable doubt" in the minds of jurors.
As for the rest of your foolishness acoustic; you should be damned glad I'm somewhat lazy. I said this to another Leo member on a different site in 2000.
"Hello XX, glad to share the Leo universe with you where all things are possible though it naturally follows that some things are not worth the bother."
The day I determine the Congress and President Teleprompter have adopted your foolishness that they are there to "Rule" will be the day correcting their foolishness and treason "will be worth the bother".
IP: Logged

sunshine_lion
Knowflake
Posts: 2190
From: ann arbor mi
Registered: Apr 2008 posted April 14, 2009 01:48 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
leo shmeo - simmer down boys.
kats right, they can listen on cel phone conversations and use them for tracking, more accurate than on-star and guess what, it is a free service
you go big (brother) government.
i know because i checked and my phone has the device. it is located in your sim card if you dont believe me disassemble it and see for yourself.
ok, thats all i got to say about that.
IP: Logged

sunshine_lion
Knowflake
Posts: 2190
From: ann arbor mi
Registered: Apr 2008 posted April 14, 2009 04:25 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Feb. 20, 2009, Missouri's Department of Public Safety issued a report to all law enforcement in the state entitled "Missouri Information Analysis Center Strategic Report: The Modern Militia Movement."
The report linked people holding conservative views on immigration, abortion, the U.N., the New World Order, etc., to dangerous and violent "militias" that Missouri law enforcement were instructed to be on guard against. Conservative opinions were demonized and made the subject of law enforcement scrutiny.
The report was leaked. National and state public reaction was strong and negative, and Missouri retracted the report and apologized.
This victory was short lived. The substance of the report is back, this time distributed to "federal, state, local, and tribal counterterrorism and law enforcement officials ..." by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security as an "assessment" dated April 7, 2009, entitled "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment."
The entire assessment is available at the Roger Hedgecock website.
The assessment states it was "prepared by the Extremism and Radicalization Branch, Homeland Environment
Threat Analysis Division" and "coordinated with the FBI."
It admits that "The DHS/Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) has no specific information that domestic right wing terrorists are currently planning acts of violence." Nonetheless, it states that "right wing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about ... the economic downturn and the election of the first African-American President ..."
The report elaborates that ..."right wing extremists are antagonistic toward the new presidential administration and its perceived stance on a range of issues, including immigration and citizenship, the expansion of social programs to minorities, and restrictions on firearms and use."
So, if you disagree with Obama on amnesty for illegals or stand up for the Second Amendment, you are branded a "rightwing extremist" by the Department of Homeland Security and become the subject of scrutiny by some 850,000 local and state law enforcement personnel.
The assessment goes on to link concerns about the economy, and the stockpiling of emergency food supplies and weapons and ammunition to violent militias and extremist "rightwing" groups. In my state of California, the state government urges all citizens to keep emergency food supplies in case of earthquake. And who isn't concerned about the economy?
Most disgusting of all, it targets veterans for increased law enforcement scrutiny.
"Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are attractive to rightwing extremists. DHS/I&A is concerned that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to boost their violent capabilities."
What's the evidence for this? None. The assessment admits that membership in "rightwing extremist" groups is in decline and asserts that no increase in such violence has been detected. But it might happen. So "intense scrutiny" is advised as the "DHS/I&A will be working with its state and local partners over the next few months to ascertain with greater regional specificity the rise of rightwing extremist activity in the United States ..."
This report smacks of profiling and harassing American citizens based on their political views, and specifically based on their opposition to the Obama administration's proposals.
This used to be called "democracy" and "free speech" protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution. But under Obama, "Homeland Security" has become an instrument of oppression of opposing points of view.

IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake
Posts: 15169
From: Pleasanton, CA, USA
Registered: May 2005 posted April 14, 2009 06:08 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can't make a bigger fool of yourself when you haven't made a fool of yourself in the first place.
If you're the defense in a case where your client's alibi is unimpeachable (so to speak), you mean to tell me that you wouldn't present your client's overwhelming evidence to the contrary of the prosecution's evidence? That's what you've been advocating. There couldn't be a more foolish position quite frankly. Tactically, it's stupid.
It's still astounding that you understand something this simple.
You may as well just admit that you're too lazy to put in the work you asked of Kat and Sunshine and be done with it. Oh wait, that's exactly what you're already doing.
IP: Logged

katatonic
Knowflake
Posts: 1565
From: ca, usa
Registered: Jan 2008 posted April 14, 2009 06:21 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
sunshine, glad to see you,er,, read you...but let's not get too personal about this. a year ago it was muslims. next year?? the act is in place and even before it was they were watching whoever they saw fit...i'm afraid muskets and the like won't work very well against what the govt has in its little paws...i just discovered this weekend that there is a fricking armoury in my hometown which NO ONE KNOWS ABOUT...which is not to say it's completely hidden, but the person who told me about it works there, and it is NOT broadcast, so no one knows. apparently there is a small sign where you would never look unless someone pointed it out to you...
i live in a broadly pacifist, affluent neighbourhood which happens to have spawned the kid who went to afghanistan and fell in with the taliban. for which ALL residents of this area were labelled by our former president as "misguided" - all 250000 hard working, high earning(mostly) peaceloving people. which kind of tells you the mentality you're dealing with.
IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake
Posts: 11832
From: Madeira Beach, Florida
Registered: Aug 2001 posted April 14, 2009 06:39 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you had 2 braincells to rub together acoustic, you'd have thrown in the towel long ago and stopped venturing opinions about things you know nothing about...which so far, appears to be just about everything.
There is almost no unimpeachable evidence....including eye witness testimony.
The name of the defense game is creating reasonable doubt in the minds of jurors.
The defense game does not consist of "proving the innocence of the accused".
I didn't have to put in any work in the here and now to know what I just told you acoustic. MOST wide awake citizens of the US have known criminal defendants don't have to prove their innocence since they were teenagers.
Another category of professions you should never attempt...along with any kind of Analyst profession..."Defense Attorney".
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i live in a broadly pacifist, affluent neighbourhood which happens to have spawned the kid who went to afghanistan and fell in with the taliban. for which ALL residents of this area were labelled by our former president as "misguided"...katatonic
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is this another bit of information that came to you through osmosis katatonic...or do you have an "actual quote" in context from the mouth of Bush?

IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake
Posts: 15169
From: Pleasanton, CA, USA
Registered: May 2005 posted April 14, 2009 07:11 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Creating reasonable doubt is DOING something. You started this by claiming that you don't have to DO anything. So now that you've figured out that the Defense side of a legal dispute is required to DO something, why don't you get crackin' like I asked you to a page ago. It's only fair and reasonable that you put as much of an effort into it as you required of others.
IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake
Posts: 11832
From: Madeira Beach, Florida
Registered: Aug 2001 posted April 14, 2009 07:54 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can't seem to get anything right acoustic.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You started this by claiming that you don't have to DO anything. So now that you've figured out that the Defense side of a legal dispute is required to DO something,...acoustic
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I didn't say the defense..defendant doesn't have to DO anything.
I said..."The Defendant doesn't have to prove a damned thing and doesn't even have to testify in their defense. The burden of proof is entirely on the accuser. In the case of a criminal prosecution, the accuser is the prosecutor."
IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake
Posts: 15169
From: Pleasanton, CA, USA
Registered: May 2005 posted April 14, 2009 08:37 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All I'm seeing from you is avoidance, so I guess we're done here. Kat and Sunshine didn't take up your challenge, and you didn't take up my counter challenge. Apparently these challenges were too difficult to prove in any definitive way.
IP: Logged

katatonic
Knowflake
Posts: 1565
From: ca, usa
Registered: Jan 2008 posted April 14, 2009 09:08 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
look up misguided hot-tubbers on google my love...
"Bush Sr. apologizes to northern California for calling John Walker Lindh "some misguided XXXXX County hot-tubber."
apparently someone has named their band after this gaffe, but i'm sure you can find it...after all, I did!
IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake
Posts: 11832
From: Madeira Beach, Florida
Registered: Aug 2001 posted April 15, 2009 12:48 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You were Done on this subject acoustic the moment you "attempted" to put your mind in gear.
While you might like to see a judicial system where defendants are required to "prove their innocence", that kind of jurisprudence doesn't exist in the US and never did exist. Neither in English Common Law from which much of the US jurisprudence was derived.
You want a system where defendants..the accused, must prove their innocence...go to Cuba, go to North Korea, go to China or any of the other Marxist meccas..please.

IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake
Posts: 15169
From: Pleasanton, CA, USA
Registered: May 2005 posted April 15, 2009 07:14 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IP: Logged

This topic is 5 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5
All times are Eastern Standard Time next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Contact Us | Linda-Goodman.com
Copyright © 2008
Powered by Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.46a

------------------
What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world is immortal"~

posted April 25, 2009 04:31 PM            

Lindaland
Global Unity
Big Brother Control Over Internet (Page 4)

profile | register | preferences | faq
UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone!
This topic is 5 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic: Big Brother Control Over Internet
katatonic
Knowflake
Posts: 1565
From: ca, usa
Registered: Jan 2008 posted April 15, 2009 08:02 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
one other place the innocent have to prove themselves is in INS cases...as per the other thread on the subject.
IP: Logged

Eleanore
Moderator
Posts: 3048
From: Japan
Registered: Aug 2003 posted April 16, 2009 03:23 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know why anyone is arguing about this but:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The presumption of innocence – being innocent until proven guilty – is a legal right that the accused in criminal trials has in many modern countries. The burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which has to collect and present enough compelling evidence to convince the judge and jury, who are restrained and ordered by law to consider only actual evidence and testimony that is legally admissible, and in most cases lawfully obtained, that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In case of remaining doubts, the accused is to be acquitted. This presumption is seen to stem from the Latin legal principle that ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (the burden of proof rests on who asserts, not on who denies).
....
Although the Constitution of the United States does not cite it explicitly, presumption of innocence is widely held to follow from the 5th, 6th and 14th amendments. See also Coffin v. United States
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

- Wiki

Could not be clearer. The de facto presumption of guilt ala the Napoloeonic Code is not our way of law; never has been.

Imo, people get confused because presumption of innocence only applies from a legal perspective. Legally you cannot be convicted as guilty until you are proven to be guilty. However, whether you are actually guilty or not never changes.
Also, people may presuppose you to be one or the other based on their perspectives however all that supposition is supposed to remain outside the court. You know, like how cases are moved somewhere else so that the defendant has a chance at a fair trial?
If you were assumed to be guilty and then had to prove your innocence, there would be no acquittals. You couldn't "get off" due to circumstantial evidence or hearsay or even a lack of evidence; you would be going to jail regardless of the evidence unless you could prove you were innocent.
Think of OJ. He didn't have to prove he didn't do it. They had to prove he did. And despite all the evidence, they couldn't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. If he had been assumed to be guilty, then he WOULD have gone to jail regardless of doubt because he did NOT prove himself innocent.
It's pretty basic.

IP: Logged

Mannu
Knowflake
Posts: 4676
From:
Registered: Mar 2006 posted April 16, 2009 10:07 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I guess people are finiky here because these laws might bring rain on their parades. For example while searching for terrorists, the government might come across a paedophile and forward his information to other departments.
If you are an open book, then you will not fear anything ,except a corrupt socialist government that alters evidences and vindicates you.
Didn't Martin Luther King say "Remember, whatever Hitler did was Legal"?
IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake
Posts: 15169
From: Pleasanton, CA, USA
Registered: May 2005 posted April 16, 2009 10:23 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The debate was never about whether the accused were to be presumed innocent. The debate was about Jwhop challenging some people here to prove something impossible for which the equal and opposite challenge is also impossible. He was rather arrogantly asking for them to do something while he sat back and taunted them.
In the subsequent discussion, my utterly true and valid point was simply that the defense does actually seek proving innocence. There was a little semantic forray where it was suggested that the defense merely is interested in creating reasonable doubt, but in all practicality creating reasonable doubt is typically finding ways to show the possibility of innocence.
IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake
Posts: 11832
From: Madeira Beach, Florida
Registered: Aug 2001 posted April 16, 2009 11:15 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eleanore is right. It is beyond question the burden of proving guilt beyond a "reasonable doubt" is the burden of the prosecution...the accuser(s) and NO burden to prove innocence falls on the accused.
So, when someone pops off here with accusations that Bush did this illegal...unconstitutional act and Bush did that illegal...unconstitutional act the burden to back up those accusations falls on the accuser(s).
It is therefore perfectly "reasonable" to ask accusers to offer at least some proof their accusation(s) are true.
What generally happens when these accusers are challenged to offer up some proof is that the accusers go silent or attempt to change the subject or...attempt to twist and distort long held standards such as here where one is then challenged to prove something DIDN'T happen. Prove a negative.
I set the bar of proof pretty low in this instance. "Name 3 American citizens who had their rights violated by Bush or the Patriot Act...out of 300,000,000 US citizens.
Surely, given all the leftist screeching, howling, whining and shrieking about Bush stomping on the Constitutional rights of US citizens for the last 8 years...3 instances could be found easily.
But no, setting the bar of proof at 3 out of 300,000,000 is much too high.

IP: Logged

katatonic
Knowflake
Posts: 1565
From: ca, usa
Registered: Jan 2008 posted April 16, 2009 11:38 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
you forget though that this is NOT a court of law, we are all entitled to our opinions and also to use information from our own personal experience and that naming names of people who are not here is really asking people to breach others' rights to anonymity. so your whole argument that these things didn't happen is groundless. you accused US of being liars because we wouldn't name innocent people on the internet. so by your own reasoning, we are under no obligation to PROVE that our sources are real...the burden on you is to prove that they are not.
and you cannot do that.
why don't YOU name 3 people who have been profiled as dangerous rightwing extremists.
IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake
Posts: 11832
From: Madeira Beach, Florida
Registered: Aug 2001 posted April 16, 2009 12:05 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I forget nothing. The burden of proof is always on the accuser(s) with a showing that what they allege is true.
In every instance katatonic, you whiffed, punted or went entirely silent.
Obviously, you're one of those accusers who got their head handed to them when you couldn't back up a single accusation you made here.
IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake
Posts: 11832
From: Madeira Beach, Florida
Registered: Aug 2001 posted April 16, 2009 12:27 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Paul, Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin.
AND
Anyone standing on their 2nd Amendment right to "keep and bear arms".
Anyone who is against abortion.
Anyone who wants the US to control US borders.
Anyone who peaceable assembles to protest government actions.
Anyone who believes the 10th Amendment is a valid part of the US Constitution.
Any returning US military personnel.
All these have been profiled by the DHS and the report issued by the state of Missouri as potential militia members.
Profiling and Criminalizing Political Dissent
Written by William F. Jasper
Friday, 20 March 2009 21:51
By William F. Jasper

A recent report issued through the Missouri State Highway Patrol is stirring alarm among citizens and some elected officials that Christians, political conservatives, and opponents of unconstitutional government action are being targeted for intimidation and harassment — or worse. The drafters of the report clearly are attempting to create in the minds of law-enforcement personnel an association between violent “right-wing extremists” and the millions of law-abiding Americans who oppose gun control, the United Nations, the Federal Reserve System, the income tax, illegal immigration, and abortion.
The eight-page report entitled “The Modern Militia Movement” and dated February 20 also specifically mentions by name Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas), who ran for president in the 2008 Republican Party primaries, and third-party candidates Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin. The clear implication is that people sporting bumper stickers or literature related to these candidates should be viewed as potential threats that view all law enforcement as “the enemy.” http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/election/911
Now katatonic, it's your turn to name 3 American Citizens who had their Constitutional Rights trampled by Bush or the Patriot Act....as you alleged.
IP: Logged

katatonic
Knowflake
Posts: 1565
From: ca, usa
Registered: Jan 2008 posted April 16, 2009 01:17 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
do i really need to repeat myself? so you have some public information on public figures. you can insult me all you like, i'm not naming private citizens whose experience i have knowledge of here. that doesn't mean i'm a liar and if you want to accuse me of being one, you can carry on till you're blue in the face.
IP: Logged

pidaua
Knowflake
Posts: 7559
From: Germany.. but my heart is with my husband in Iraq
Registered: May 2002 posted April 16, 2009 01:30 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
jwhop.. I would jump in but holy heck.. to read one Lion taking on so many libbies at once and kicking their rears.. well, I am in awe Big Hugs to you
Hi Eleanore.. How are you doing these days? You all are still in Japan right? Bear and may actually stay here another 2-3 years if my LT COL has anything to do with it LOL..
I hope you are well
------------------
My Darling Bear the Leo.. I am counting down the days until you are back in my arms.
IP: Logged

katatonic
Knowflake
Posts: 1565
From: ca, usa
Registered: Jan 2008 posted April 16, 2009 02:18 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and having read the report i have to point out that it says militia members usually support 3rd party candidates like ron paul, chuck baldwin and bob barr.
IT DOES NOT EVEN IMPLY THAT RON PAUL, BALDWIN OR BARR ARE INVOLVED IN ANY WAY.

so despite the not so pretty document, which appears to be a missouri document and nothing to do with the obama administration, your proof is in the trashed pudding.
pidaua no one is getting their butts kicked here. it is a discussion.
IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake
Posts: 15169
From: Pleasanton, CA, USA
Registered: May 2005 posted April 16, 2009 02:41 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In every instance katatonic, you whiffed, punted or went entirely silent.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

She did exactly what you did when faced with the opposite challenge. As far as I can tell you guys are even.

IP: Logged

katatonic
Knowflake
Posts: 1565
From: ca, usa
Registered: Jan 2008 posted April 16, 2009 02:59 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
thanks acoustic. not sure to consider that a compliment or an insult.
the difference is that my information comes from personal sources and experiences for the most part. and IF jwhop read that report he apparently read into it what was not there. or maybe he just accepted the opinion of the article writer who misinterpreted it.
this is not a court of law. the fact that i won't mention private people's names is NOT the same as waffling no matter how many times jwhop says it is. and there is a limit to how many times i will answer the same question when my previous answers are ignored.
IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake
Posts: 15169
From: Pleasanton, CA, USA
Registered: May 2005 posted April 16, 2009 03:04 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He laid out a challenge he knew you wouldn't be able to sufficiently "prove". It's a lame tactic. The opposite challenge is similarly difficult to prove, and he even said that for all he knows he has been watched himself for talking politics, which means he acknowledges that innocent Americans may be subject to surveillance by their own country.
IP: Logged

katatonic
Knowflake
Posts: 1565
From: ca, usa
Registered: Jan 2008 posted April 16, 2009 03:41 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
good point

IP: Logged

pidaua
Knowflake
Posts: 7559
From: Germany.. but my heart is with my husband in Iraq
Registered: May 2002 posted April 17, 2009 08:11 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
oh kat.. you are too cute with your little quips. I call it as I see it and jwhop has done exactly what I said he did. If you don't like it then hone in on your debate skills.
IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake
Posts: 15169
From: Pleasanton, CA, USA
Registered: May 2005 posted April 17, 2009 10:35 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I call it like I see it, too, and what I see is that Jwhop got called out for attempting to prank Kat and Sunshine. How one construes that as kicking libbie ass I doubt I'll ever understand.
IP: Logged

sunshine_lion
Knowflake
Posts: 2190
From: ann arbor mi
Registered: Apr 2008 posted April 17, 2009 10:58 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Top Ten Signs the Government is Spying on You
by John Ruskin
David Letterman's "Top Ten Signs the Government Is Spying on You."
10. You turn on television and see a live feed of your shower
9. While you're ordering pizza, mysterious voice on the phone tells you to forget the mushrooms
8. There's been an ice cream truck parked outside your house for 9 months
7. Your dog has an antenna
6. You came home early and found an agent dusting your wife for prints
5. Your cat has an antenna
4. After eating a falafel, your name was added to the "Do Not Fly" list
3. Drudge Report features exclusive news about your breakfast
2. CIA director Hayden calls and says, "Judging by these surveillance photos, you should get that thing on your ass looked at"
1. During State of the Union, President suggests you to ask your doctor about Levitra

IP: Logged

katatonic
Knowflake
Posts: 1565
From: ca, usa
Registered: Jan 2008 posted April 17, 2009 11:11 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
pidaua i have refrained from making personal remarks about your attitude. i understand you are separated by circumstances from your "bear" but don't take it out on me. this is not a grade school playground.
IP: Logged

sunshine_lion
Knowflake
Posts: 2190
From: ann arbor mi
Registered: Apr 2008 posted April 17, 2009 11:16 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
it did seem a tad personal. you posted at 11:11...make a wish and watch it come true!
IP: Logged

sunshine_lion
Knowflake
Posts: 2190
From: ann arbor mi
Registered: Apr 2008 posted April 17, 2009 11:36 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
republicans and conservitives always seem so very unhappy. like thier ties or underwear is just too tight or something. not sure why they are such an unhappy bunch as a whole.
The PEACEFUL protesting of all the radical extremests the other day must have been a real eye opener. i know i was impressed with the class that was displayed.
o-bow-ma went too far wtih the spying, the gov't admitted it.
bush did too, no-one admits it. of course we can't prove it so, jwhops must be a freaking genious to have thought this all up himself. if i was his neighbor i would bug the crap out of him every day on purpose and enjoy every minute of it. .....and that doesn't mean i don't like him, as i would not bother or have time to pick on people i don't like.
IP: Logged

katatonic
Knowflake
Posts: 1565
From: ca, usa
Registered: Jan 2008 posted April 17, 2009 11:37 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
well actually i have to take that back. i HAVE taken exception to pidaua's attitude on another thread. so i guess she is entitled to be smarmy and fight "like a girl" if she wants. no skin off my nose anyway.
but just so you know, pidaua, i don't consider jwhop to have come out trumps here. it's a matter of perception, i guess. he appears to believe what he reads in opinion blogs without checking their sources, as his naming those three people as evidence was off the mark.
to each his own. it saddens me to see how polarized people in this country are. i don't think it helps the situation at all.
IP: Logged

katatonic
Knowflake
Posts: 1565
From: ca, usa
Registered: Jan 2008 posted April 17, 2009 11:50 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i call it as i see it too, and naming 3 people as being fingered by the FEDS because their names APPEAR in a MISSOURI based report, though it is NOT THEM BUT THEIR FOLLOWERS that are being called possible extremists - well that is just bad reading/ jumping to conclusions that aren't founded. some butt-kicking!!
IP: Logged

sunshine_lion
Knowflake
Posts: 2190
From: ann arbor mi
Registered: Apr 2008 posted April 17, 2009 11:58 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kat is right.
we should find a better way.
a new way.
to come together.
everyone.
against the real ememy -
big govmt
big banking
big bail-outs
big corporations.
do you know where i live the small guy business owner is all but gone. as much as i can i still shop in little stores as to support my community. but there aren't many left in ghost town midwest.
fighting each other is getting us nowhere.
kat has been saying this all along.
drawing lines in the sand gets boring.
IP: Logged

pidaua
Knowflake
Posts: 7559
From: Germany.. but my heart is with my husband in Iraq
Registered: May 2002 posted April 17, 2009 12:59 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LMAO Kat... seriously.. are you really trying to throw a low blow because my husband is deployed? Are you seriously trying to equate my post to being attributed to the fact that he is in a war zone and not here with me, as though I would feel otherwise if he was sitting here next to me?
You have entered the realm of absurd. My husband may not be here by my side but that has nothing to do with my comments. If you look back through my posts you will not see that I have had a drastic change "just because my Bear is not with me". This is NOT our first deployment nor will it be our last. Military wives have been living and doing on our own for many, many decades.
In any case... you crack me up. You remind me of a certain poster that once made a snide remark that a post of mine was only written because I was suffering from "pregnancy" hormones... sad, sad little remarks made from people that have nothing better to say than to think they are "sticking" it to the other person.
But hey... at least I did not go below the belt with any of your personal circumstances.. Then again.. that is not how I debate.
AG.. I love ya man.. but still... jwhop kicks butt and we both know it. Although, you hold your own as well
IP: Logged

This topic is 5 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5
All times are Eastern Standard Time next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic

Contact Us | Linda-Goodman.com
Copyright © 2008
Powered by Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.46a

------------------
What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world is immortal"~

posted April 25, 2009 04:33 PM            

Lindaland
Global Unity
Big Brother Control Over Internet (Page 5)

profile | register | preferences | faq
UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone!
This topic is 5 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic: Big Brother Control Over Internet
katatonic
Knowflake
Posts: 1565
From: ca, usa
Registered: Jan 2008 posted April 17, 2009 01:25 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
pidaua - none of which changes the fact that you came on here with no other intent than to be divisive and "root" for your team. since you signed up for periodic separations i don't consider that below the belt observation. i am glad you can take care of yourself but this is still a discussion not a dog fight...and jwhop's "evidence" is still full of holes. i realize that this is an "argument" but there is a difference between arguing and scrapping.
i could make remarks about your typical military attitude, but i don't. because i know plenty of military people who don't share it. i could call you derogatory names but i don't. i was trying to be generous because i assume you must be a little concerned for your partner's wellbeing. if you want to call that below the belt i obviously can't stop you. end of discussion.
IP: Logged

pidaua
Knowflake
Posts: 7559
From: Germany.. but my heart is with my husband in Iraq
Registered: May 2002 posted April 17, 2009 03:35 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
People like you Kat... make educated people like me crack the hell up... Keep embarrassing yourself so I don't have to do it for you.
Bringing up my husbands being in the Military and "Signing up for it" is an even bigger joke here in LL... Because they ALL know Bear the Leo.. He has been in for 15 years, if he or I have not understood the so called "periods of seperation" well... we would be stupid.. No wait..we would be as absurd and ignorant as you.
Now I could play the "******* game" with you but why would I cast my pearls before swine.. Oink Oink Kat.... Suuuuey.... pig pig pig.. you know what that means LMAO
IP: Logged

sunshine_lion
Knowflake
Posts: 2190
From: ann arbor mi
Registered: Apr 2008 posted April 17, 2009 03:41 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
not sure what the problem is, but the thread is about big brother control over internet and inclusive to government spying with little or no reason.
i don't see the provacation for the mudsling.
i do know kat can handle her own, but i really see no reason to get personal and insulting.
kat is not ignorant. is name calling now appropriate?
nor is she a piggie, in fact, she doesn't need my help with this, she can kick all the ass needed on her own.
try to stick to the subject.
IP: Logged

pidaua
Knowflake
Posts: 7559
From: Germany.. but my heart is with my husband in Iraq
Registered: May 2002 posted April 17, 2009 04:42 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
awwwww, how cute Sunshine Lion.... Nice to know that you are backing up your little friends idiotic attitude. You should both be proud...

Well... not as proud as I am over my deployed husband that fights for our country... instead of bitching about things ...
IP: Logged

katatonic
Knowflake
Posts: 1565
From: ca, usa
Registered: Jan 2008 posted April 17, 2009 04:56 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
pidaua you came on here sneering and using silly putdowns for groups that don't agree with you and that is probably how you will leave. enjoy. since you know nothing of my education or background you are pxxxing in the wind.
marrying into, being in the military is signing up for separations - is it not? what is the insult you are sucking out of this? i have lots of family in the military so go bang your head on someone else's wall.
"i was trying to be generous because i assume you must be a little concerned for your partner's wellbeing. if you want to call that below the belt i obviously can't stop you. end of discussion." tada, duck

IP: Logged

pidaua
Knowflake
Posts: 7559
From: Germany.. but my heart is with my husband in Iraq
Registered: May 2002 posted April 17, 2009 05:10 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sneering? Really? Are you being really serous? You are too funny... again you play the victim when in actuality you have been the aggressive one.
LMAO..sneering...I don't know that I have ever "sneered" at anyone in my life.
IP: Logged

katatonic
Knowflake
Posts: 1565
From: ca, usa
Registered: Jan 2008 posted April 17, 2009 05:19 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
" to read one Lion taking on so many libbies at once and kicking their rears..'
"if he or I have not understood the so called "periods of seperation" well... we would be stupid.. No wait..we would be as absurd and ignorant as you. "
" Suuuuey.... pig pig pig.. you know what that means LMAO"
no i can see, you never sneer!. and i am not playing victim i am taking issue with your attitude. there is a difference.
IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake
Posts: 11832
From: Madeira Beach, Florida
Registered: Aug 2001 posted April 18, 2009 10:07 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Pid, long time..no see. Hope all is well with you and Bear.
Well Pid, you can see how it's going here...the usual blithering, blathering and bullshiiit.
This latest dust up was really over before it began. The usual, a leftist making another false accusation and offering not one iota of proof what they said is true....Bush and the Patriot Act violated Americans constitutional rights.
But, when challenged...and all lies should be challenged...not 3 Americans out of 300,000,000 could be found to back up the loony tunes allegation.
And, of course, there's acoustic attempting to stand at least 400 years of jurisprudence on it's ear...going all the way back to the English Common Law...by asserting the accused must prove their INNOCENCE.
I suppose it would be different...indeed it would be different if people just came here and expressed their "opinions" instead of stating their "opinions" as "facts". It seems there are some...the usual suspects...who do not understand stating opinions starts with saying.."I think", "I believe", "I feel" or some other qualifier which indicate they are expressing their "opinions" and what they're saying isn't to be taken as "fact".
So, when challenged to provide some evidence what they say is true, the ducking, bobbing and weaving begins...attached to a challenge.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
why don't YOU name 3 people who have been profiled as dangerous rightwing extremists...katatonic
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, the challenge was met with facts in that Ron Paul, Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin were specifically singled out in a Missouri law enforcement study which was disseminated to law enforcement.
Then, as is usual, the ducking, bobbing and weaving began all over again by katatonic. It seems katatonic doesn't understand that the supporters of Paul, Barr and Baldwin support them...because of their stances on issues and those issues involve the Federal Reserve System, the size, scope and authority of the federal government and other issues. How can the supporters of Paul, Barr and Baldwin be targeted as those of whom law enforcement should be suspicious without also being suspicious of the actual proponents of the ideas being supported by supporters of Paul, Barr and Baldwin? The idea is preposterous on it's face.
You came back at the right moment in time Pid because when I read from the DHS summary of a long report disseminated by the Department of Homeland Security to law enforcement all over America...about whom law enforcement should be targeting as suspicious...the report included "returning military personnel". I thought about you and Bear and also Eleanore and her husband stationed in Japan.
Janet Napolitano, head of DHS and the other leftist idiots who drafted this report are a disgrace and should be fired.
But, this is just more proof that O'Bomber is a lightweight gasbag who is in way over his head in the office he holds. He appointed the disgusting, contemptible Napolitano and she's not fit to hold any public office down to dog catcher in Podunk.

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake
Posts: 11832
From: Madeira Beach, Florida
Registered: Aug 2001 posted April 18, 2009 11:12 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IP: Logged

katatonic
Knowflake
Posts: 1565
From: ca, usa
Registered: Jan 2008 posted April 18, 2009 11:36 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
if that's the only rebuttal you can come up with in 2 days, well...thanks for the honest discussion mate. you stay in your camp and i'll let you pass. but i have to say i thought you had more going for you.
IP: Logged

pidaua
Knowflake
Posts: 7559
From: Germany.. but my heart is with my husband in Iraq
Registered: May 2002 posted April 18, 2009 12:53 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ummm Kat... jwhop is a busy man. I am not on here all the time even though I have been apart of LindaLand since 2002.. We all have lives to live outside of posting 24/7

Jwhop...
I saw that DHS report and it has caused a major buzz in our communities here in Graf and Vilseck as well as downrange with Bear and his fellow Soldiers. I have never liked Napalitano at all. She ruined (or tried to) AZ and she is doing the same for the country. In AZ we all were happy to see her go (although she left us seriously in debt) but were fearful for what she would do to the US in her position.
Now we see exactly how she is abusing her power. Actually putting Vets returning from downrange on a "hit list" of potential recruitments to right wing extremist groups. To use Timothy McVeigh as an example is insane. He was only ONE of many vets coming back from the first Gulf War. Instead, we call terrorism overseas an "Overseas contingency" something or other... and there is no overseas terrorism.. it is attributed to 'Man-made disasters". BUT.. we can lump anyone that is against big government, abortion or illegal immigration.. or worse of all.. those that GAVE freely of themselves and have shed blood for our country.. well.. we are the ones to watch.
Last Tuesday I attended a memorial for our FIRST casualty from our Brigade during this deployment. Last deployment the 172nd (before it was reflagged we were the 2BCT) had the highest number of deaths from Europe. The Second Stryker Regiment (I work for them) had the second highest number of KIA's. The Soldier that was KIA for our Brigade was stop-lossed. He was supposed to get out of the Army in August but because of the deployment he was kept in. He was a hero. He was proud to serve and even said "Hey.. I know I am due to get out, but I have another good fight left in me. I love my Country and I will give my all during this deployment".
He was a true hero! Many here (Libbie LL peeps) have NO idea about Memorials or attending funerals. This was my 8th since I joined Bear in Germany. If I count the Regiment I work for, then Tuesday's Memorial was my 12th. The last big memorial was for all the Soldiers that gave their lives downrange (2SCR was in one of the worst areas, my squadron had one of highest number of casualties because they are infantry). It was a moving service.. and not 2 hours after Bear called me to tell me they moved him from a December 6th flight to a flight on Thanksgiving. That gave us less than 48 hours to get things in order.
But that is the life.. we know this. Every Soldier / Military spouse knows what can happen. However, we do NOT expect that our spouses or Soldiers will be put on a list of potential domestic terrorists. We do not expect that the idiot running our country would be so callous as to stand behind such a report (since he doesn't speak out Obama surely stands behind it). I do hope that those in the Military that voted for Obomber think again during the next election.
I have already heard it where I work. Those that thought he would pull them out or would help Soldiers are now ticked off that they voted for him.

I will say this though.. I am glad to be a part of the "extremist list" because I am against illegal immigration, I DO support our Military and abortion is something I have always been against.
Oh well.. let them watch me.
IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake
Posts: 11832
From: Madeira Beach, Florida
Registered: Aug 2001 posted April 18, 2009 12:54 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It was the precise rebuttal to slice and dice your arguments katatonic.
And...I'm still waiting for you to provide 3 names out of 300,000,000 US citizens who had their constitutional rights violated by Bush or the Patriot act.
Any 3 names...which, if Bush was the monster leftists claim and the Patriot Act a thrust at the heart of the constitutional rights of Americans....3 names of those who have come forward with allegations of Bush/Patriot Act rights violations should not in any way be a burden for anyone to find.
So, how about getting aroundtoit?
Your challenge was answered in 22 minutes.
IP: Logged

katatonic
Knowflake
Posts: 1565
From: ca, usa
Registered: Jan 2008 posted April 18, 2009 12:59 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
jwhop i like a good argument as much as anyone. as i said above, you have not answered the challenge, but misread the text. and as i have said several times i'm not going to name private citizens
in fact if that is what you call winning an argument, i am no longer interested. enjoy talking to yourself.
IP: Logged

pidaua
Knowflake
Posts: 7559
From: Germany.. but my heart is with my husband in Iraq
Registered: May 2002 posted April 18, 2009 01:30 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
jwhop.. that is because she does not know of any citizens that have been violated. It is typical of someone like her.
BTW.. I really loved your comparison between Right Wing extremists and Peace loving (I say that without choking).. left wing extremists...

BTW.. Bear is doing well... we have almost 5 months down... 3 months before R&R and then after that.. 4 months and he'll be home
IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake
Posts: 11832
From: Madeira Beach, Florida
Registered: Aug 2001 posted April 18, 2009 01:34 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes Pid, I too noticed O'Bomber and his brain dead buddy at DHS had reclassified terrorism to "Man Made Disasters"; and the fight against terrorists reclassified to "Overseas Contingency Operations". So, one is to assume that terrorism is dead.
But wait, terrorism now only exists in the United States and those of whom law enforcement should be suspicious are those exercising their constitutional rights to "freedom of speech", the "free exercise of religion", the "right to peaceably assemble", "the right to keep and bear arms" and "10th Amendment rights of the States and the people". Oh yeah, and the right to support and vote for the candidate of ones own choice...and not the choice of the head of the DHS and the rest of the cadre of the brain dead.
So, to the list of those of whom law enforcement should be suspicious, these should be added. The Governor of Texas, the State Legislature of Oklahoma and other State Legislatures and Governors who are pursuing State Sovereignty under the 10th Amendment.
But to list returning US military personnel who put their lives on the line defending the United States or United States interests around the world as a projection of US Foreign Policy? That's sick, twisted, disgusting and contemptible.
Sorry to hear there are funerals and Memorial services for unit members there Pid.
Give Bear my best and tell him millions of people here are outraged over this bird brained report from the DHS.

IP: Logged

katatonic
Knowflake
Posts: 1565
From: ca, usa
Registered: Jan 2008 posted April 18, 2009 07:02 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
well all's well that ends well. you two can sit in your corner congratulating each other and if they come for you you can always use pidaua's excellently honed debating skills and call "sooey sooey" at them. that will make them p in their pants i'm sure! have fun.
IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake
Posts: 11832
From: Madeira Beach, Florida
Registered: Aug 2001 posted April 18, 2009 07:56 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do I detect an admission in your last post that you now recognize you voted for the wrong candidate when you voted O'Bomber?
IP: Logged

katatonic
Knowflake
Posts: 1565
From: ca, usa
Registered: Jan 2008 posted April 18, 2009 08:49 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i think it is obvious jwhop that we have been speaking at cross purposes. you are only interested in being called right. i was trying to have a dialogue. it seems no such thing is possible with you so i will not bother trying anymore. carry on. you seem to believe that who we vote for is the problem and/or the answer, and that is not going anywhere right now. racking up picayune points for the sake of stroking your double leo ego may pass as constructive in your view but i think there are more important things at stake. i'm not one for beating my head against the wall. i have more interesting and important things to do. none of which would probably interest you.
so no, what you can take from my last post is that i'm not interested in getting into it with a bunch of highschool "my-teamers". i have repeatedly tried to steer this discussion into a "what can we do" direction rather than just a bitching column but i can talk to reasonable, intelligent conservatives elsewhere.

IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake
Posts: 15169
From: Pleasanton, CA, USA
Registered: May 2005 posted April 18, 2009 10:20 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jwhop, I'm amazed at your pride in fulfilling Kat's challenge in a matter of minutes when you never even started fulfilling my challenge. When were you planning on getting around to that? We both KNOW with absolute certainty that no list Kat or Sunshine would satisfy your desire that they back up their allegation. You're not even really concerned about it. You just wanted to create a way of making it look as if you have a handle on the facts. The problem is that you have no definitive way of knowing who's been spied on. Without such information, you're position is obviously and glaringly as weak as anyone's. It's a loser of an argument that you're still desperately trying to fashion into a winner. It won't fly. Regarding jurisprudence, attempting to twist my argument in to something it wasn't is lame, especially as I've already answered that notion when Eleanore brought it up. The Defense does take action in defending the innocent. They don't sit on their hands as you endorsed as your course of action in defending an administration you can only reasonably SUSPECT of innocence [as you have no evidence to support your assertion].
IP: Logged

sunshine_lion
Knowflake
Posts: 2190
From: ann arbor mi
Registered: Apr 2008 posted April 18, 2009 11:06 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
pidaua - i am also proud of your husband for what he does day to day.
you are not the only person with a loved one in the military, ok.
I am also proud of one of my best friends son who lost his life in iraq at the syrian border, ok. there is no lack of respect from me to anyone that serves our country in such a capacity.
i don't think kat was trying to be offensive to you, so i just didn't think what got wrote was really warranted.
i BELIEVE that big brother does and had spied on civilians with little or no reason. not stating it as a fact, as i have no proof, but i beleive it to be so.

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake
Posts: 11832
From: Madeira Beach, Florida
Registered: Aug 2001 posted April 19, 2009 10:05 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i was trying to have a dialogue. it seems no such thing is possible with you so i will not bother trying anymore. carry on...katatonic
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The problem with attempts to have a dialog or rational discussion with leftists is that their concept of discussion is centered on lying inflammatory, accusatory rhetoric against people they don't like...politically or otherwise. Which is the exact reason I decided to talk to leftists in the language they understand...their own. When I choose my targets...their leftist icons, I don't have to lie about them because they're a target rich environment.
There were plenty of policy decisions made by Bush which could have been legitimately attacked and Pid and I did attack those policy decisions here.
You chose to launch an attack on Bush for something he didn't do and no credible evidence exists that he did. You're by no means the first here to allege Bush violated the Constitutional (Civil) rights of US citizens without providing a single example of violations.
Let it be noted you're also the member who alleged that Sarah Palin had been "indicted" in Alaska during the Presidential Primary and for the very same reason. You don't like Palin.
Personal dislike is not a legitimate excuse for lying about anyone...if there even is any legitimate excuse at all.

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake
Posts: 11832
From: Madeira Beach, Florida
Registered: Aug 2001 posted April 19, 2009 10:48 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As usual acoustic, you're incapable of connecting the dots. There's no pride involved in stating I responded to the challenge laid down by katatonic in mere minutes. The comparison was being drawn with her inability...after days..to name any 3 Americans out of 300,000,000 who had their constitutional rights violated by Bush or the Patriot Act. Continue to be "amazed" acoustic.
Your assumption no amount of proof would satisfy my requirements is utter bullshiit but, if you want to give it your best shot, fire away.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Prove that I, as an American not associated with terrorists, was not wire-tapped by the Bush administration."....acoustic
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You really are clueless aren't you and never learn your lessons acoustic? Again, you ask for proof something "DIDN'T" happen. Prove a negative. However acoustic, your attempt to glorify terrorists who attack and kill defenseless civilians by calling them "ballsy"..."because they are killing people they don't even know" might be the very "good faith probable cause" which would permit intelligence agencies to give you a long hard look.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Defense does take action in defending the innocent. They don't sit on their hands as you endorsed...acoustic
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How about you not mischaracterizing what I say acoustic. I never said the defense takes no action or that they sit on their hands in a criminal prosecution. The burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed a/the crime falls on the prosecution as the accuser in Court. The job of defense attorneys is to create reasonable doubt in the minds of jurors and that's done by attacking prosecution witnesses credibility, physical evidence, laboratory and police procedures and any errors made by the prosecution team. It most definitely is not the job of defense attorneys to "prove the defendant is innocent".
There are no jury verdicts of "INNOCENT" in any criminal courts in the United States.

IP: Logged

This topic is 5 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5
All times are Eastern Standard Time next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic

Contact Us | Linda-Goodman.com
Copyright © 2008
Powered by Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.46a
History shows pge 1-3 as blank.

------------------
What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world is immortal"~

posted April 25, 2009 04:36 PM            

I noted an odd "extra" on the bottom of page five:

quote:

---

Contact Us | Linda-Goodman.com
Copyright © 2008
Powered by Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.46a
History shows pge 1-3 as blank.

---

Carry on

------------------
What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world is immortal"~

posted April 25, 2009 07:01 PM            

quote:

---

and i have to say that the thread started with a now invisible claim that obama is out to control the internet...a claim which has not been proven...katatonic

---

Yes, proved not only before but again now.

"The Cybersecurity Act of 2009 (PDF) gives the president the ability to “declare a cybersecurity emergency” and shut down or limit Internet traffic in any “critical” information network “in the interest of national security.” The bill does not define a critical information network or a cybersecurity emergency. That definition would be left to the president.

posted April 25, 2009 07:22 PM            

so you have not proven:

that the bill actually says what your opinion maker claims;
that obama instigated it;
that he is out to control the internet.

posted April 26, 2009 10:57 AM            

Hi, Pidaua. Yes, we're still in Japan. I was laughing reading what you wrote about "signing up" for this. I'm 30 weeks along now and my husband is TDY for about 3 weeks back in the states. Yup, we signed up for this and much more.

So many spouses over here have their kids while their husbands are deployed I'm actually glad it's only 3 weeks and not to a war zone! Comparing our attitudes about all these separations to the kinds of things commonly found in, for example, rag-tag magazines about the occasional weekend business trip and the paranoia that comes with that ... I just have to laugh and be thankful that we're one tough bunch of women.

Anyway, we've been mulling over adding Germany to our wishlist although we really do love Japan. I'm not really overexcited to head back to the states at this point with, you know, all the love military members are getting, lol.

Which brings me to Jwhop. Thank you for bringing up that moronic statement about our veterans. They start a war to fight terrorism, they send out thousands of troops to fight it, we elect a new President in the middle of two wars who has zero military experience, he proceeds to change the name of the war as though that actually changes the realities our troops face on the ground, and then the imbeciles working for him have the gall to suggest that the real terrorists may very well be those they sent out to fight in the first place.

Then there are geniuses like Rep Debbie Wasserman-Schultz deciding that gays and Jews face "real" hate crimes but that returning veterans and their families don't count as "real" victims when they are attacked by anti-military persons.

Yeah, I'm proud of my hubby for being in the military and I'm proud to be a military wife. But knowing how so many supposedly peaceful and loving people hate us outright just because, and that our own government thinks of us as the lowliest of the low, the very enemies they are employed to defend us all from, does not at all entice us to want to return and serve stateside if we can help it.

posted April 26, 2009 11:36 AM            

every government has its concurrent intelligence agencies on the "proactive" lookout for possible seditionaries. this time it DOES appear to be the right who is most disgruntled, and reports of gun shops running out of stock because of heavy demand would perk up the ears of any half-awake intelligence agent...

i'm NOT condoning profiling, of right, left or martian! it stinks. but it's been done probably since the first gov't was installed.

it does seem to me that all of a sudden the shoe is on the other foot - the table has turned, if you will - a year ago LOOKING muslim was enough to get you a profile, now it is right-wing "extremists". the difference is only in where you are standing, not in the actual situation...

once upon a time pete seeger couldn't get work because he refused to answer the question "are you a communist". now his observations on the conformism and restriction in our society are applauded.

i wish people would stop focussing on the trees and get a gander of the forest. this again is not an issue specific to this government...

posted April 27, 2009 10:50 AM            

Forget apples and oranges, it's more like apples and tigers. HUGE and obvious differences. In fact, the only person I've heard Napolitano base those stupid conclusions on is Timothy McVeigh. That's one nut job and he's not even relevant to the ongoing war now.

The differences here are not based on "where you're standing" but based on the differences between existing evidence versus baseless assumptions.

That "warning" had not a shred of documented evidence to support the claims made. It was just a mishmash of ignorant commentary based on political and ideological views.

I can't believe the differences between that and real terrorism with many known past cases and which we are currently engaged in fighting damn wars against is not patently clear to anybody.

posted April 27, 2009 12:44 PM            

anyone who uses cash to buy airplane tickets.

people who deposit too much cash in their bank accounts (and i hope you don't think that is private info)

people who travel internationally with what is considered "more than normal" frequency (an american businessman, say, whose wife's family are in japan and because she is there tending a sick mother he has been shuttling back and forth - he has come to accept that he needs to allow AN EXTRA 6-8 hours for interrogation and searching)

these people fall under the "muslim with evidence for probable cause?"

they are after EVERYONE's information. are you okay with that? have you seen this?
http://www.freedomfiles.org/war/fema.htm
or see the link happy dragon just put up.

the conversation with the marine sounds like science fiction to me. but since you are involved in the military, i have to ask you, how far would you go in following orders? at what point does a military person have to choose between loyalty and protocol, and common sense/humanity?

PLEASE do not take this as a personal dig. it is a question that really needs considering. because if 1/1,000,000,000th of what this marine is reported to have said is true, we are for it as civilians. i hope that this is sensationalist, paranoid garbage but then truth can be stranger than fiction...

i am on the same side as you. and i am tired of defending myself when i am not accusing anyone of anything. but i think WHOEVER is being profiled because of the actions of a few, there are innocent victims, and that it is too bad when we wait for it to be OUR GROUP before we protest.

and at the same time, this bill is not even finished yet so we don't really know what its scope will be or its intentions. i wonder what difference it makes since we are all being vetted anyway. i caution everyone as regards thinking obama is the problem. it has been going on for ever.

posted April 27, 2009 02:34 PM            

edited to say: Having probs loading this thread
------------------
What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world is immortal"~

posted April 27, 2009 11:53 PM            

Janet Napolitano has apologized to the commander of the American Legion for her department's targeting of returning American service personnel as those of whom law enforcement should be suspicious.

Now, that just leaves the rest of us who are against abortion. Those of us who want US borders to be "borders". Those of us who want to vote for the candidates of our choice...not Napolitano's choice. Those of us who understand and demand all our constitutional rights continue to be "guaranteed" by the Federal government.

Those which this knot head attacked are the 1st, 2nd, 10th and 14th Amendments.

There are demands she be fired...not permitted to resign and that's my choice too..and immediately.