On 24 Dec 2005 12:35:14 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner Asch says...

They tried to get a FISA warrant to search a stumbling bumbling
students laptop, a fellow named Moussaoui.

Ah, apparently not.

Jim


Ah..apparently so. I posted the cites.

Gunner

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the **** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

In article , Gunner Asch says...

Ah..apparently so. I posted the cites.

THey couldn't get the warrant, because they were
incompetent. Short of having all US citizens lining
up for arrest, there's no way to solve *that*
problem.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On 25 Dec 2005 08:31:44 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner Asch says...

Ah..apparently so. I posted the cites.

THey couldn't get the warrant, because they were
incompetent. Short of having all US citizens lining
up for arrest, there's no way to solve *that*
problem.

Jim

Not so again.

Gunner

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the **** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

"G.W." wrote in message
oups.com...

Hawke wrote:

So your solution to is to let Bush turn the agencies responsible for
national security into a modern day version of the Gestapo? By your
thinking
that's the best answer to terrorism. Just create our own secret police
and
put no constitutional restrictions on what they can do. There's no doubt
they would be effective. Of course, this wouldn't be a free country
anymore.
But hey, who cares, at least we would be safe, right? Oh, wait a minute,
even the Gestapo couldn't stop the French underground from sabotage and
killing Germans. So we'd give up our freedom and would still have the
threat
of Al Qaeda.

Hawke

How did we go from monitoring overseas phone calls to the Gestapo?

The people that see nothing wrong with giving unlimited power to the
government to keep us safe wouldn't see anything wrong with a Gestapo like
agency in this country. As long as we would be safe from terrorists then
there is no limit to what the government can do. That's what the Gestapo
was, a government agency that had no restrictions on it whatsoever. Their
only job was to keep Germany secure. A lot of us see that many of our fellow
citizens would be more than willing to tolerate the same thing right here.
Which is why the Gestapo comes up.

Hawke

In article , Gunner Asch
says...

They tried to get a FISA warrant to search a stumbling bumbling
students laptop, a fellow named Moussaoui.

Ah, apparently not.

Jim


Ah..apparently so. I posted the cites.

Gunner

The only way for Gunner to understand why people see Bush's power grab as a
danger to the republic is for him to be mistakenly arrested on terrorism
charges, held without bail or access to a lawyer, put in solitary for a year
or so, tortured, I mean tormented continuously during his period of
incarceration, and then released without so much as a, sorry about that.
After that he might get it. I stress the word might.

Hawke

While I don't like the first act and the fact they wanted more on the second...
I think it is a common element of the over power hungry people in the FBI and other
like divisions of government.

Their life would be easier under an extreme dictator type but we have to keep from
getting there.

I don't think the president said he committed a crime - he said he did X and that
he has with various backers of law saying he can do X. Which doesn't mean he can do X.

Martin
Martin Eastburn
@ home at Lions' Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net
NRA LOH & Endowment Member
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder


John R. Carroll wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote:

" The fact that the renewal of the Patriot Act failed tells you that
this

is a very serious situation for the Administration.

I think that may have more to do with a election coming up than with
any trouble that GW may be in."

You are correct in that the GOP is in trouble...of their own making.

And they just keep digging their hole deeper....

They are in damage control mode now. All tax cut legistration has been
shelved, privatizing Social Security is dead, Alaska drilling is
likely dead....as the money issues that would benefit the GOP
contributors die, the chance of the GOP doing well in the 2006
elections die with them.

Of course we have until 2008 to work on the national debt, national
trade deficit, unemployment, Katrina, probable recession, Delay, the
CIA leak and of course Iraq...never a dull moment when you have George
leading the Sheeple over the cliff.....



The President of the United States has committed , and now admitted, the
commission of multiple felonies.
He has also publicly stated his intention to commit additional illegal acts.
You or I would be in jail had we done the same. He should be as well.....


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Remember - the times printed the pentagon Papers - those papers were gotten ill way
by a person that committed Treason (and got off ) and the paper and the person
killed many U.S. Soldiers. Yea that New York Times is very apt in revealing secrets,
telling lies, plagiarizing and the whole ball of wax of yellow and black journalism.

Martin
Martin Eastburn
@ home at Lions' Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net
NRA LOH & Endowment Member
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder



jim rozen wrote:
In article , pyotr filipivich
says...


What drives me nuts is the arrogance of the Time[s] editorial board to
reveal Government secrets,


What, like the fact that the NSA is wiretapping american citizens
without a court order?

Jim



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

In article , Hawke says...

The only way for Gunner to understand why people see Bush's power grab as a
danger to the republic is for him to be mistakenly arrested on terrorism
charges, held without bail or access to a lawyer, put in solitary for a year
or so, tortured, I mean tormented continuously during his period of
incarceration, and then released without so much as a, sorry about that.
After that he might get it. I stress the word might.

They say a conservative is a liberal who's gotten his first paycheck
and seen the withholding line.

But I *know* a liberal is a conservative who's been arrested.
All of a sudden that darn bill of rights becomes really, really
important.

They want their rights. They want their lawyer. They want their
trial.

It's so funny that the folks who bore the largest brunt of
9/11 are still saying, "the Bill of Rights still counts." And
the folks who are crying and blubbering about how the goobermint
should *protect* them and are willing to give up the entirety
of their constitution were nowhere near
where the bang happened.

What's the saying? "Those who would give up liberty in pursuit
of security deserve neither."

Once again, if al queda has caused us to dismantle our constitution
by their actions, they have indeed won the war already. Does that
give 'aid and comfort' to our enemies? No. The folks responsible
FOR the dismantling are given aid and comfort to our enemies.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

"They say a conservative is a liberal who's gotten his first paycheck
and seen the withholding line.

But I *know* a liberal is a conservative who's been arrested.
All of a sudden that darn bill of rights becomes really, really
important.


They want their rights. They want their lawyer. They want their
trial.


It's so funny that the folks who bore the largest brunt of
9/11 are still saying, "the Bill of Rights still counts." And
the folks who are crying and blubbering about how the goobermint
should *protect* them and are willing to give up the entirety
of their constitution were nowhere near
where the bang happened.


What's the saying? "Those who would give up liberty in pursuit
of security deserve neither."


Once again, if al queda has caused us to dismantle our constitution
by their actions, they have indeed won the war already. Does that
give 'aid and comfort' to our enemies? No. The folks responsible
FOR the dismantling are given aid and comfort to our enemies.
Jim"

Very well said Jim.

TMT

"Remember - the times printed the pentagon Papers - those papers were
gotten ill way
by a person that committed Treason (and got off ) and the paper and the
person
killed many U.S. Soldiers. Yea that New York Times is very apt in
revealing secrets,
telling lies, plagiarizing and the whole ball of wax of yellow and
black journalism.
Martin"

What book did you learn history from?

From what I remember, the Pentagon Papers were a good thing.

Please explain your opinion and supply all references for verification.

TMT

The book of life. Been here a long time.
Martin
Martin Eastburn
@ home at Lions' Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net
NRA LOH & Endowment Member
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder


Too_Many_Tools wrote:
"Remember - the times printed the pentagon Papers - those papers were
gotten ill way
by a person that committed Treason (and got off ) and the paper and the
person
killed many U.S. Soldiers. Yea that New York Times is very apt in
revealing secrets,
telling lies, plagiarizing and the whole ball of wax of yellow and
black journalism.
Martin"

What book did you learn history from?

From what I remember, the Pentagon Papers were a good thing.

Please explain your opinion and supply all references for verification.

TMT


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

You take one lousy week off to join Thorax at the Elvis concert, and this
is what happens: Gunner Asch writes on Sat, 24 Dec
2005 18:37:59 GMT in rec.crafts.metalworking :

And let's be frank: Bush is unlikely to have a genuine opinion of his own on
the matter. He's no Constitutional scholar, and he wasn't a "C" student for
nothing. He's listening to his advisors and acting on what he wants to hear
from them. Yoo was one of his advisors.

One should note..that the time of war snooping on electronic media,
was instituted by FDR at the beginning of WW2. It was further
implimented by Jimmy Carter (Hostage Crisis) and carried forwards
since then by every president.

And over the last few years, such capacity has been compromised by
media outlets, eager for a scoop and wanting to appear 'in the know' (and
with an understanding of operational security based on TV shows and
conversations in bars with guys claiming to be "spooks".)


--
pyotr filipivich.
as an explaination for the decline in the US's tech edge, James
Niccol wrote "It used to be that the USA was pretty good at
producing stuff teenaged boys could lose a finger or two playing with."

In article , pyotr filipivich
says...

And over the last few years, such capacity has been compromised by
media outlets,

Yeah, what's with that. They should make all those pesky
newspapers have to clear all their stories with the shrubbie
personally before they publish.

Assuming he can read, that is.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

pyotr filipivich wrote:
You take one lousy week off to join Thorax at the Elvis concert, and
this is what happens: Gunner Asch writes on
Sat, 24 Dec 2005 18:37:59 GMT in rec.crafts.metalworking :


And over the last few years, such capacity has been compromised by
media outlets, eager for a scoop and wanting to appear 'in the know'
(and with an understanding of operational security based on TV shows
and conversations in bars with guys claiming to be "spooks".)

AFTER 9/11
Fear destroys what bin Laden could not
ROBERT STEINBACK

One wonders if Osama bin Laden didn't win after all. He ruined the America
that existed on 9/11. But he had help.

If, back in 2001, anyone had told me that four years after bin Laden's
attack our president would admit that he broke U.S. law against domestic
spying and ignored the Constitution -- and then expect the American people
to congratulate him for it -- I would have presumed the girders of our very
Republic had crumbled.

Had anyone said our president would invade a country and kill 30,000 of its
people claiming a threat that never, in fact, existed, then admit he would
have invaded even if he had known there was no threat -- and expect America
to be pleased by this -- I would have thought our nation's sensibilities and
honor had been eviscerated.

If I had been informed that our nation's leaders would embrace torture as a
legitimate tool of warfare, hold prisoners for years without charges and
operate secret prisons overseas -- and call such procedures necessary for
the nation's security -- I would have laughed at the folly of protecting
human rights by destroying them.

If someone had predicted the president's staff would out a CIA agent as
revenge against a critic, defy a law against domestic propaganda by
bankrolling supposedly independent journalists and commentators, and
ridicule a 37-year Marie Corps veteran for questioning U.S. military
policy -- and that the populace would be more interested in whether Angelina
is about to make Brad a daddy -- I would have called the prediction an
absurd fantasy.

That's no America I know, I would have argued. We're too strong, and we've
been through too much, to be led down such a twisted path.

What is there to say now?

All of these things have happened. And yet a large portion of this country
appears more concerned that saying ''Happy Holidays'' could be a disguised
attack on Christianity.

I evidently have a lot poorer insight regarding America's character than I
once believed, because I would have expected such actions to provoke --
speaking metaphorically now -- mobs with pitchforks and torches at the White
House gate. I would have expected proud defiance of anyone who would suggest
that a mere terrorist threat could send this country into spasms of despair
and fright so profound that we'd follow a leader who considers the law a
nuisance and perfidy a privilege.

Never would I have expected this nation -- which emerged stronger from a
civil war and a civil rights movement, won two world wars, endured the
Depression, recovered from a disastrous campaign in Southeast Asia and still
managed to lead the world in the principles of liberty -- would cower behind
anyone just for promising to ``protect us.''

President Bush recently confirmed that he has authorized wiretaps against
U.S. citizens on at least 30 occasions and said he'll continue doing it. His
justification? He, as president -- or is that king? -- has a right to
disregard any law, constitutional tenet or congressional mandate to protect
the American people.

Is that America's highest goal -- preventing another terrorist attack? Are
there no principles of law and liberty more important than this? Who would
have remembered Patrick Henry had he written, ``What's wrong with giving up
a little liberty if it protects me from death?''

Bush would have us excuse his administration's excesses in deference to the
''war on terror'' -- a war, it should be pointed out, that can never end.
Terrorism is a tactic, an eventuality, not an opposition army or rogue
nation. If we caught every person guilty of a terrorist act, we still
wouldn't know where tomorrow's first-time terrorist will strike. Fighting
terrorism is a bit like fighting infection -- even when it's beaten, you
must continue the fight or it will strike again.

Are we agreeing, then, to give the king unfettered privilege to defy the law
forever? It's time for every member of Congress to weigh in: Do they believe
the president is above the law, or bound by it?

Bush stokes our fears, implying that the only alternative to doing things
his extralegal way is to sit by fitfully waiting for terrorists to harm us.
We are neither weak nor helpless. A proud, confident republic can hunt down
its enemies without trampling legitimate human and constitutional rights.

Ultimately, our best defense against attack -- any attack, of any sort -- is
holding fast and fearlessly to the ideals upon which this nation was built.
Bush clearly doesn't understand or respect that. Do we?



http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald...s/13487511.htm



--
John R. Carroll
Machining Solution Software, Inc.
Los Angeles San Francisco
www.machiningsolution.com

On 27 Dec 2005 18:02:53 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , pyotr filipivich
says...

And over the last few years, such capacity has been compromised by
media outlets,

Yeah, what's with that. They should make all those pesky
newspapers have to clear all their stories with the shrubbie
personally before they publish.

Assuming he can read, that is.

Jim

What score did you get at Yale Jim? Was it higher than Kerry's?

Laugh laugh laugh.

Gunner

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the **** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

You take one lousy week off to join Thorax at the Elvis concert, and this
is what happens: jim rozen writes on 27 Dec 2005
18:02:53 -0800 in rec.crafts.metalworking :
In article , pyotr filipivich
says...

And over the last few years, such capacity has been compromised by
media outlets,

Yeah, what's with that. They should make all those pesky
newspapers have to clear all their stories with the shrubbie
personally before they publish.

Silly liberal, the "whats with that" is that the editorial boards
doesn't understand the reality of surveillance, of real espionage, or how
boasting about how We are pulling one over on Them informs Them of the
problem so they can rectify it. (I seem to recall a report that in the
early part of the Pacific War, the Japanese were setting their depth
charges too "shallow", which made thinks better for US submarines. Till
this little tidbit was published in an article of the "at war with the
Submarine Fleet" nature.)
Yeah, I know, "free press " and all that. Of course, there was a time
when the "free press" wasn't conducting it's own foreign policy contrary to
the US Government.


Assuming he can read, that is.

Well, that's demonstrates your qualifications on the subject: none.
--
pyotr filipivich
Most journalists these days couldn't investigate a missing chocolate cake
at a pre-school without a Democrat office holder telling them what to look for,
where, and what significance it all has.

In article , pyotr filipivich
says...

Yeah, I know, "free press " and all that. Of course, there was a time
when the "free press" wasn't conducting it's own foreign policy contrary to
the US Government.

You still don't "get it."

Look back carefully. Think. Take an historical perspective.

Was there ever a time when the free press was conducting its own,
adverse foreign policy towards the government?

What was the result of that adverse policy?

What happened then?

Where did that first amendment actually come from?

Am I the only person who percieves irony in his statments??

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On 28 Dec 2005 07:30:44 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , pyotr filipivich
says...

Yeah, I know, "free press " and all that. Of course, there was a time
when the "free press" wasn't conducting it's own foreign policy contrary to
the US Government.

You still don't "get it."

Look back carefully. Think. Take an historical perspective.

Was there ever a time when the free press was conducting its own,
adverse foreign policy towards the government?


Yep. Pretty much any period of time since 1960, when there was a
Republican in the Whitehouse.

What was the result of that adverse policy?

The public turned off the major media

What happened then?

The media still hasnt learned why they are rapidly going tits up. See
two more newspapers folded recently?

Where did that first amendment actually come from?

The Founders?

Am I the only person who percieves irony in his statments??

Jim

No Jim...we see irony aplenty.

Gunner

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the **** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

In article , Gunner Asch says...

Where did that first amendment actually come from?

The Founders?

DING!!

A winner, finally!

The founders put all kinds of adverse press about the british out
in literature. The brits used the exact same arguments that are
floating around right now, and the colonists kept right on publishing.

When they formed the constitution, what was the very first thing
the founders wanted in the bill of rights?

Yep, the continued assurance that anyone, anywhere, could publish
literally anything about the newly-formed government.

Anything.

Anytime.

Anywhere.

Political speech is the highest level of protected speech.

No prior restraint.

No limit on content.

No libel.

No slander.

If you're talking about what your government is doing, or about
a politician, the founders made it abundantly clear that anything
goes. The founders realized that the free press was a terrific
weapon against tyranny, and they further realized that if or when
the US government became rotten, the first amendment would be
pivotal in ensuring freedom for the citizens - so they penned
that first amendment in no uncertain terms.

Anyone who suggest that we throw away 200 plus years of first
amendment rights simply because the shrubbie is too incompetent
to run his administration has his head so far jammed up his
ass that the best bet would be for that person to emmigrate to
some other country where the government controls its press with
more authority.

There are plenty of choices.

American Constituion. Love it, or Leave.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

The local free press - those not burnt down by the Brits - posted things
like men on the street and on the high seas were taken under arms and forced
labor upon British Ships as servants/workers/slaves.

Free shipment of goods from the south and Europe was cut off and taxed when allowed.
Taxing wasn't light either.
It was cheaper to ship cotton bales to the England and then back to Boston than from
Atlanta to Boston.

Suppression and white slavery was all over. So it was published and posted and
things came to a head - slaughter in the streets by the Brits - and the game was on.

Martin

Martin Eastburn
@ home at Lions' Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net
NRA LOH & Endowment Member
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder


jim rozen wrote:
In article , Gunner Asch says...


Where did that first amendment actually come from?


The Founders?


DING!!

A winner, finally!

The founders put all kinds of adverse press about the british out
in literature. The brits used the exact same arguments that are
floating around right now, and the colonists kept right on publishing.

When they formed the constitution, what was the very first thing
the founders wanted in the bill of rights?

Yep, the continued assurance that anyone, anywhere, could publish
literally anything about the newly-formed government.

Anything.

Anytime.

Anywhere.

Political speech is the highest level of protected speech.

No prior restraint.

No limit on content.

No libel.

No slander.

If you're talking about what your government is doing, or about
a politician, the founders made it abundantly clear that anything
goes. The founders realized that the free press was a terrific
weapon against tyranny, and they further realized that if or when
the US government became rotten, the first amendment would be
pivotal in ensuring freedom for the citizens - so they penned
that first amendment in no uncertain terms.

Anyone who suggest that we throw away 200 plus years of first
amendment rights simply because the shrubbie is too incompetent
to run his administration has his head so far jammed up his
ass that the best bet would be for that person to emmigrate to
some other country where the government controls its press with
more authority.

There are plenty of choices.

American Constituion. Love it, or Leave.

Jim



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

You take one lousy week off to join Thorax at the Elvis concert, and this
is what happens: jim rozen writes on 28 Dec 2005
10:00:37 -0800 in rec.crafts.metalworking :
In article , Gunner Asch says...

Where did that first amendment actually come from?

The Founders?

DING!!

A winner, finally!

The founders put all kinds of adverse press about the british out
in literature. The brits used the exact same arguments that are
floating around right now, and the colonists kept right on publishing.

I see.

So, the Founder were printing what government secrets they could
uncover because they were in support of the British Government, or were
they in opposition to said government?

Don't worry Jim, the New York Times is very concerned that the
Republicans do not prevail in thwarting "enemy" attacks, and are doing
their best to keep everyone informed of what those means are.


toodles


--
pyotr filipivich.
as an explaination for the decline in the US's tech edge, James
Niccol wrote "It used to be that the USA was pretty good at
producing stuff teenaged boys could lose a finger or two playing with."

In article , pyotr filipivich
says...

So, the Founder were printing what government secrets they could
uncover because they were in support of the British Government, or were
they in opposition to said government?

Well that's the peculiar thing, the law doesn't make the distinction
between political speech that is in favor of the government, or
against it.

It doesn't matter if you are nazi or the jdl. Doesn't matter if
your red or blue. Doesn't matter if your The Progressive or the
NY Times. Doesn't matter if you're daniel ellsberg or karl rove.

The founder[s] wanted citizens to be able to speak out freely
about any political activity, and they wanted the government's
ability to poke around in citizens' affairs kept under check.

Hence the first, and fourth amendments.

If it's political speech, it's protected.

Searches must happen pusuant to a warrant issued on probably
cause.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

You take one lousy week off to join Thorax at the Elvis concert, and this
is what happens: "G.W." writes on 23 Dec 2005
07:20:04 -0800 in rec.crafts.metalworking :
4th Amendment:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place
to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Yep, I see it. It says right there that international phone calls to
Al Qaida-connected people shall not be monitored in time of war (unless
a court has taken the time to approve it, of course).

You silly Democrats, you know that the Constitution is a Living
Document, and we mustn't be restrained by outmoded thinking.

Now smile for the Brady.

tschus
pyotr


I find it amusing that the same people who feel that it is perfectly
acceptable to require transponders in every car so that they can determine
your usage patterns for tax purposes, get all hysterical when it comes to
that same government monitoring foreign agents inside the 12 mile limits.

--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."

You take one lousy week off to join Thorax at the Elvis concert, and this
is what happens: jim rozen writes on 29 Dec 2005
16:58:07 -0800 in rec.crafts.metalworking :
In article , pyotr filipivich
says...

So, the Founder were printing what government secrets they could
uncover because they were in support of the British Government, or were
they in opposition to said government?

Well that's the peculiar thing, the law doesn't make the distinction
between political speech that is in favor of the government, or
against it.

Didn't say Political speech. I'm talking about reporting out
Government Secrets. Something Democrats seem to believe it is their right
as Journalists to do, and not suffer consequences.

As for Political speech, that's been highly regulated, ever since the
McCain Feingold incumbent protection act passed Consittutional muster .
Remember, The Constitution is a Living Document, not something static,
handed down engraved on stone tablets.


tschus
pyotr

--
pyotr filipivich
If the world was flat - some people would complain about falling off the edge.

On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 22:34:26 GMT, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

You take one lousy week off to join Thorax at the Elvis concert, and this
is what happens: "G.W." writes on 23 Dec 2005
07:20:04 -0800 in rec.crafts.metalworking :
4th Amendment:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place
to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Yep, I see it. It says right there that international phone calls to
Al Qaida-connected people shall not be monitored in time of war (unless
a court has taken the time to approve it, of course).

You silly Democrats, you know that the Constitution is a Living
Document, and we mustn't be restrained by outmoded thinking.

Now smile for the Brady.

tschus
pyotr



ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Bravo Sir..Bravo!!!1



I find it amusing that the same people who feel that it is perfectly
acceptable to require transponders in every car so that they can determine
your usage patterns for tax purposes, get all hysterical when it comes to
that same government monitoring foreign agents inside the 12 mile limits.

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the **** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

"pyotr filipivich" wrote in message
...
You take one lousy week off to join Thorax at the Elvis concert, and this
is what happens: "G.W." writes on 23 Dec 2005
07:20:04 -0800 in rec.crafts.metalworking :
4th Amendment:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place
to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Yep, I see it. It says right there that international phone calls to
Al Qaida-connected people shall not be monitored in time of war (unless
a court has taken the time to approve it, of course).

You silly Democrats, you know that the Constitution is a Living
Document, and we mustn't be restrained by outmoded thinking.

Now smile for the Brady.

tschus
pyotr


I find it amusing that the same people who feel that it is perfectly
acceptable to require transponders in every car so that they can determine
your usage patterns for tax purposes, get all hysterical when it comes to
that same government monitoring foreign agents inside the 12 mile limits.


Really? What I find amusing is that right wingers are so easily fooled, and
over and over again. Just because Bush says that the only people that they
were wire tapping were terrorists that doesn't make it a fact. If the only
folks that got tapped illegally were actually Al Qaeda members I doubt that
anyone would be that worked up about it. But we all know the odds that only
Al Qaeda members got tapped are slim and none.

What Bush really did was tap everyone and anyone using a phone to make
overseas calls and he probably tapped a bunch of American citizens that have
no connection to terrorists at all. He's just lying again when he says only
Al Qaeda members were tapped. ****, after all the things Bush has said in
the past that turned out to be untrue how could any thinking person believe
it when he says only "terrorists" were tapped without warrants. Man, if you
believe that after all that has happened you need to send me $10 for a
bottle of old Dave's Snake Oil. It'll cure anything that ails ya. You can
believe me. I have George Bush's endorsement.

Hawke

pyotr filipivich wrote:

I find it amusing that the same people who feel that it is perfectly
acceptable to require transponders in every car so that they can determine
your usage patterns for tax purposes, get all hysterical when it comes to
that same government monitoring foreign agents inside the 12 mile limits.

It would be a lot more amusing if it wern't so scarry, that there folks
with that sort of mental agility in charge of the news we are given and
in responsible positions in the government. :-(
...lew...

In article , pyotr filipivich
says...

I find it amusing that the same people who feel that it is perfectly
acceptable to require transponders in every car so that they can determine
your usage patterns for tax purposes, get all hysterical when it comes to
that same government monitoring foreign agents inside the 12 mile limits.

What's amusing about that?

They're the same folks: republicans. Allow me to explain the
obvious. The insurance companies contribute large to their
campaign funds. The republicans then deliver what's been paid
for, namely legislation that favors insurance companies.

The same republicans are the ones responsible for violating the
fourth amendment. They feel they have the absolute authority
to do whatever they want - ignoring the constitution or turning
our government into an ebay auction. Highest bidder gets what
he wants.

They're the *same* folks, don't you get it?

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

You take one lousy week off to join Thorax at the Elvis concert, and this
is what happens: jim rozen writes on 31 Dec 2005
08:38:56 -0800 in rec.crafts.metalworking :
In article , pyotr filipivich
says...

I find it amusing that the same people who feel that it is perfectly
acceptable to require transponders in every car so that they can determine
your usage patterns for tax purposes, get all hysterical when it comes to
that same government monitoring foreign agents inside the 12 mile limits.

What's amusing about that?

They're the same folks: republicans.

Oh my God, now the Republicans have taken over the Oregon and
Washington Democrat Parties!

It truly is a vast conspiracy. And here I thought the fact that the
Jews really ran the Roman Catholic church was a biggie. (John 23rd let
that little tidbit slip when he said "Spiritually, we're all Jews". But I
digress.)

Allow me to explain the
obvious. The insurance companies contribute large to their
campaign funds. The republicans then deliver what's been paid
for, namely legislation that favors insurance companies.

So, the idea that tracing your car's road usage "to ensure a fair
payment for roads" is just a cover for the insurance industry getting to
do... what was it? Oh yes, search your private files for contacts leading
to suspicion of espionage.

The same republicans are the ones responsible for violating the
fourth amendment. They feel they have the absolute authority
to do whatever they want - ignoring the constitution or turning
our government into an ebay auction. Highest bidder gets what
he wants.

And this differs from having FBI files magically appear in the office
of a former bar bouncer, that nobody know who hired, how? Or "why should I
care?" As I said, the Constitution is a Living Breathing Document, and
must be adapted to modern times. (You'll find that covered in the penumbra
of emanations of the USSC rulings.)

They're the *same* folks, don't you get it?


Yeah, I get it. The left libertarians have joined with the left
liberals, to broadcast far and wide that all a conspiracy has to do is
include one resident inside US jurisdiction in the conference call, and the
US Government will not be able to listen into the plotting. Sort of like
having a Guild Navigator present...


toodles
pyotr


Jim

--
pyotr filipivich
We now return you to something called reality.

"pyotr filipivich" wrote in message
...
You take one lousy week off to join Thorax at the Elvis concert, and this
is what happens: jim rozen writes on 31 Dec 2005
08:38:56 -0800 in rec.crafts.metalworking :
In article , pyotr filipivich
says...

I find it amusing that the same people who feel that it is perfectly
acceptable to require transponders in every car so that they can
determine
your usage patterns for tax purposes, get all hysterical when it comes
to
that same government monitoring foreign agents inside the 12 mile
limits.

What's amusing about that?

They're the same folks: republicans.

Oh my God, now the Republicans have taken over the Oregon and
Washington Democrat Parties!

It truly is a vast conspiracy. And here I thought the fact that the
Jews really ran the Roman Catholic church was a biggie. (John 23rd let
that little tidbit slip when he said "Spiritually, we're all Jews". But I
digress.)

Allow me to explain the
obvious. The insurance companies contribute large to their
campaign funds. The republicans then deliver what's been paid
for, namely legislation that favors insurance companies.

So, the idea that tracing your car's road usage "to ensure a fair
payment for roads" is just a cover for the insurance industry getting to
do... what was it? Oh yes, search your private files for contacts leading
to suspicion of espionage.

The same republicans are the ones responsible for violating the
fourth amendment. They feel they have the absolute authority
to do whatever they want - ignoring the constitution or turning
our government into an ebay auction. Highest bidder gets what
he wants.

And this differs from having FBI files magically appear in the office
of a former bar bouncer, that nobody know who hired, how? Or "why should
I
care?" As I said, the Constitution is a Living Breathing Document, and
must be adapted to modern times. (You'll find that covered in the
penumbra
of emanations of the USSC rulings.)

They're the *same* folks, don't you get it?


Yeah, I get it. The left libertarians have joined with the left
liberals, to broadcast far and wide that all a conspiracy has to do is
include one resident inside US jurisdiction in the conference call, and
the
US Government will not be able to listen into the plotting. Sort of like
having a Guild Navigator present...


toodles
pyotr


Jim

--
pyotr filipivich
We now return you to something called reality.


If you think that the Bush administration only listens in on calls from
terrorists, whether on one end of the line or on both, then you are one hell
of a sucker. The Bush White House has been shown to be either wrong or lying
about so many things it's amazing that anyone would still take anything they
say seriously. let alone take it as Gospel.

Hawke

Who would trust any government employee, no matter what their affiliation?

"Hawke" wrote in message
...

"pyotr filipivich" wrote in message
...
You take one lousy week off to join Thorax at the Elvis concert, and this
is what happens: jim rozen writes on 31 Dec
2005
08:38:56 -0800 in rec.crafts.metalworking :
In article , pyotr
filipivich
says...

I find it amusing that the same people who feel that it is perfectly
acceptable to require transponders in every car so that they can
determine
your usage patterns for tax purposes, get all hysterical when it comes
to
that same government monitoring foreign agents inside the 12 mile
limits.

What's amusing about that?

They're the same folks: republicans.

Oh my God, now the Republicans have taken over the Oregon and
Washington Democrat Parties!

It truly is a vast conspiracy. And here I thought the fact that the
Jews really ran the Roman Catholic church was a biggie. (John 23rd let
that little tidbit slip when he said "Spiritually, we're all Jews". But
I
digress.)

Allow me to explain the
obvious. The insurance companies contribute large to their
campaign funds. The republicans then deliver what's been paid
for, namely legislation that favors insurance companies.

So, the idea that tracing your car's road usage "to ensure a fair
payment for roads" is just a cover for the insurance industry getting to
do... what was it? Oh yes, search your private files for contacts
leading
to suspicion of espionage.

The same republicans are the ones responsible for violating the
fourth amendment. They feel they have the absolute authority
to do whatever they want - ignoring the constitution or turning
our government into an ebay auction. Highest bidder gets what
he wants.

And this differs from having FBI files magically appear in the office
of a former bar bouncer, that nobody know who hired, how? Or "why should
I
care?" As I said, the Constitution is a Living Breathing Document, and
must be adapted to modern times. (You'll find that covered in the
penumbra
of emanations of the USSC rulings.)

They're the *same* folks, don't you get it?


Yeah, I get it. The left libertarians have joined with the left
liberals, to broadcast far and wide that all a conspiracy has to do is
include one resident inside US jurisdiction in the conference call, and
the
US Government will not be able to listen into the plotting. Sort of like
having a Guild Navigator present...


toodles
pyotr


Jim

--
pyotr filipivich
We now return you to something called reality.


If you think that the Bush administration only listens in on calls from
terrorists, whether on one end of the line or on both, then you are one
hell
of a sucker. The Bush White House has been shown to be either wrong or
lying
about so many things it's amazing that anyone would still take anything
they
say seriously. let alone take it as Gospel.

Hawke

An just who and what is a right winger ? - Slander I see.
I have been fighting this '*******' of a law from before it was written.

The law was voted upon without a document or brief of the document of what
the bill was. The administration asked congress to believe in his people -
the same type that rip at rights left and right. Democrat ones were the worst -
but should have been much better - the ego's of the FBI head and AJ head go out of
bounds in their offices. The law was voted then several days later these types
delivered the big book of law that the law makers never say and didn't ok but did.
The president trusted these men but got hoodwinked and brainwashed by them.

I never knew a DA or AJ that wouldn't take for free anything and everything possible.
It is just their nature - win win win.

Martin
Martin Eastburn
@ home at Lions' Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net
NRA LOH & Endowment Member
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder



Hawke wrote:
"pyotr filipivich" wrote in message
...

You take one lousy week off to join Thorax at the Elvis concert, and this
is what happens: "G.W." writes on 23 Dec 2005
07:20:04 -0800 in rec.crafts.metalworking :

4th Amendment:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place
to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Yep, I see it. It says right there that international phone calls to
Al Qaida-connected people shall not be monitored in time of war (unless
a court has taken the time to approve it, of course).

You silly Democrats, you know that the Constitution is a Living
Document, and we mustn't be restrained by outmoded thinking.

Now smile for the Brady.

tschus
pyotr


I find it amusing that the same people who feel that it is perfectly
acceptable to require transponders in every car so that they can determine
your usage patterns for tax purposes, get all hysterical when it comes to
that same government monitoring foreign agents inside the 12 mile limits.



Really? What I find amusing is that right wingers are so easily fooled, and
over and over again. Just because Bush says that the only people that they
were wire tapping were terrorists that doesn't make it a fact. If the only
folks that got tapped illegally were actually Al Qaeda members I doubt that
anyone would be that worked up about it. But we all know the odds that only
Al Qaeda members got tapped are slim and none.

What Bush really did was tap everyone and anyone using a phone to make
overseas calls and he probably tapped a bunch of American citizens that have
no connection to terrorists at all. He's just lying again when he says only
Al Qaeda members were tapped. ****, after all the things Bush has said in
the past that turned out to be untrue how could any thinking person believe
it when he says only "terrorists" were tapped without warrants. Man, if you
believe that after all that has happened you need to send me $10 for a
bottle of old Dave's Snake Oil. It'll cure anything that ails ya. You can
believe me. I have George Bush's endorsement.

Hawke



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 23:24:34 -0600, "Martin H. Eastburn"
wrote:

What Bush really did was tap everyone and anyone using a phone to make
overseas calls and he probably tapped a bunch of American citizens that have
no connection to terrorists at all. He's just lying again when he says only
Al Qaeda members were tapped. ****, after all the things Bush has said in
the past that turned out to be untrue how could any thinking person believe
it when he says only "terrorists" were tapped without warrants. Man, if you
believe that after all that has happened you need to send me $10 for a
bottle of old Dave's Snake Oil. It'll cure anything that ails ya. You can
believe me. I have George Bush's endorsement.

Hawke


Once again the beligerant Useful Idiot Hawk presents his opinion, rife
with charges based on "what ifs" and "maybes" and colored by his
bleeves that all things Bush are evil.

One must assume that he will only have sex with men who shave their
crotches, as Bush has to be bad.

Laugh laugh laugh

Gunner

The aim of untold millions is to be free to do exactly as they choose
and for someone else to pay when things go wrong.

In the past few decades, a peculiar and distinctive psychology
has emerged in England. Gone are the civility, sturdy independence,
and admirable stoicism that carried the English through the war years
.. It has been replaced by a constant whine of excuses, complaints,
and special pleading. The collapse of the British character has been
as swift and complete as the collapse of British power.

Theodore Dalrymple,