OT: Google subpoenaed

Back to post

Comments

rextilleon wrote on 1/20/2006, 6:33 AM
This doesn't surprise me. After Gonzalez tried to nix the Oregon assisted suicide law, why should anyone be surprised that the neo-Puritans are out to control what people see on the Internet. The scarey thing is that when Alito ascends to the bench, we get one step closer to a right wing ACTIVIST court that will allow their personal moral positions trump law. We must all pray that the remaining justices stay alive until 2008 when this nightmare will hopefully end and moderates will take control of the government.
Coursedesign wrote on 1/20/2006, 8:31 AM
Pumice,

If you have nothing to hide, why don't you drop your pants and jockeys and post a picture?

I'd like to make that offer to anyone who thinks that freedom is dispensable.

Hmmm, I suddenly remembered some brave men who thought otherwise. They felt that King George didn't care about his subjects here at all, and they did something about it.

So you don't have any objection to your local sheriff or anybody else shining a flashlight in your face at 3 am in your bed, without a court warrant or even reasonable cause?

And of course you don't mind strangers reading your personal mail and checking where you are going, because you have nothing to hide?

And going to work you find that you are fired, because your boss was ordered to fire you because of what some bureaucrat misunderstood in one of your e-mails. All without any access to due process, because "it is not needed," and "personal rights have no value."

I think you should talk to people who lived in the original "Evil Empire" behind the Iron Curtain and experienced this on a regular basis.

I'm still hopeful that the Constitution that was written specifically for one purpose only, will again function to slow down and fight back against what the founders KNEW would happen: future government leaders would drink from the chalet of power and like it so much they wouldn't care about their citizen's freedoms anymore. As Jay said, it has nothing to do with this or that party.

The John Titor web site makes me remember something I heard on the radio as a child. It was an interview with a guy who was "recording the voices of dead spirits on his tape recorder," and as a young kid I was really fascinated by this new thing.

Then I started thinking about what the spirit voices were saying, and I thought, "whoa, these guys are no smarter than humans, so what's the point?"

If we assume for a moment that there is some grain of truth to the existence of JT, then you can also very safely assume that what comes out of JT is twisted for his interpreters' personal agendas. This has happened thousands of times in all kinds of cases.

Caveat emptor.
TheHappyFriar wrote on 1/20/2006, 8:50 AM
i think most of us here are really over reacting.... they want stats on porn/sex related searches to prove that children are looking it up & that current ways of blocking it from minors (which it IS illegal for them to view) don't work. Example:

your healthteacher wants you to write a paper on obecity on the US.. You find this one:
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28382
title: Surgeon General: Americans Have Gigantic Fat Asses

so, to get more simular articles you search for "Gigantic Fat Asses". Guess what? You find one articles and find nothing else but porn sites! Even the "sponcered" sites are porn sites!

That's what the Govt wants... info on what people find when they lookfor anything related to sex/porn so that they can safely say "See, kids get bomardred with this stuff!"

Ironicly, if you type in 4 works relating to sex, you get ~5,330,000 entries. Type in Hillary Clinton & you get DOUBLE!

rextilleon wrote on 1/20/2006, 8:52 AM
Speak for yourself. I find it remarkable that conservatives defend this and are so willing to TRUST this administrations behavior. THe Supreme Court ruled on this. I would prefer that my tax dollars be spent fighting terrorism.
craftech wrote on 1/20/2006, 9:10 AM
Right now the Democrats are powerless yet it never ceases to amaze me that people still buy our party line that the Democrats are also to blame for decisions being made. We control the entire government.

It actually isn't a surprise because as I have demonstrated before (using endless detailed examples) the problem lies with the media and their filtered reporting.

Despite the growing objections by the membership at the local level, the decisions that disregard the public welfare within the party count on a steady stream of miscommunication within the media. Our party caters to corporate interests at the expense of the public welfare. Corporations like Time Warner that owns CNN, General Electric that owns NBC, Viacom that owns CBS, and News Corp that owns FOX. The Fairness Doctrine that was abolished by the Reagan administration was the beginning of the end of balanced reporting and a trend toward more and more relaxed media ownership regulations. It isn't any wonder that when he died Reagan was converted into America's greatest president in one short week by the media. They owed him for the empires they enjoy.

Any attempt at splitting up the large media corporations or reinstituting any form of the Fairnmess Doctrine or even legislation to reduce corporate media merger rules are soundly defeated by our party. The very party that cries "liberal media" in a facade that is generally believed by the public.

Until the media changes (which will be never) none of these problems can be resolved.

John

Laurence wrote on 1/20/2006, 9:31 AM
The Democrats are out in left field somewhere while the Republicans are destroying the country. EVERYBODY should be pissed off! We are spiraling into dept and about as far away from being fiscally conservative as a government can get. My father says it this way: "I didn't think anybody could be a worse president than Bill Clinton. I was wrong!"
rman wrote on 1/23/2006, 10:17 AM
<<"I didn't think anybody could be a worse president than Bill Clinton. I was wrong!" >>

Yeah, that would be Hillary Clinton if she wins in 2008.

But of course the media would like us all to believe that while BillyBob Clinton was a great president while he was having his joyride during the 90's-the most incredible economic boom (and bubble) that we've had in decades (which by the way, he didn't create that boom, it was millions of Americans). I could easily make an argument that Clinton is absolutely just as responsible for what happened on 9/11, our lost jobs, etc. as is our current president & the current Congress. The Congress we always conveniently choose to forget many were in office during billybob's run, and did nothing to fix the problems we have).

Liberals are always excellent at criticizing the republican party and every issue they stand for, but NEVER actually give any real, alternative, practical solutions that will actually fix ANY of the incredibly complicated problems that we face today as a nation.

I'm with the previous posters that said we should all be pissed. Both parties are full of total garbage. Their primary goal is to win elections, spew stupid, meaningless slogans, NOT to fix anything that we face today.
p@mast3rs wrote on 1/23/2006, 12:23 PM
Blah Blah Blah! Politics are for losers. Seriosuly want to fix politics? Eliminate ALL kickbacks and contributions immediately. Lower the salary that falls in line with the average US household income. ($40k) And take away companies ability to line the pockets of politicians for laws in big business' favors and that would be a good start. Eliminate a paycheck for the rest of their life for their civil servance.

If you do all of that, then you will be ASSURED that the only people who run for office are the ones who truly give a flip about making our country a better place and not some asshole who is only out for his own political/monetary gain.

Politics was SUPPOSED to be a voice for the people...Again, I say the PEOPLE. Not the RIAA. Not the MPAA. Not right wing conservatives. Not left wing liberals. Not judges whose decisions are made with bad judgment or alterior motives. Not some jerkoff governor who uses his job as a spring board to the Oval Office.

Limit the terms for every office in government all the way from President down to Prosecuting Attorneys. How long has Ted Kennedy been in Congress? Funny thing is he has made more money during his stay in Congress than most Americans will make over a life time.

Better yet, ELIMINATE ALL PARTIES. That way people wont be as inclined to vote the partyline regardless of the issues at hand. Its about time this country stood up and made wise decisions but because those that govern us get to make the votes that count, we are stuck with the selections for president we have had for the last 17 years. Bush Sr - Moron. Clinton - Not great, sex fiend, didnt start stupid wars Bush Jr. - Listen to one interview. Nothing to be proud of as an American.

Once we get people that truly care about the American people and not in some sound byte or on the campaign trail, then we will truly begin to grow as a nation.

I just find it comical that this same country that leave Great Britian because they wanted a better life has ended up doing the same things that we bitched about Old England (taxes, search/siezures, spying). We condemned Communist nations for keeping great tabs on their citizens and used that as a selling point of why America was such a great place. Look at what we have become. The exact same.



Coursedesign wrote on 1/23/2006, 12:38 PM
I'm with the previous posters that said we should all be pissed. Both parties are full of total garbage. Their primary goal is to win elections, spew stupid, meaningless slogans, NOT to fix anything that we face today.

### Yes, I don't think it's been this bad since the 1970's.

Liberals are always excellent at criticizing the republican party and every issue they stand for, but NEVER actually give any real, alternative, practical solutions that will actually fix ANY of the incredibly complicated problems that we face today as a nation.

The corollary to this is also true. The republicans have not been able to "give any real, alternative, practical solutions that will actually fix ANY of the incredibly complicated problems that we face today as a nation" either, not even with their current full control of the White House, Congress, and the Senate.

That's as close to full responsibility for what's happening as any party can come.

And Bill Clinton, flawed as he may seem (especially where it doesn't count as much for the nation as what W has done recently), didn't spend money like a drunken sailor. In many ways, his policies were more conservative than what we are seeing from Rove, er, Bush.

I am not happy to see $1 to 2 trillion dollars being wasted on shooing off a yard dog who was watching the yard FOR FREE, keeping out all unsavory characters because they could become a threat to him. These trillions will show up in significantly higher interest rates to save the U.S. Dollar., and the U.S. becoming a vassal state to China because of their threat to get rid of their U.S. Treasury IOUs, which would totally clobber us.

I am not happy about my oil prices going up because Iraq's oil production is now half of what it was previously.

Neither of the issues above have to do with rep vs. lib.

I certainly don't believe John McCain for example would have gone to Iraq under the circumstances, because he understands a good deal and recognizes a bad deal when he sees one.

Also, if he had had to go anywhere with the U.S. military, he would have worked with the military's best strategists to do proper plannning, not having a neocon bureaucrat without military experience press the military to take and hold Iraq with less than a third of the troops Norman Schwartzkopf demanded and got for the liberation of Kuwait, a much smaller country.

It's all about personal competence, and there isn't much of that in the current administration. There is a lot of knowledge, but it is not applied.

The end result is that we tax payers pay very dearly for their personal mistakes.

Being middle class isn't going to be much fun here for the next couple of decades while the national debt is being paid off together with 50,000+ crippled new veterans and thousands of our own war dead, spiraling oil prices, etc.

Our only consolation is that it would have been even worse for us economically if Bush hadn't decided to shift more of the burden onto the poor.

Oh, wait a minute, that will still hit us, because the states are left holding the bag when the Federal government runs away.

So state taxes will rise instead, and Bush will say, "Look, I'm a genius. I lower taxes and they raise them!"

Distinguished historians are discussing right now whether Bush was the worst president in the history of the United States (nothing to do with party politics!). Fortunately there was some competition from one other president from a long time ago, so they can at least argue about it for a while to make it look better.

Jay Gladwell wrote on 1/23/2006, 2:23 PM

Bjorn, that is exactly why I left the Republican Party and joined the Libertarian Party!

What is a Libertarian?

Libertarians believe that you have the right to live your life as you wish, without the government interfering -- as long as you don’t violate the rights of others. Politically, this means Libertarians favor rolling back the size and cost of government, and eliminating laws that stifle the economy and control people’s personal choices.

Libertarians are neither liberal nor conservative. Unlike liberals or conservatives, Libertarians advocate a high degree of both personal and economic liberty. For example, Libertarians agree with conservatives about freedom in economic matters, so we're in favor of lowering taxes, slashing bureaucratic regulation of business, and charitable -- rather than government -- welfare. But Libertarians also agree with liberals on personal tolerance, so we're in favor of people’s right to choose their own personal habits and lifestyles.

In a sense, Libertarians “borrow” from both sides to come up with a logical and consistent whole -- but without the exceptions and broken promises of Republican and Democratic politicians. That's why they are call themselves the "Party of Principle."


rman wrote on 1/23/2006, 2:25 PM
I have to say I agree with you Coursedesign. I don't trust them on either side of the isle. The Federal spending going through the roof, into space for that matter, the gas prices, etc. makes me mad as hell. I don't like the Iraq war either. There are no easy answers for the problems in middle-east or most of the other issues out there.
Laurence wrote on 1/23/2006, 6:28 PM
If Hillary Clinton was to be elected, that would be three lousy presidents in a row! I hope to God that come next election we don't have to choose between Hillary and some other right wing loser like the one we have now!
p@mast3rs wrote on 1/23/2006, 6:41 PM
Do you consider Bush Sr to be lousy as well? That would be four. (Bush Sr, Clinton, Bush Jr, Hillary.)

We need more than just two major contenders in order to pick the best candidate instead of being forced to vote for the lesser of two evils.
Jay Gladwell wrote on 1/23/2006, 8:21 PM

We need more than just two major contenders in order to pick the best candidate

Patrick, never have truer words been spoken!


p@mast3rs wrote on 1/23/2006, 8:33 PM
See, I am not always full of senseless mean spirited dribble LOL.
Spot|DSE wrote on 1/23/2006, 9:31 PM
Well...I'm voting for whatever candidate publically says they use Vegas, Sound Forge, or Acid. Whoops, Clinton used Acid, he just never inhaled. :-)

Vote for Pedro.
p@mast3rs wrote on 1/23/2006, 9:42 PM
What about Vasst products? A politician that uses Vasst products surely has to be ok in your book Spot. <grin> LOL
Laurence wrote on 1/23/2006, 9:52 PM
I like Bush Sr.

No, three parties would mean that two of the three would get together and ignore the third.

I'ver read that both Clinton and GWB are Mac users. Maybe that's part of why I don't like either of them!
p@mast3rs wrote on 1/23/2006, 10:01 PM
C'mon now. You know Gore invented the internet. :)
busterkeaton wrote on 1/24/2006, 12:41 AM
Vinton Cerf acknowledges Gore's contribution here.

My take on Clinton's "I didn't inhale bit" was that it was the truth, but not in a way that reflects well on Clinton. My take is that Clinton is at some party in Oxford and someone is passing a joint. Clinton wants to look cool and be thought of being cool, but he is exceedingly ambitious politically and doesn't want to jeopardize that. So instead of saying "No thanks." or "I don't smoke," so he fakes it. I remember when I was a kid when we first started drinking, there were kids who would take three sips of a beer and then pour it in the bushes and then Monday morning would brag how beers they drank.


For laughs and giggles, here's admitted felon Jack Ambramoff claiming in 2003 that things are so much harder on lobbyists with the "good government" Bush crowd in office:

“I think it’s a very different administration … compared to the Clinton days,” Abramoff said of George W. Bush’s White House. “They’re going to go out of the way to make sure that they are not courting special favors to lobbyists and to special interests. They’ll only agree to things on strict merits.

If you are bit hazy on the Ambramoff chronology, this is AFTER Bush replaced a federal prosecuter investigating Ambramoff and AFTER Ambramoff increased his White House access when his secretary moved over to become Karl Rove's personal assistant. This sort of lateral move has been repeated over and over in this scandal. If you remember, another admitted felon in this scandal, Michael Scanlon was Tom Delay's aide before becoming Ambramoff's partner. Another ex-Ambramoff coworker, David Safavian, moved over the become the top-procurement official for the US government. Safavian resigned just before the FBI arrested him for obstruction of justice in the Ambramoff case.

Jay Gladwell wrote on 1/24/2006, 4:23 AM

That Gore statement from Kahn and Cerf, albeit subtly written, is as transparent as glass. It's part of a greater agenda--"damage control."

Richard Wiggins goes to even greater lengths in a "super sized" article he wrote for "First Monday" entitled Al Gore and the Creation of the Internet. This is his contribution to the effort for "damage control". It becomes obviously clear in his closing remarks, which he has labled "Why This Matters," that Mr. Wiggins too has an agenda, along with that of the rest of Democrats, including Kahn and Cerf--"salvage our lamebrained candidate."

Mr. Kahn, for example, contributed $1,900 to Gore's campaign. Mr. Cerf contributed $2,000 to the same cause. So they had reason (an agenda) to participate in the damage control efforts. Their motives for writing that statement are crystal clear.

Yes, the Republicans do the same thing. Probably no president has kept the damage control team more busy than George W. Bush.




Wes C. Attle wrote on 1/24/2006, 6:23 AM

I moved overseas from the US 7 years ago. Reading this thread has just convinced me to stay overseas for another 7 years...

Seriously though, it is a depressing reality these days. But the great salvation is that we can still talk about it openly in healthy debate without worry of government retaliation... for now.
Dan Sherman wrote on 1/24/2006, 6:55 AM
Kinda comes down to this,---
"Nothing to hide, nothing to fear."
Too simple?
Or is there a boogy man around every corner,---men in black , ---government agents seeking to take away the rights of the American partiot!?
"Paranoia strikes deep, into your life it will creep."
What if the elected government did NOTHING to protect the citizenary from the threats of terrorists bent on destruction?
Can't have it both says.
Has 911 faded too far into the BG?
Certainly there are enough checks and balances to keep the USA from turning into a facist state.
Heil Dub-juh?
Jay Gladwell wrote on 1/24/2006, 7:12 AM

Daniel, I'm not sure what it is you're trying to say. Your post appears rather cryptic to me.

If I understand your comment "Nothing to hide, nothing to fear" correctly, then you're okay with the government tossing the Constitution and Bill of Rights out the window in the guise of "protecting" us. No thanks, I cannot agree with such logic, because it simply isn't true.

Nothing--absolutely nothing--comes before liberty.

[edit]

Here are some examples of our government's "protection" policies:

Domestic Spying: FBI agents can monitor private citizens and organizations without suspicion. Agents can infiltrate houses of worship and monitor open religious and political meetings without evidence of a crime.

Government Secrecy: A directive by Attorney General John Ashcroft limits compliance with the Freedom of Information Act.

Ethnic Profiling: Ashcroft has directed the questioning of thousands of innocent individuals based primarily on their country of origin. Police departments across the country refused to participate in the dragnet questioning plan.

Tracking Immigrants: The U.S. Department of Justice is subjecting thousands of lawful visitors-from a list of Muslim countries-to onerous fingerprinting and registration requirements. All non-citizens are also required to report changes of address within 10 days or risk fines, jail, or even deportation.

Mass Detentions: Over 1,1000 men were detained after September 11th. Although the detentions were shrouded in secrecy, advocates believe that many detainees did not have access to legal representation and were detained for months before having their cases resolved. Many were ultimately charged with only minor immigration violations, and most have now been deported.

Secret Searches: The USA PATRIOT Act expands the power of the federal government to conduct "sneak and peek" secret searches. These searches allow the FBI to use a search warrant to enter and search a home or office-without notifying the occupant until much later.

Expanded Surveillance: The USA PATRIOT Act now lets the FBI secretly conduct physical searches or wiretaps on citizens or residents without showing probable cause, as required by the Fourth Amendment. The Act also subjects email and Internet usage, as well as telephone calls, to "pen register" orders, which allow the government to monitor the who, what, when, and where of communication. Unlike phone calls, the who/what/when/where of an email is not easily separated from the actual content, and Web page addresses can reflect the content of the Web site visited. Thus, FBI agents must be "trusted" not to read the content of an email or Web page. Additionally, the FBI can now collect any personal records of an individual it desires-such as library, medical, and financial records-if it claims the collection is for a "terrorism" investigation. The Pentagon is also developing the most extensive electronic surveillance system in history-the "Total Information Awareness" program-which would scan personal information from commercial and government databases in hopes of preventing future terrorist acts.

Restricted Movement: Federal officials have given airlines a blacklist of people to prevent from flying because they are deemed suspicious. Already there are reports of peace activists, Green Party members, and other activists being stopped at airports because of their lawful political activity.

This is all too reminiscent of Russia after the Revolution and Germany after the Nazi Party gained control.