NSA and YOUR phone calls

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>You can do a google search and buy the same type of records.

Then why block the court cases? Why not let our justice system work and show that there is no problem with his actions?

>This issue is a political gotcha story only for the Bush haters . . .

. . . which now make up 65% of the country. (If, of course, you equate Bush haters with people who do not obey him 100% - which you clearly do.)

As you seem to equate anyone who isn't automatically against everything Bush does as "blind supporters"

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>You can do a google search and buy the same type of records.

Then why block the court cases? Why not let our justice system work and show that there is no problem with his actions?

>This issue is a political gotcha story only for the Bush haters . . .

. . . which now make up 65% of the country. (If, of course, you equate Bush haters with people who do not obey him 100% - which you clearly do.)

Obey him?? nice hidden pi bill.

I like how you know that the DOJ should not be stopped because of national security.

I notice nobody has replied to the Echelon question I raised earlier.

It is very obvious that this is a nothing issue. Made to appear as thought the NSA was listening in on conversation.

And even thought this has been going on since 1975 in some form or another it only counts as something bad now.

Why, because Bush is president.

You got nothin, again, it must really hurt huh?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,077]

>Obey him?? nice hidden pi bill.

Hey, you're either with him or against him - right?

>I like how you know that the DOJ should not be stopped because of
>national security.

If you claim that investigations into the wiretap allegations must be stopped for some vauge national security issue, fine. But if that's the case, your claim of "there's no issue because no one's presenting the evidence!" is out the window. There IS an issue and they ARE presenting the evidence - it is just being supressed.

>I notice nobody has replied to the Echelon question I raised earlier.

Ah yes. The old "someone else did it first" argument. That's really all you have left?

Whether it's right or not does not depend on what someone else did before. That's why we have a legal system - to determine whether something is legal or not. In this case, we may never know because it has been prevented from operating.

[rushmc 23]

Two things here, I know you have all the answers and

It does not mater whether somebody else did anything or not, you are right about that.

I DOES mater how someone that condems it today reacted to it before now doesn't it! That to me says volumes about motive.........

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,077]

>I DOES mater how someone that condems it today reacted to it
>before now doesn't it! That to me says volumes about motive.........

If I am parsing that sentence correctly, I assume you are saying that if someone didn't disapprove of something years ago, they have no right to disapprove of it now? An odd sentiment, but OK . . .

In any case, I have never thought Echelon (as a system to spy on americans) was constitutional, and looked forward to it being tested by our courts. I hope that it will be.

[Gravitymaster 0]

I do have to laugh at the hypocracy here.

For years the anti-gun Left has had no problem with the government prying into the backgrounds of American who are seeking to carry a weapon legally for personal protection. While at the same time becoming inflamed that the govt. would use data matching computer technology in an effort to uncover terrorist who seek to harm us.

Democrats, have been outspoken opponents of legislation designed to prevent municipal governments from essentially "mining data" on traces relating to so-called "crime guns" by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. That data is still available to law enforcement agencies for bona fide criminal investigations, but the cities want it to bolster junk lawsuits against gun makers and others, even though federal legislation passed last year prohibits such lawsuits.


-

[jenfly00 0]

Quote

Then why did they not object say ... .... ....10 years ago?

Oh, oh, I know. A republican was not in office.

Funny how that works huh

Perhaps it is a matter of (some) people finally waking up and smelling the corruption that is consuming our great nation?

For all of our flaws, America has always been a flame on a hilltop. A vision, shining across the world for all those who believed in freedom and liberty. Now, the people guiding our government, regardless of reasons or rationales, extingush that flame ...and America is less because of them.

It's time to wake up, my friend ...before the flame is gone.

It's not a matter of Republicans vs. Democrats or whether Clinton did it first. It's a matter of what is happening right now. The flame is, indeed, being extinguished.

-----------------------
"O brave new world that has such people in it".

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>I DOES mater how someone that condems it today reacted to it
>before now doesn't it! That to me says volumes about motive.........

If I am parsing that sentence correctly, I assume you are saying that if someone didn't disapprove of something years ago, they have no right to disapprove of it now? An odd sentiment, but OK . . .

In any case, I have never thought Echelon (as a system to spy on americans) was constitutional, and looked forward to it being tested by our courts. I hope that it will be.

Sorry my sentences do not flow

I do not feel looking back is odd. I indicates to me the motive of the comments.

As for your answer? I can respect that.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

The left has never said they were, or have proven they are, consistnt.....

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Then why did they not object say ... .... ....10 years ago?

Oh, oh, I know. A republican was not in office.

Funny how that works huh

Perhaps it is a matter of (some) people finally waking up and smelling the corruption that is consuming our great nation?

For all of our flaws, America has always been a flame on a hilltop. A vision, shining across the world for all those who believed in freedom and liberty. Now, the people guiding our government, regardless of reasons or rationales, extingush that flame ...and America is less because of them.

It's time to wake up, my friend ...before the flame is gone.

It's not a matter of Republicans vs. Democrats or whether Clinton did it first. It's a matter of what is happening right now. The flame is, indeed, being extinguished.

First, I think your are very wrong!

Second, given you stated belief, was the path just as bad 10 years ago? In your opinion.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[jenfly00 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Then why did they not object say ... .... ....10 years ago?

Oh, oh, I know. A republican was not in office.

Funny how that works huh

Perhaps it is a matter of (some) people finally waking up and smelling the corruption that is consuming our great nation?

For all of our flaws, America has always been a flame on a hilltop. A vision, shining across the world for all those who believed in freedom and liberty. Now, the people guiding our government, regardless of reasons or rationales, extingush that flame ...and America is less because of them.

It's time to wake up, my friend ...before the flame is gone.

It's not a matter of Republicans vs. Democrats or whether Clinton did it first. It's a matter of what is happening right now. The flame is, indeed, being extinguished.

First, I think your are very wrong!

Yeah, I never would have guessed that.

Second, given you stated belief, was the path just as bad 10 years ago? In your opinion.

View what is happening in our country as a gestalt. The whole is greater than the sum of it's parts. Under the present administration thre are a lot of 'parts' that, individually, may have little impact on personal freedoms or individual liberty. Some have been around to some degree or another for a while ...others are new incursions.

At this time in our culture, the parts have increased in number and complexity to come together and you have something that is, indeed, greater than it's individual parts ...the extinguishing of a dream, an idea, a great nation.

Wake up, my brother. Wake up soon, for I fear the time is coming when it will be too late.

-----------------------
"O brave new world that has such people in it".

[Zipp0 1]

Quote

I do have to laugh at the hypocracy here.

For years the anti-gun Left has had no problem with the government prying into the backgrounds of American who are seeking to carry a weapon legally for personal protection. While at the same time becoming inflamed that the govt. would use data matching computer technology in an effort to uncover terrorist who seek to harm us.

Democrats, have been outspoken opponents of legislation designed to prevent municipal governments from essentially "mining data" on traces relating to so-called "crime guns" by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. That data is still available to law enforcement agencies for bona fide criminal investigations, but the cities want it to bolster junk lawsuits against gun makers and others, even though federal legislation passed last year prohibits such lawsuits.


-

I, for one, am not a member of the anti-gun left. I have a license to carry, and I occasionally hunt.

But on the topic of background checks to buy a gun compared to unwarranted checking on who I am calling - when I can kill 5 people in 5 seconds with my phone, I will be fine with it.

I got my background check, because, as the right seems to be saying a lot nowdays "I had nothing to be afraid of."

Now who's the hippocrite?

Zipp0

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

I do have to laugh at the hypocracy here.

For years the anti-gun Left has had no problem with the government prying into the backgrounds of American who are seeking to carry a weapon legally for personal protection. While at the same time becoming inflamed that the govt. would use data matching computer technology in an effort to uncover terrorist who seek to harm us.

Democrats, have been outspoken opponents of legislation designed to prevent municipal governments from essentially "mining data" on traces relating to so-called "crime guns" by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. That data is still available to law enforcement agencies for bona fide criminal investigations, but the cities want it to bolster junk lawsuits against gun makers and others, even though federal legislation passed last year prohibits such lawsuits.


-

I, for one, am not a member of the anti-gun left. I have a license to carry, and I occasionally hunt.

But on the topic of background checks to buy a gun compared to unwarranted checking on who I am calling - when I can kill 5 people in 5 seconds with my phone, I will be fine with it.

I got my background check, because, as the right seems to be saying a lot nowdays "I had nothing to be afraid of."

Now who's the hippocrite?

Zipp0

Comparing phones to guns is being deliberately obtuse.

The hypocrisy (to restate in simpler terms) is that for years, the Liberals have had no problems with the background checks for concealed carry licenses. They have had no problem with ATF/FBI illegally keeping purchase records for years after the fact, and using those records in bogus "traces" of so called "crime guns". They have had no problems with junk lawsuits against gun manufacturers.

Now, they find out that Telecom companies have sold/provided call records to the NSA, and NOW it's suddenly time to be up in arms.

As I said above... nobody has a gripe until it affects them....

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

I do have to laugh at the hypocracy here.

For years the anti-gun Left has had no problem with the government prying into the backgrounds of American who are seeking to carry a weapon legally for personal protection. While at the same time becoming inflamed that the govt. would use data matching computer technology in an effort to uncover terrorist who seek to harm us.

Democrats, have been outspoken opponents of legislation designed to prevent municipal governments from essentially "mining data" on traces relating to so-called "crime guns" by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. That data is still available to law enforcement agencies for bona fide criminal investigations, but the cities want it to bolster junk lawsuits against gun makers and others, even though federal legislation passed last year prohibits such lawsuits.


-

I, for one, am not a member of the anti-gun left. I have a license to carry, and I occasionally hunt.

But on the topic of background checks to buy a gun compared to unwarranted checking on who I am calling - when I can kill 5 people in 5 seconds with my phone, I will be fine with it.

I got my background check, because, as the right seems to be saying a lot nowdays "I had nothing to be afraid of."

Now who's the hippocrite?

Zipp0

Changes nothing. If you aren't calling terrorists, you have nothing to fear. If the govt. is able to stop a terrorist that could kill 100,000 by comparing phone records, I say great.

The hypocracy is with the Dems who insist on background checks for gun ownership but complain about something as simple as cross-referencing phone calls as this huge abridgement of rights. Now they know how law abiding gun owners feel.

-

[jenfly00 0]

Quote

Changes nothing. If you aren't calling terrorists, you have nothing to fear

Ahhh, the eulogy of freedom.

-----------------------
"O brave new world that has such people in it".

[Zipp0 1]

Quote

The hypocracy is with the Dems who insist on background checks for gun ownership but complain about something as simple as cross-referencing phone calls as this huge abridgement of rights. Now they know how law abiding gun owners feel.

-

I am a somewhat liberal gun owner who has had a background check to get and carry a gun. Background checks to buy handguns are not a terrible idea. It did not make me feel bad at all, and took about 5 minutes. Guns kill, a phone does not.

Not everyone needs or wants a gun. EVERYONE has a phone, or maybe 2 or 3 of them.

And I do have to admit, a lot of this comes down to trust. I simply don't trust the present administration to do the right thing. They have done absolutely nothing to earn my trust, and as so many after school specials will tell you - trust is easy to lose, and hard to earn back.

Zipp0

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Changes nothing. If you aren't calling terrorists, you have nothing to fear

Ahhh, the eulogy of freedom.

That's what the gun owners said, when they used that excuse about the background checks, too.... "If you're law-abiding, why are you so scared about a background check?"

Same principle....

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Changes nothing. If you aren't calling terrorists, you have nothing to fear

Ahhh, the eulogy of freedom.

I find it a greater threat to my freedoms when Liberals decide my home can be taken from me and given to a developer to increase the tax base. I find it a greater threat to freedom when honest law abiding Americans are told by the govt. they can't be trusted to own guns. I find it a greater threat to freedom when govt. hands out Social programs to buy votes. I am not concerned when the govt simply asks phone companies for records and they voluntarily comply.

I am more concerned that terrorists now know to use Qwest for all their activities.

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

Guns kill, a phone does not.

You're wrong about the guns, they don't kill either.

Some people kill with guns. Some people kill with phones. But neither object kills on it's own. You're denying a very valid comparison here, one that reveals glaring hypocracy on the part of the left.

. . =(_8^(1)

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

The hypocracy is with the Dems who insist on background checks for gun ownership but complain about something as simple as cross-referencing phone calls as this huge abridgement of rights. Now they know how law abiding gun owners feel.

-

Quote

I am a somewhat liberal gun owner who has had a background check to get and carry a gun. Background checks to buy handguns are not a terrible idea. It did not make me feel bad at all, and took about 5 minutes.

Gotch. Now which is more intrusive on your freedoms, a background check to own a gun or simply looking at call records?

Quote

Guns kill, a phone does not.

Guns don't kill, people do. A phone doesn't kill, what is planned on it does.

Quote

Not everyone needs or wants a gun. EVERYONE has a phone, or maybe 2 or 3 of them.

Correct, now figure out the time, manpower and expense involved in actually monitoring your call to a woman to ask her for a date. You really think the govt. is interested in you personally?

Quote

And I do have to admit, a lot of this comes down to trust. I simply don't trust the present administration to do the right thing. They have done absolutely nothing to earn my trust, and as so many after school specials will tell you - trust is easy to lose, and hard to earn back.

Zipp0

Exactly, and thats all this entire uproar is about. It's about politics and trying to gain an advantage to win back the House in the next election cycle. C'mon Zippo, you're a bright guy, certainly you see it for what it is.

-

• Quote

[Zipp0 1]

OK. Jeezz....

Why do they need to data mine the phone call habits of every American to find a few terrorists? I mean, can't they narrow it down just a BIT? What if my aunt Selma dials a wrong number and accidently connects to a bad guy? Now the Feds will be looking into her life?

Let's cut all the BS, and allow the DOJ to do their job. If it's legal, and they can somehow protect the data of all innocent Americas while still achieving their goals, so be it.

I know there are mostly good people working in government, and they want to do the right thing. At the same time, sacrificing liberty for a false sense of security is exactly what Bin Laden had in mind.

We can be safe and still be free from intrusive government. When Patrick Henry said "Give me liberty, or give me death," he meant it. And so do I.

Zipp0

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

When Patrick Henry said "Give me liberty, or give me death," he meant it. And so do I.

No you don't, at least according to yourself.

Just two posts ago, in reference to your personal rights being violated during an involuntary background check, you stated that "It did not make me feel bad at all, and took about 5 minutes".

Patrick Henry would be ashamed of you. Your story has crooks in it.

. . =(_8^(1)

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

OK. Jeezz....

Why do they need to data mine the phone call habits of every American to find a few terrorists? I mean, can't they narrow it down just a BIT? What if my aunt Selma dials a wrong number and accidently connects to a bad guy? Now the Feds will be looking into her life?

I don't pretend to know exactly how they are using this data. My guess is they may have identified certain phone number, developed by other intel methods and are trying to track down AQ cells within the US by monitoring the numbers those cell phones recieve. Once a call is made to that number they can procede to wiretap it. They are then required to get a warrant within a certain time period to continue tapping the phone.

Quote

Let's cut all the BS, and allow the DOJ to do their job. If it's legal, and they can somehow protect the data of all innocent Americas while still achieving their goals, so be it.

Since asking for phone comanies to voluntarily turn over call records isn't illegal ( Qwest said no) I can't understand why there's a problem.

Quote

I know there are mostly good people working in government, and they want to do the right thing. At the same time, sacrificing liberty for a false sense of security is exactly what Bin Laden had in mind.
We can be safe and still be free from intrusive government. When Patrick Henry said "Give me liberty, or give me death," he meant it. And so do I.

Zipp0

I just fail to see what freedoms you think you are giving up. Heck, if the govt. wanted to see my personal phone records, they could look in my trash can or just ask me, I wouldn't mind if it helped stop an attack that could kill thousands.

[Zipp0 1]

Quote

Quote

When Patrick Henry said "Give me liberty, or give me death," he meant it. And so do I.

No you don't, at least according to yourself.

Just two posts ago, in reference to your personal rights being violated during an involuntary background check, you stated that "It did not make me feel bad at all, and took about 5 minutes".

Patrick Henry would be ashamed of you. Your story has crooks in it.

There is a difference. I knew the law when I went to buy my gun. i did not feel oppressed when asked to comply with it. I UNDERSTOOD and EXPECTED to have a background check.

On the NSA issue there are questions as to whether the government is abiding by the law. When I call my grandma, I do not EXPECT the government to check into it in any way. I think when I pick up the phone I have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

If an investigation shows no violation of the law, I will be fine with it. But there must be an investigation.

Zipp0

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[billvon 3,077]

>Some people kill with guns. Some people kill with phones.

Yeah. There have been some Verizon gangs terrorizing people in East LA with threats of drive-by textings lately. Why, just the other day a shop owner in San Diego was killed by a T710 with a "Don't Fear the Reaper" ringtone.

I'm all for law abiding citizens owning guns. But to compare them to phones is ludicrous. It's attitudes like that that lead to people killing themselves (and others!) with a device they have no respect for or understanding of.