VIEWPOINT: A Mighty Wind blows through UPDATE #45 - CBC APOLOGY

[lizbud]

Liz, there's a large difference between our sparring in the dog house and someone being paid by CBC to be a columnist.

We're not getting paid for our discussions in the dog house, while she is being paid by the CBC for her efforts, which amount to a poorly written diatribe against the rural US.

It's either correct to use personal attacks when debating a point, or it isn't.

[Lady's Human]

If you want to call all issues black and white, fine.

How do you defend your absolute apoplexy over the Patriot act, when now you support another law which would do worse (allowing completely warrantless searches over the internet) in the interests of the children?

Either you're for civil liberties, or you're against them.

[Lady's Human]

As to all the Gov. Palin fuss, she's the VP candidate for a major political party.

I don't care about her clothes, glasses, hair, cell phone, or any of the rest of the crap the media has been covering.

[RICHARD]

Palin abdicates her seat with the state?

What about senators who step into office then go off running for a presidency?

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

Poor HUsband, can you imagine parking your tush at the dinner table when that shrew has a bad day? Either he was drunk, has low self-esteem or was knocked out when he proposed to her-betcha she kept her maiden name too!


If I was a woman I'd stop with the "talking Va-jay-jays" thoughts.

I know for a fact they don't talk.

But you can hear the ocean if you close your eyes and are reallllllllly quiet.

-----------

DID ANYONE SEE THE INTERVIEW WITH HER EX BIL?


THIS FN AH admitted to tasering his 10 year old because he asked for it. Literally! THere were also charges about alcohol abuse while on duty.

THe moron shows up with a union rep to an interview-no knock on the rep-but don't you show up with a lawyer?

HE was candid and did admit to tasering the kid and the alcohol stories.

Really, there is nothing wrong with tasering a kid or getting involved with alcohol whil you are on duty as a cop.

It's all part of life in Hillbilly Town, Alaska.

[Puckstop31]

If you want to call all issues black and white, fine.

How do you defend your absolute apoplexy over the Patriot act, when now you support another law which would do worse (allowing completely warrantless searches over the internet) in the interests of the children?

Either you're for civil liberties, or you're against them.

BURRRRRRRRRRRRRRNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN!!!!!



Somehow I knew Liz would post that article when I saw it on Drudge. Although I am a bit shocked she could not see this retort coming.

[lizbud]

If you want to call all issues black and white, fine.

How do you defend your absolute apoplexy over the Patriot act, when now you support another law which would do worse (allowing completely warrantless searches over the internet) in the interests of the children?

Either you're for civil liberties, or you're against them.

You have mentioned "warrantless searches" several times but have yet
to show me where this exists in the language of that bill.

[Lady's Human]

Read the bill.....

It mentions in several areas monitoring the internet activities of suspects, but nowhere does it define how one becomes a suspect.

It redefines parts of US Law to prohibit the transmission of "images of child abuse" but nowhere does it define what abuse is considered under the law.

Never would I give the federal government that authority.

However, given the nature of packet switching communications networks and the overly broad nature of the application of the interstate commerce clause, the law is really a moot point. All internet traffic by nature is interstate, and therefore regulated under federal, and not state, laws.

[RICHARD]

I can't stress the idea of 'when the zapato fits' enough.

If someone molests a child relative then posts photos of the crime on the 'net'.

If someone hacks your personal email account.

If someone steals your credit card account numbers or money.

If someone hacks your phone account and puts crazy charges on your number.

If someone hacks the computer at work and you have to lose money, work overtime or ????.

What is the first thing you do? You call on god and all the saints to fix the problem. Should that problem be traced to a person, you want that person to be held accountable for their actions/mischief.

So.........
You don't want the government to have any way to look at the internet or the transactions there of.

Bills, rules and laws are always written in a general sense to keep from having tons of pages of stupid rules everytime a different case comes up.

Just like the little jerkwad who argued every single point in my Poli-Sci classes.

I'll repeat this until I am blue in the face.

Should we get another terrorist attack on U.S. soil and it's coordinated thru cell phones, email or electronic messaging-People will scream about how the government did not do a good enough job monitoring the WWW for clues.

So how do we want it?

Other than the stupid things we use the internet for, why are we so scared about what we send out?

We laugh at Mohammed in Africa trying to scam a few bucks via email, we delete those messages without a thought.

I think I'll laugh when I get the generic letter from a company that says, "Hey your account and personal information may be one of thousands of files that were hacked out of our system! We'll keep our eyes peeled, just in case!"

So what do we want?

Molesters, terrorists, hackers and thugs operating without any fear of being foiled or apprehended?

If anything it makes me a little more aware of what I do on my computer.
Remember that we love the ability to use an ATM, pay our bills online and all the other funky stuff we get off on while we use the internet.

So, should things go badly, take a moment and think about who you will call on to make things right.

[Sevaede]

I don't know. I think it's awfully foolish for anyone to use the webs for anything you would consider private or of that nature. That's like waving a sign around on a busy street reading "HEY! I plan on doing blankity blank blank blank!". You can't be that smart if you're conducting business like that over the webs.

I think that what folks are worried about is the principle of privacy invasion. People, regardless if they have anything to worry about or not, don't want recording devices and such every where they go. What if it snowballed?

*was just trying to elaborate on what she thought others had said, not looking for a response, don't flame*

[lizbud]

Read the bill.....

It mentions in several areas monitoring the internet activities of suspects, but nowhere does it define how one becomes a suspect.

Never would I give the federal government that authority.

Do the police have to come & prove their suspicions to you personally
before someone is considered a suspect? It just means the person hasn't been arrested yet.

and, the Federal Government already has these powers, thanks to the
current Republican administration.

[RICHARD]

and, the Federal Government already has these powers, thanks to the
current Republican administration.

Do you know exactly how the government/law agencies look thru emails to find out about kiddie porn, terrorism and other crap like that?

From what I understand about the 'system' is that there are a few ways to monitor criminal activity on you computer.

Filters, people get stupid and send the 'wrong' email to someone, you take your computer in to get serviced and the nerd tech looks for your porn on your machine, or the feds trap someone, they do the forensic search and find out that you were getting the KP on you email account-then you have the feds and how they catch the idiots.

There are also programmed 'filters' that tag emails that look suspicious.

There is no one person reading you emails, unless you are doing something stupid on the internet.

---------

If there is no specific wording in a law it becomes the job of the people who are 'arresting' or 'suspecting' you have to interpet the law and 'do it justice',
How many times has a criminal been released, only to commit another crime, because of the wording in the law?


With internet crimes, law agencies have different laws to refer to from state to state, country to country-they often have problems with charging someone because of all the different jurisdictions and how they look at the crime.

--------

A warrantless search?

If a cop sees a crime or called to the scene of a crime, they can search, without a warrant. Probable cause? Same thing.

"I/We had reason to suspect........" Are the golden words that will get a cop into your shorts if he thinks you have done something wrong.

That's the way the ball bounces.

[Lady's Human]

Sen. Obama has repeatedly stated in debates that he would let the tax cuts lapse.

This is from the LA Times:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/wash...hetaxrais.html

Maria Bartiromo on CNBC's "Closing Bell" asked, "Who should pay more and who should pay less?" Predictably, the politician chose to talk about who would benefit from his higher tax plan, not who would get socked the hardest. But from his answers it sounds like the "wealthy" in his mind are those making more than $75,000.

"I would not increase taxes for middle class Americans and in fact I want to....

provide a tax cut for people who are making $75,000 a year or less,'' he said. "For those folks, I want an offset on the payroll tax that would be worth as much as $1,000 for a family.


$75K/year isn't wealthy. On $75K/year, it's almost impossible to get a mortgage in Massachusetts, and is ABSOLUTELY impossible if you want something more than a tiny ranch on a postage stamp piece of property. When we moved from MA to NY, we sold our house for almost $200K, which was a 1200 sq ft house on a 3000 sq ft lot, in an undesirable neighborhood.