Autonomous
-
Posts
157 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Articles
Media Demo
Posts posted by Autonomous
-
-
So you don't see a difference between "in an emergency, go ahead and start surveillance without a warrant-just make sure to get a warrant within 72 hours" and the true warrantless surveillance the administration wants? Okay, now I understand.
-
If you had read what I posted, they can start surveillance without a warrant as long as they apply for a warrant within 72 hours. Now I know you can read, so obviously you're being purposely dishonest.
-
Considering 2Dim's entire posting history could be summarized as "react and flail wildly at anyone within arms reach," what do you think?
-
One more thing-starting surveillance without a warrant is legal. A warrant must still be requested within 72 hours. That is where the administration has gotten in trouble-they seem to be avoiding that obligation. They have pushed to have the oversight removed-but why? There really isn't a very good reason for it.
Oops-wife cleared the cookies. These were me.
-
Blah, blah, blah.
Please note the italicized part.
(f) Emergency ordersNotwithstanding any other provision of this subchapter, when the Attorney General reasonably determines that—
(1) an emergency situation exists with respect to the employment of electronic surveillance to obtain foreign intelligence information before an order authorizing such surveillance can with due diligence be obtained; and
(2) the factual basis for issuance of an order under this subchapter to approve such surveillance exists;
he may authorize the emergency employment of electronic surveillance if a judge having jurisdiction under section 1803 of this title is informed by the Attorney General or his designee at the time of such authorization that the decision has been made to employ emergency electronic surveillance and if an application in accordance with this subchapter is made to that judge as soon as practicable, but not more than 72 hours after the Attorney General authorizes such surveillance.
The attorney general can go ahead with the surveillance and apply later. The neocons want people to think that the debate is the Democrats not wanting to give the administration the power to perform immediate surveillance. But they already have this power. What they want is to be able to wiretap without any oversight even from an ex parte judgement.
-
The problem with your assertion is that we all know it isn't true.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/usc...05----000-.html
-
Oh God! Two more rants from Bryan. This is my favorite quote: "I don't believe that LaClair has ever successfully pointed out a fallacy or an untruth on my part." meaning, even though I've been proven wrong a thousand times, I'm still right.
I found this interesting article at crosswalk.com--I'm on their subscription list for some reason:
Student Sues History Teacher Over Anti-Christian Comments
The Christian Post reports that a lawsuit filed by a high school honors student and his parents against California history teacher James Corbett for anti-religion bias has ignited debate about the role of a teacher's convictions in the classroom. Chad Farnan, a sophomore, tape-recorded his Advanced Placement European history teacher's remarks, including: "When you put on your Jesus glasses, you can't see the truth" and "Conservatives don't want women to avoid pregnancies -- that's interfering with God's work." Farnan said, "It just shocks me that someone would think that and say that. He's my teacher, and I've lost respect for him. I'm offended." The 16-year-old and his parents are suing Corbett for violating the Establishment Clause, which prohibits government from advancing religion or promoting hostility toward religion. "Corbett causes students who hold religious beliefs to feel like second-class citizens because of their protected religious expression, beliefs and conduct," stated an announcement by Advocates for Faith and Freedom, a Christian legal group representing Farnan.
A christianist gets her feelings hurt and files a lawsuit. Now the Establishment Clause prohibits promoting hostility toward religion? What a crock! And remember, this is only the girl's side of the story.
Yes, the Establishment Clause should prohibit it. An anti-religion position is a religious opinion just as much as a religious position is. Secularism is not atheism and should not promote it.
-
you are right it should have been a simple comment to honor all our vets,if it helps i work with a few viet nam vets and some desert storm vets i think you think like i think l called them and simply said thanks ,they were so greatful for my thinking of them and there service to us all even those who want to deniy there importance. if you dont believe in something you will fall for anything
I really didn't expect this thread to turn into this when I started it, but unfortunately I'm not particularly surprised.
-
-
Actually, the law already allowed immediate wiretapping with approval afterwards. That is apparently too much transparency for this administration though-even though the court that approves the wiretapping after the fact is secret.
-
-
its easy to blow off about real "BLESSINGS FROM GOD" but after going through some hard times when only asking god to help and seeing his hand work i will never see why any of you bothering to wake up in the morning!! why? you have nothing to live for do you? what is life? what is spirit? next time you get in trouble DO NOT SAY GOD HELP ME! do not wast his time when you turn your back on him!thank god I'm in the south where real true god loving folk are!
You know, if I were God I'd be pissed that people like you make Me seem like such a jerk. Do you really think that your comment does anything but drive people further away from your view? When I'm in trouble I don't "say God help me." I stop, reflect on why I'm in trouble, and get myself out of it. It is called taking responsibility for my actions. You should try it sometime.
-
-
The troops are being used as pawns by the defeatocrats to push through a
defense bill loaded with liberal pork. This defeatocratic congress has an approval
rating down to about 20 %. The voters will remember this next year, the Ice
Queen will pay the piper for dishonoring our military.
The fact that you didn't mind the Republican pork makes you a hypocrite. Now personally I don't like pork spending no matter who is doing it, which is why I like the current situation-neither party can get their pork through. The congress has a low rating among Democratic voters not because of that, but because the Democrats are seen as caving in to whatever Bush wants. The Democrats want someone to stand up to him (I wouldn't mind that either) and so far their elected officials have failed to do so.
-
Isn't that the same Democratic Congress that won't appropriate money for the troops at all unless the President lets them be backseat drivers to his role as commander in chief?
This is great. A bill that requires the military to make payments while the same folks keep money from the military with which to make the payments unless they are given power to direct military strategy.
Politics as usual. They care about the votes more than the troops.
In other words, even when the Democrats do something commendable you still condemn them. Now that's politics as usual.
-
The funniest thing about this topic is that 2 Smart couldn't spell his own name!
-
There's a bill proposed to stop this:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-3793
Here's an interesting factoid-the bill's co-sponsors:
(sponsor is Rep. Jason Altmire [D-PA])
Rep. Shelley Berkley [D-NV]
Rep. Robert Berry [D-AR]
Del. Madeleine Bordallo [D-GU]
Rep. Nancy Boyda [D-KS]
Rep. Robert Brady [D-PA]
Rep. Bruce Braley [D-IA]
Rep. Corrine Brown [D-FL]
Rep. Christopher Carney [D-PA]
Rep. Charles Dent [R-PA]
Rep. Joe Donnelly [D-IN]
Rep. Michael Doyle [D-PA]
Rep. Brad Ellsworth [D-IN]
Rep. Barton Gordon [D-TN]
Rep. Phil Hare [D-IL]
Rep. Tim Holden [D-PA]
Rep. Darlene Hooley [D-OR]
Rep. Henry Johnson [D-GA]
Rep. Walter Jones [R-NC]
Rep. Patrick Kennedy [D-RI]
Rep. Harry Mitchell [D-AZ]
Rep. Patrick Murphy [D-PA]
Rep. Donald Payne [D-NJ]
Rep. Jon Porter [R-NV]
Rep. John Sarbanes [D-MD]
Rep. Carol Shea-Porter [D-NH]
Rep. Heath Shuler [D-NC]
Rep. Clifford Stearns [R-FL]
Rep. Bart Stupak [D-MI]
Rep. Betty Sutton [D-OH]
Rep. Ellen Tauscher [D-CA]
Rep. Edolphus Towns [D-NY]
Rep. Timothy Walz [D-MN]
Rep. Zach Wamp [R-TN]
Rep. David Wu [D-OR]
Rep. John Yarmuth [D-KY]
Dems 31(including sponsor), Repubs 5. Hmm.....way to support the troops, guys.
If you congresscritters aren't signed on, contact them. Here's how:
Representative:
Senator:
http://www.senate.gov/general/contac...nators_cfm.cfm
UPDATE: The VA claims it is a mistake, they will issue a new invoice to the vet but will not disclose how many others have been sent similar letters and may have actually paid them. The VA does insist, however, to refuse paying any more of his bonuses or leave pay.
Rep Atmire who tabled a bill in Congress to guarantee such payments for wounded soldiers says while he is heartened that the VA have reconsidered in this one case, he will persist with his bill to ensure it never happens again.
-
Here's a story detailing how the military is telling soldiers who couldn't fulfill their obligation because they were injured while at war to return their sign-on bonuses!
http://kdka.com/local/military.signing.bonuses.2.571660.html
Now, I know the military is worried about spending cuts, but this is ridiculous. How about letting the military shop at Wal-Mart online instead of buying $70 hammers (which are pieces of crap, btw) instead of taking money from injured vets.
Regardless of party loyalty, this is despicable.
-
This thread is a trolling thread by a troll poster. Why take the bait?
-
It's kind of a middle-ground...while no active action is being taken (so I'd say "technically not really patriotic"), it definitely isn't ultimately pointless the way reciting a bunch of words by rote is. Veterans are actual people, who made actual sacrifices, and showing gratitude for that is a Good Thing™, I think.
Thanking a vet is an active action. They appreciate it quite a bit and they certainly don't hear it often enough. Now I agree that it requires little in the way of sacrifice-merely a moment of your time. Unfortunately, that is more than many are willing to give.
As far as the pledge goes, recitation without reflection is meaningless. But with reflection the pledge becomes meaningful to many.
Finally-to those who decided to derail the thread in order to take cheap shots at Paul and Strife-shame on you.
For the rest, stop responding to the trolls and they'll go away.
-
Incorrect.
Please note my use of 'definitely linked to.' Strong suspicion is not definite.
That also seems to be incorrect. It is unlikely there is any scenario, regardless of Iraq, in which it would be advisable to attempt a land invasion of Iran. Though many in Iran (as in Iraq) would be happy to see a new government take the place of the current repressive regime, Iran is larger and far tougher than Iraq. Were it not for forward operating bases on either side of Iran (Iraq and Afghanistan) it would be tough to put much pressure at all on Iran other than air strikes (which is precisely the military threat that most worries the Iranians).The problem is that taking action requires the cooperation of allies in the region. Having seen us take out one regime, it is hardly certain that they'd support us doing it again.
Israel's probably first in line. Other than that I'm disinclined to disagree with your final statement.Of course they are. Considering that Israel is likely to be a nuclear power themselves, no one should consider that situation with anything approaching relief.
-
Everyone-please stop feeding the troll. If you ignore 2Dim, Patrat, and the other trolls they'll go away. I know it is fun mocking their stupidity, but their stupidity is already self-evident. So why bother?
-
As you enjoy your long Veteran's Day weekend, please take a moment to thank a war veteran for their service. It will mean a lot to them and requires little effort on your part.
-
What would you call not taking the case to court? Sounds like calling off the dogs to me.
Another ACLU outrage
in Kearny
Posted
Not pnly is your assumption bigoted, it is also wrong. The most educated and affluent seem to tend towards Democrat, as well as the very poor.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A...anguage=printer