Thanks for your posts I haven’t been here in a while and you have written some of the most thought out and intelligent arguments I have read here thus far and they’ve given me several things to think about.

As for Uncle Ho and DISTURBIA, like I said I haven’t been here in a while, but you come across as “trolls” yourselves. Someone is posting information that you can’t quite grasp for whatever reason and you want them banned because of that? This is a site for everyone. If you don’t like the “long” posts then skip them and continue your own mindless discussion. There are people who read these blogs to gain information and it gets filled by your type of mindless flaming far too often which makes it a chore to sift through to the meaningful type of discussions we should be having.

You have accussed Anon of being a troll because he is confusing the topic and not “contributing”, but you are attempting to stifle the information he is relaying. Call me paranoid, but if I worked for this Administration I would be afraid of this type of information too… that so clearly lays out their illegal acts and possible routes of prosecution. So it appears that either you are trolls working for the administration (an accusation thrown around far too often on this site, I know) or you are simply just as bad as they are at avoiding actual discussion.

It seems that this guy has some kind of background in law and it most plainly appears that you do not, so, to add to what I’m sure your Mothers once told you: If you don’t have anything nice (or constructive) to say, then STFU.

Oh, and sorry for the long-winded post.

J

Comment by The Wide and Long Rectum of Jhesus — August 17, 2007 @ 7:22 am

Then it’s time to do so, rather than let Carter corpses on the bench dictate national security.

We need to remember the names of brave judges who stood up to the cheney cabal.

Just read some old material on the resignation of the head of the FISA court a few months ago.

Why do I care? Lots of reasons. Enough to fill a book.

At least part of it is that I don’t want to be part of the generation that puts out the brightest candle of the Enlightenment.

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/therap/2007/aug/13/why_i_care#comment

possibly… but at this point, it hasnt yet… if it had been, the court case would be moot..

I have tried repeatedly to offer my argument, but the TP censor is too scared to let it stand, so if you want to read my position, then you can read the comment that I posted about 17 times, and that ThinkPropaganda deleted 17 times.

You can read the comment here, that they are too afraid for you to hear.

http://www.lydiacornell.com/blog.html

Visit me here if you want to finish our debate, because in order for me to offer my position, it actually has to “appear” on the board.

Sure there is. The law can be made retroactive.

…CRIMINALLY liable for the mess they’ve created…

…and especially the massmurder in IRAQ!

…unless they (bush, Cheney et al) are brought to justice…

…America will be cursed…

Comment by Anus — August 16, 2007 @ 5:32 pm

Thats because I don’t need to, because thus far, the only person even associating the two, is you.

YOU’RE AN IDIOT!!!!

You’ll need to be specific. Somehow tie it to the FISA litigation and the attorney conduct.

found on tonysnow thread… VERY GOOD ADVICE:

Why TP needs registration (if this sounds familiar to you, there’s a valid reason):

I ran a discussion forum for about 4 years from 2000-2004 called “The Dumbya Chronicles”. You can still search on the name on the net and read all the messages. I left it out there so people can see the things we discussed.

I had to censor people. First of all were the Republicans and Freepers who were intent on disrupting the site. Free Republic (Freepers) in particular has groups of people who get together and attempt to overwhelm left wing sites with right wing posts and will do just that if you allow them unfettered access. Imagine if all the right wingers Rob has already kicked out of here were still here doing there thing.

Then came the crazies. People like the person on the web that calls themselves Kathaksung. Kat showed up on my forum one day and started posting some of the wildest and darkest paranoid conspiracy theories you can imagine. You can see some of Kat’s stuff here

I wrote Kat a personal email urging he/she to get help and that although I was not a practitioner, I thought I clearly recognized the symptoms of paranoid schizophrenia and that there were drugs that would help him/her and that I cared about him/her and wanted them to get help and be happy. I’m not sure what ever happened.

So, we have censorship of Republicans/Freepers and censorship of those I was reasonably sure were insane.

I then discovered that there were some people who were determined to fight with and insult people. They didnt attack arguments, they attacked people. Membership began to drop as these people were harassing and driving away people who didnt want to have to deal with that. I had to ban those who behaved this way.

That is just the beginning. You can say you should never censor anyone on an internet forum but if you ever try to run one, if you make it your policy not to censor or limit any discussion, you would watch it degenerate into chaos and anarchy very quickly where no sort of rational and decent discussion can occur. That isnt what I wanted for my forum.

by sleser001 (122 articles, 572 comments) on Wednesday, August 15, 2007 at 7:42:48 PM

http://www.opednews.com/ articles/ 2/ opedne_kyle_pom_070815_an_open_letter_to_ma.htm

Comment by Thought of the Day — August 16, 2007 @ 4:25 pm
.

You have failed to point to specific inaccuracies with any credible fact, assertion, or argument. You failed to show that the comments were red herrings; rather, it appears the attorneys’ comments left open the possibility.

You’re not making a credible argument. The point of the FISA Atty’s comment at the link was that there was more to it. You’re incorrectly assertion that a FISA atty comment is or isn’t related to other issues. You’re insisting in the absence of information that there’s nothing to it. You’re free to believe that.
This is not supported, and irrelevant:

But that at the moment, has nothing to do with the scope of the program and your continued insistence that the data is being collected overseas is a red herring and a diversion from the gravity of the fact that they are collecting the data from your local CO, and sending to to FT Meade Maryland, where NSA warehouses it for future data mining.
Comment by DISTURBIA — August 16, 2007 @ 5:05 pm

The attorney’s comment well exposes the US government to questions: Why would the attorney defend something related to something that does not exclusively deny the possibility that there is overseas data mining.
Again, the FISA litigation is not whether it was mined int he US or not; but whether the activity violated the FISA. How that violation occurred at AT&T is secondary.

You assert something about the “scope” of the program. You have no basis — in light of the attorney’s statement — to say that it is “narrowly” something. The point of these comments is to shed light on the attorney comments which leaves open the possibility of the very thing you say cannot occur; or is not relevant. Again, if it’s “not relevant” ask the Attorney why they made the comment. This discussion calls attention to his comment.

You don’t know what “the program” is; and have said this is “not” related: : “But that at the moment, has nothing to do with the scope of the program You have no basis for excluding something the attorney has left open the door to.

The attorney left open the possibility that data mining was occurring overseas; and they did not get a warrant to transfer that contractor collected data to the US government: “and your continued insistence that the data is being collected overseas is a red herring and a diversion from the gravity of the fact that You have no basis to argue it is a red herring; rather, that’s the point of raising the issue with the Attorney Comment: He’s leaving open the possibility that what you say is a red herring is, in fact, occurring.

You don’t believe this is relevant: “they are collecting the data from your local CO, and sending to to FT Meade Maryland, where NSA warehouses it for future data mining. If that is happening, then they’re doing the same to you; and overseas contractors working for the NSA may be collecting your information as well. You’re not making an argument. You’ve offered nothing which addresses the issues raised in the attorneys statement.

“Why asserting that people who violate Hatch Act would “only” use RNC e-mails for “lawful” reasons? That makes no sense.”
Comment by Anon — August 16, 2007 @ 4:17 pm

This doesn’t make sense: “Because violation of the Hatch Act would most likely be dealt with with removal from office and a fine.
That is not an explanation for why people who have violated the Hatch Act have engaged in FISA violations. Those who have violated the Hatch act have ignored the legal consequences; whether they could be removed from office or fined was meaningless _to them_. The Hatch Act violations occurred. This is not in credible dispute. Your using circular logic to say that _your concern_ with consequences means that that _they_ would be concerned; no, they’ve already violated the law; there’s no basis to assume they’d be concerned about something they’re ignoring: The law.
This assertion asks that we believe people who did violate the Hatch Act would, in the same communication, follow the law. “Sending information about a top-top secret program, that is SOOOOOOO secret that they can’t even disclose it to a federal judge, through a public email accounts would be unlikely. It is absurd to assert what a judge would conclude. Again that something is “top secret” is meaningless. The issue with illegal activity is that if it is illegal, then the data related to that illegal activity would (in the mind of the criminal) not be expected to be detected. It makes no sense to assert that they would first violate the Hatch h Act, but then worry about classification standards.

Arguing that this is a “public” e-mail account is false: The White House accounts are public; the RNC accounts are private. You’re confusing public and private. Either way, once information is sent through the RNC e-mail accounts from within the WH by WH Staff, that information is either official; or it is not. If it is not official, then they’re using government computers for non-official reasons. It’s more likely that the reason they’ve “classified” it is not because it is genuinely a state secret, but because the opposite: The activity is illegal. It is also false to assert that it “cannot” be disclosed to a judge: It was, in part, disclosed: And the Court has not dismissed the case. You lose on that point. It’s absurd to suggest that people involved with illegal activity would “not likely” do something else. At this point, all bets are off, and this assertion is not supportable: “However they may have. I never said they didn’t. I said it was unlikely, and for now, is unrelated to the case at hand. Rather, it is absurd to suggest that RNC e-mail destruction is unrelated to FISA Act violations. You haven’t credibly argued that the evidence destruction is unrelated to other illegal activity including FISA violations or war crimes.

This makes no sense: “You either are a right wing troll, trying to make us all sound like uneducated nuts, or you are an uneducated nut. You’re not sure? Either you can discuss the issues; or you can ask questions; or you can make arguments. Accusation of a “troll” isn’t an argument. I’m willing to listen. You’re making sweeping generalizations that alleged criminals who appear to have violated the Hatch Act would “not” violate the other laws; or that they “would” be concerned with consequences. They’re not concerned; _you’re_ concerned with things that they are not. Don’t argue for them. They have no defense. The beset they can offer is non-sense.

If I were your school teacher and you wrote an essay like this, you would NEVER pass the course. You just ramble on, and on, and on, and on.

Until then, it won’t be just Uncle Ho calling you a troll.

If it was discussed in the emails, great. Then that ends the story and Bush can be impeached once someone secures the emails.

But that at the moment, has nothing to do with the scope of the program and your continued insistence that the data is being collected overseas is a red herring and a diversion from the gravity of the fact that they are collecting the data from your local CO, and sending to to FT Meade Maryland, where NSA warehouses it for future data mining.