What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
He sings, he strums, and he works at Best Buy. view!
youtube.com - Musician and Best Buy employee, Keith Parsons, rocks his Best Buy holiday campaign audition.
146 Comments
- schroeder, on 10/12/2007, -6/+134A few reasons why the Patriot Act was unnecessary...
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/patriot/16760prs20030826.html
"DOJ Myth: Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act can only be used to obtain "business records."
Reality: The FBI can use Section 215 to demand "any tangible thing," including books, letters, diaries, library records, medical and psychiatric records, financial information, membership lists of religious institutions, and even -- as Attorney General Ashcroft himself conceded in testimony before Congress -- genetic information.
DOJ Myth: Before the Patriot Act, "the FBI could get a wiretap to investigate the mafia, but they could not get one to investigate terrorists."
Reality: The FBI has always had the authority to wiretap terrorists, both under the ordinary criminal laws and under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
DOJ Myth: The "sneak-and-peek" provision (Section 213) is necessary to allow the FBI to conduct investigations "without tipping off terrorists."
Reality: The FBI already had the authority to conduct "sneak-and-peek" searches of terrorists. Under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the FBI is empowered to conduct sneak-and-peek searches in intelligence investigations involving foreign powers and their agents. A "foreign power" includes any group "engaged in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefor." Section 213 authorizes sneak-and-peek searches in run-of-the-mill criminal investigations, not just in foreign-intelligence investigations involving terrorists.
DOJ Myth: The PATRIOT Act "provided for only modest, incremental changes in the law."
Reality: The PATRIOT Act made dozens of significant changes to the law, including a handful that are truly radical. For more details on how the PATRIOT Act undermines the constitutional rights of everyone living in the United States, go to http://www.aclu.org/safeandfree/"
Sorry for the long post... - Stonedonkey, on 10/12/2007, -7/+119"You can't trust anything from ACLU."
Thankfully, the government can be trusted without question... - 4bit, on 10/12/2007, -4/+76@korbink
What red tape? You mean that they actually had to have justifiable evidence for searching someone? They had to get approval from the courts. And the judges appointed to over see this could be contacted 24 hours a day (a judge who oversaw this said so) And if they didn't have time to do so, the DOJ could do it after the fact. - merreborn, on 10/12/2007, -5/+73The "red tape" is there is to protect the innocent from corruption in government. It's a good thing.
- neoform, on 10/12/2007, -9/+66If i had posted it, the headline would have read:
"Hannity Deserves a ***** Beating For His Ass-kissing Interview". - truspector, on 10/12/2007, -1/+53@korbink
They don't have to. The can get the warrant retroactively. They can still do the wiretap and fill out the paperwork a few days later. This is all about the government wanting to initialize a program in the name of terrorism and then broaden it's scope later down the line. - merreborn, on 10/12/2007, -3/+55"2) Description without "In an Orwellian, sycophantic moment extraordinaire""
Dude, he basically said, "Should we even be questioning the administration"?
America was *founded* on questioning the administration -- notably, that's one of the *core* reasons for the press! Not for sucking up to the administration; that's what propaganda machines the like's of North Korea's 'press' are for.
If Americans never questioned their government, we'd still be a bunch of British colonies, paying taxes to a government that didn't allow us any representation in parliament.
The description couldn't be more apt. - bbatsell, on 10/12/2007, -1/+44@korbink:
Do some research on the FISA, please. It allows retroactive approval, so that if you do receive evidence of something, you can wiretap immediately, but you must submit evidence supporting it within a set number of hours (it's 48 or 72, can't remember the exact number at the moment), and if a judge doesn't agree, the wiretap is pulled. - Matrix_Prime, on 10/12/2007, -5/+44It doesn't matter what the source is, all you have to do is go to the tape to see it for yourself. The "source" is ultimately Fox News.
- bbatsell, on 10/12/2007, -3/+38You do realize that the entire concept of Crooks & Liars is to provide video and audio evidence of the things they post about, right? And I'm sure you visited the linked page and downloaded the video provided before posting your comment, correct? How, exactly is a video of Sean Hannity doing exactly what was described biased? What am I missing, here?
- radu79, on 10/12/2007, -4/+39You are reacting to that as if Hannity is such an unbiased guy and this was his only slip.
The reality is, Hannity ***** and makes outrageous comments every single hour he is on the air. - UGM2099, on 10/12/2007, -6/+40Hannity to Cheney: Can I tickle your balls a little bit?
- jaycliche, on 10/12/2007, -5/+31Goebbels to Hitler: Should we even debate the The Enabling Act and the Reichssicherheitshauptamt?
- mrswirl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+24It is this kind of attitude that saddens me that in just over 200 years, we've gone from "Live Free or Die!" to "whatever, dude".
The basis for this debate is that any abridgment to our rights and civil liberties is a slippery slope to totalitarianism and governmental intrusion on our day to day activities.
Rights are not "granted" to individuals by governments; they are inherent and inalienable. Citizens must fight, at every opportunity, any and all attempts to abridge our freedoms regardless of whether they directly affect us at that particular moment or not.
Imagine you were in eastern Europe during the late-1930's. Would you dismiss the segregation of the Jews into ghettos because "Oh well, it doesn't affect me personally so why should I care?" - jsmith39, on 10/12/2007, -1/+24@korbink
"FISA is only relevant if the terrorists are acting on behalf of a foreign government. At least that's how it was until the Patriot Act amended it."
You're missing the point, or you're being argumentative I'm not sure which. No one is saying that some laws didn't need to be changed after 9/11. The complaint is regarding the abuses of power, or more importantly the potential for abuse. I'm not sure if you're accurate regarding your statement of FISA only being relevant if the terrorists are acting on behalf of a foreign government but assuming you were you will notice that no one is saying let's go back to preapproval for wire taps.
They're saying Hey... the system works... wiretap away BUT tell us about it at some point in the future. Meanwhile the president is saying if I don't want to tell you about it I won't and the GOP is saying anyone who disagrees with that is limp wristed liberal who hates America and loves terrorists. Do you see the difference? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+25"you're telling me that they could easily fill out the necessary paperwork, submit it, wait for approval, blah blah, etc., all in time to wiretap the suspect and prevent the attack?"
They wouldn't have to, Hannity lover boy. Under the old rules they could apply for the warrant after the fact. Most of the time it would happen in parallel with the investigation.
That's why I could never understand the justification for the expanded powers. When it came to spying on foreign nationals, it was easy to get a warrant. Every justification for the wildly misnamed Patriot Act was already possible under the old rules.
Let me remind you mindlessly right wing people scared of their own shadow that we knew about the 9-11 hijackers, we just didn't act on what we knew. No one was waiting for a warrant, no one had wanted to investigate further and had that request denied in court...those requestes were denied by FBI mid-management. It's not that we didn't know, it's not that the FBI didn't have enough authority, it was because the mid tier of managers didn't think the information was important enough to act on.
So, again I ask, what's the justification for the Patriot Act? The world would be a better place if Cheney would be so kind as to choke on his lunch. - haggie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+22Every citizen should be highly suspicious and critical of everything their government does.
Republican or democrat, American or Iraqi, Christian or Muslim, if you don't believe that, you are an idiot. - Stonedonkey, on 10/12/2007, -3/+24"Remember: The problem is as easy to solve as your next vote."
Unless that vote is being entered on a Diebold machine. - Stonedonkey, on 10/12/2007, -4/+24I think you broke my sarcasm detector.
- badnewsblair, on 10/12/2007, -5/+24"Crooksandliars.com is not a news site."
Neither is The Fox News Network.
Please learn the difference between the truth and what your President and his cabinet are telling you. - Nougat, on 10/12/2007, -7/+26Killinger? Who? I don't see any Killinger.
Oh, that's right, I blocked him already. - Daisuke, on 10/12/2007, -6/+26Uh.. yeah... Have you read the Fourth Amendment? Before you engage in this debate, I suggest you do so.
Oh, and by the way, "The Man will always be up in our business" is the ***** excuse for the Patriot Act I've ever heard. - truspector, on 10/12/2007, -4/+22@ugm
Did he have a point? I must have missed it. - UGM2099, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19If you believe in the Constitution then it does affect you. If your definition of being American is self-centered then it probably doesn't affect you however in that case I wouldn't really consider you to be a GOOD American.
- Wamzlee, on 10/12/2007, -4/+21But Hannity and Cheney's words are exactly the same to their words I saw on the FOX News channel!!
You raise a good point Harry....how did this site...crookandliars.com managed to recreate the exact thing shown on FoxNews? I heard of CG and synthetic voices...but I never knew they existed! PLease tell me...how do they do that? I have never used internets before. - DJSourMonkE, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
-Ben Franklin - boilerplate, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17Ah, heck, I'll take a swing...
Are you saying that Crooks and Liars fabricated the video or somehow cut it together to give an unfavorable impression of the interview? How would that be possible? And if it is, do you think they used the same techs who faked the moon landing? - UGM2099, on 10/12/2007, -4/+19I'd block him but his comments are usually around -10 by the time I see them.
I like it when he says "You libs..." I know can always expect to learn something new or find some kind of insight to the subject at hand. - Cylus, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16People are always willing to trade freedom for security. Some folks are more willing to make that trade than others. That's why we're having a debate.
- mrswirl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14 @thcobbs
If we do X
Then X will cause Y
And Y will cause Z
and OMG! you DON'T want Z to happen.... do you!?!?!
What you describe is not the "slippery slope" argument but rather, it is a strawman argument.
A slippery slope is exactly that; once a government starts to take something away, very rarely, if ever, does it ever restore it back to it's previous state. Your trust is misplaced if you believe that the government would never do something like this.
I don't really care if it's Bush, Clinton or some future President X, the PATRIOT act is a bad law simply because it continues to weaken the foundation of respect for citizen's rights that this country was founded upon.
It's not what is does or doesn't do today that scares me, it's what it will lead to in 5 or 10 years that concerns me. Today it's external terrorism threats; tomorrow it may be the justification used for suppressing peaceful demonstrations. Nobody can predict the future but governments thrive on power and control and never relinquishes it willingly. Thousands of years of history backs this up. - Godel, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15You're right, that video was obviously doctored.
- jaycliche, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14Security, without public oversight isn't security...it's easily hacked, manipulated, and taken advantage of through things like fingerpointing, paranoia...a great fictional old movie on the topic: Little Murders.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0067350/ - jivatmanx, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12Hamnity says it is "shocking that we're even debating the patriot act and nsa act"
Humans are not to be reasoned with. Humans are to be controlled.
There is no such thing as the individual. The state is supreme.
( Central tenants of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facism ) - badnewsblair, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12I think the majority of us aren't even entering Crooksandliars.com editorial into our criticism. It is straight criticism of the video clip taken directly from a Fox News story.
Also, just a friendly digg.com suggestion, if you are going to appear to have a valid, non-partisan attitude, it might help to not have the Confederate flag in your user picture.
Just a thought. - JonForTheWin, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12I for the third or fourth time in public accuse killinger of being a fed!
- aliengoods, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10@thcobbs
Do you think things in the Soviet Union got bad overnight. Nope. It was one freedom here, one more power for government there. I'm not saying that will happen in this country, but that is a clear case of where the slippery slope did lead to Z. Hiding your head in the sand won't protect you once we're at Z, we have to prevent it! - jcPHDEUCE, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11@Cylus,
He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security - Benjamin Franklin - UGM2099, on 10/12/2007, -7/+16Good job Killinger, you didn't even resort to hyperbole to make your point.
- aliengoods, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12@neoform
Best headline ever, and I agree 100%. - 4bit, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10@BigBaRay
Some libs think that what were defending IS the point. Defending a body by selling it's soul isn't a victory. Giving up what makes us America, and that is FREEDOM, because we're scared, doesn't win us wars, friends or the moral high ground. We become increasingly isolated from the world, weaker as our troops become tied up in pointless conflicts, and seemingly backward to social advancement.
For what, because someone living in a cave half way around the world scares us?
America needs a strong defense. The governement is there to protect us and our freedoms, not abandon them because something might happen if we choose to ignore reports like "Osama bin Laden determeind to attack in the US". - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10@BigBaRay
If we could ask those who died in WTC attack then why don't we ask them if they'd want their deaths to be used to curtail freedoms and make this country no longer "the land of the free and home of the brave," but the land of the restricted and home of the scared? See. I can use rhetoric too.
I'm all for holding those who commit atrocious acts accountable and performing vengeance when required, but I'm not for using an atrocious event to lash out at any country that is perceived to be a threat. Leave the dead in peace and remember them for who they were. Don't use their deaths to further political agendas. - Roppongi, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12Remember: The problem is as easy to solve as your next vote.
- JonForTheWin, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10"when the President signed into law the bill which renewed the Patriot Act back in March, he issued another "signing statement" making clear that "he did not consider himself bound" to comply with various reporting provisions. So not only does the Act significantly curb civil liberties, but the President has even reserved the right to keep how it's being used from the Congress "
If the government isn't doing anything wrong what does it have to hide from the other criminals in our ***** CONGRESS?!
The government is the terrorist. - Stonedonkey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8"Christ man, he never said anything about the government being perfectly trustworthy. But the ACLU is the most unbiased source either. I believe that the Patriot act was signed in good faith, but alot of it IS unnecessary and even harmful.
As voters, we must weigh ALL sources, lest we become the sheeple we pity."
Which is why I responded to his absurdly absolute statement with an absolute piece of sarcasm.
But you may want to ask yourself this: What does the ACLU gain by misrepresenting the facts... compared to what the government has to gain? At worst, the ACLU misinterprets, (unless you're a freeper, in which case the ACLU is simply part of the Jewish conspiracy). On the other hand, governments have been caught many times over, lying to the public for their own gain. The gain of power through control of the populace. Never underestimate this seductive force. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9I don't even know why I'm responding to such trolling, but something about your post is really irksome.
The goal of terrorism is NOT to kill innocents; killing innocents is the means. The end is to get people scared (hence the terror in terrorism) and get the affected government to change in some way. If the goal of terrorists now is to destroy our freedoms then they've won by passing that goal off to our government. If that's the terrorists' goal then they've won.
I do want to know the source of the NYC study you mention. I also want to know how many of those asked were registered voters. If the ones who can't vote can't identify politicians then there's your explanations. I'd also say that politicians' ugly mugs are forced down our throats by today's media either.
Regardless, encouraging any registered voter, even the uninformed one, to not vote is effectively saying you'd like to destroy democracy. - Jawood, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9I see a lot of interesting posts here.
On NPR the other day, they were interviewing folks from the democratic side and the republican side.
When the Republican lady was asked about her views on the suspension of rights for terrorists, her response was that she doesn't believe that terrorists should have the same rights as she does.
I think that she, as well as everyone else who are for these recent laws that curtail our Civil Rights, believes that they don't have to worry because these laws only apply to bombers (McVeigh, 9/11 *****, etc...). But the thing is, terrorism is a very broad term. And when I hear folks being arrested for making terroristic threats (whatever that is); or having a pipe bomb and being charged with possession of a WMD (See North Carolina); or having an assault rifle in Massachusetts (IIRC) is considered possessing a
WMD, I begin to worry that a minor offense may one day get one labeled as a "terrorist".
It's the whole "If you're doing nothing wrong then you have nothing to worry about" mentality behind the alleged remarks of Hannity. That's the basis of it.
We, as a people, have become much to complacent and trusting of our Government. Not there's some sort of conspiracy, I just think Bureaucrats will do whatever they have to to protect their jobs - see TSA. - JonForTheWin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7
"People get the government their behavior deserves. People deserve better than that."
- - Richard Stallman - 4bit, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8@killinger777
So, are you going to offer any reasons we shouldn't say these things, or just whine that we are?
Attacking that 'the libs' are being agressive, but not saying why they're wrong, is prety juvinine. If you have a point make it. Bring some substance to it. You want the libs to shut up, use facts. Whining that you don't like the message won't cut it. - Ndiggnation, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7@spartan777: As asked below, what version of the Bill of Rights do they defend again, and how does it differ from *the* Bill of Rights. You are right that they do defend some scum of the earth people, even the right of racist scumbags to spew their hate. They defend any individual when their "Civil Liberties" are being infringed. Some say they are an entirely leftist organization, but defending said racist hatemongers makes that debatable.
- Ndiggnation, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Rush, is that you?
One of the best lines I've ever heard about the ACLU is from "The American President". I would say even though you don't agree with everything they do, how can you attack an organization whose "sole purpose is to defend the Bill of Rights"? -
Show 51 - 100 of 146 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is