What is Digg?Sponsored by Double Your Dating
The Best Way To Get A Woman To Pick YOU Up view!
doubleyourdating.com - Here’s how to get any woman to start a conversation with you. Can you say "Bye bye rejection..."???
47 Comments
- DJStunami, on 10/12/2007, -3/+35A key point here not made in the summary above:
"Specter has moved to have his bill voted upon next week by voice vote, called a unanimous consent motion, according to the ACLU's Graves. Such a procedure would leave no record of who voted for or against the bill."
NO RECORD. Meaning they have no accountability on WHO took our privacy rights away. On WHO decided that accountability is only for the peons, not for the government.
I can't imagine any senator in his right mind giving these unprecedented powers to the president, and reducing the powers of congress so drastically. Then again, I've been astounded by all the legislation that has past since the 2000 elections, so what do I know. - billspaced, on 10/12/2007, -6/+28Doesn't passage of a radical bill like this one further cement the fact that the federal government, executive branch, broke existing laws? And shouldn't there be punishment doled out in response?
You can't pass a law and then go back in time, can you? I mean, if it were legal yesterday to have sex with a 12 year old, and then today the law was changed to a 21 year old, if you had sex yesterday with a 12 year old, you'd be okay, from a legal standpoint, right? - totorototoro, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Just remember, in order to protect your freedoms and rights to privacy, the government needs to take them away.
- NinjAlt, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11I figure if they can create all these laws to take away our rights then the next people in office can make laws to make everything bush has done highly illegal, arrest him, and put him in jail.
- billspaced, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9I bet they won't have a roll call vote. A lot of Senators want this bill to pass but they don't want to be associated with removing civil liberties (it's not good for getting re-elected).
- Loonacy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Unanimous consent motion... wouldn't that mean they ALL voted yes?
- sh0k, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7An experiment in reactionary politic.
Never before have I had such disdain, such disappointment, or felt such shame at our National Government. I sometimes wonder how this happened; how we let it happen; why we aren't doing more. I consider my children that I will have, and what kind of country they will be living in. And I sit in horror every night in front of the television, wondering when all this violence--in the name of freedom--will end. I do all these things, and they only serve to feed the one thought that I had tried to put out long ago, but still the only conclusion I am able to reach: we need new Government.
People, I know that you are upset. I know that you read these stories and become irate, blame the government, blame each other, but do you ever blame yourselves? Do you carry this patriotic feeling of anger with you all day, or do you lay it down as soon as the next comedy show is on tv? Do you quietly protest these tyrannies in your mind, while you let your brothers and sisters go on living, believing that the world is just peachy and our government is still capable of good? Have you any courage, America?
You are faced with a horrible institution, one that has refused to alter its ways, no matter the will of the majority. You face a hellfire from other countries and peoples, as your(mine) government destroys, destroys, destroys, with no interest but money and self. You live in a country that is not safe from terror; a country who's government cannot protect its citizens; a country whose government cannot provide healthcare; cannot provide adequate education; cannot provide for the poor; cannot promote the general welfare; cannot even effectively wage war. You live in a country that is truly, in every sense of the phrase, a staggering war machine, on its haunches at home, barking at the world while its citizens suffer in destitute conditions, whether they be the homeless in New Orleans, or the disaffected across the Nation. You support this country with your taxes, with your dependence, and with your SILENCE.
We need change. I don't know how yet; I don't claim to know. But I do know that if this bill passes, it will start a chain reaction in my being that will become irreversible. I know that if our government takes this route, they will have forever separated their will from the will of The People. And I urge each and every one of you to do something today--this hour--to show the government, or your neighbors, that you do not and will not support the eroding of the American Constitution.
Here's hoping. - cwestpha, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Um, all it would take is two or three people to propose and second a roll call vote to kill the voice vote. Its not hard.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8only works like that if your the president
currently he is refusing to give more information on how badly he broke survellance law until after the pass laws legalizing any illegal activities he may have already commited..
also he is trying to change law to allow torture also which will retroactively pardon any acts of torture that (may or may not), have already gone on - whiskeymb, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10here's what I think should be done. when this vote is made, someone should get a list of every single person who voted for it, and then go to that person's state and start dropping flyers all over the place saying "your congressman voted to have your privacy taken away from you in the name of protecting you"...
I wonder how many of those congressmen would still be in office... sadly, I bet you most. - EtherGnat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5The most common retort against privacy advocates -- by those in favor of ID checks, cameras, databases, data mining and other wholesale surveillance measures -- is this line: "If you aren't doing anything wrong, what do you have to hide?"
Some clever answers: "If I'm not doing anything wrong, then you have no cause to watch me." "Because the government gets to define what's wrong, and they keep changing the definition." "Because you might do something wrong with my information." My problem with quips like these -- as right as they are -- is that they accept the premise that privacy is about hiding a wrong. It's not. Privacy is an inherent human right, and a requirement for maintaining the human condition with dignity and respect.
Too many wrongly characterize the debate as "security versus privacy." The real choice is liberty versus control. Tyranny, whether it arises under threat of foreign physical attack or under constant domestic authoritative scrutiny, is still tyranny. Liberty requires security without intrusion, security plus privacy. Widespread police surveillance is the very definition of a police state. And that's why we should champion privacy even when we have nothing to hide.
-All quotes by Bruce Schneier
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/05/the_value_of_pr.html - JonForTheWin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I suppose all us 10% who actually give a damn can do is use GNU Privacy Guard.
Then when they try to tell us we don't have our American right to GPG anymore, it'll force us to pull out the 2nd amendment and say oh yes we do mother *****. - Pieman88, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5voice votes are common in committees, they will probobly have a roll call vote on the Sentate floor
- Joe_rigby, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7I hope so, NinjAlt. I hope so.
- shumonkey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4As long as 20 senators request it, the votes will be recorded, I believe. It's a pretty safe bet that the Democrats will do so.
- 4degrees, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"...so long as the government _promises_ to delete anything not terrorism-related."
thats laughable... - EtherGnat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Slippery slope arguments may be either valid or fallacious. Just saying "slippery slope" isn't enough--you must provide details that tend to prove the slippery slope will occur. The argument is frequently used by those on BOTH sides to fallaciously attack things they do not like.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope - n00854180t, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Probably not going to happen, given the next pres in office will likely be another neocon puppet.
- thewebguy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5"if you are neither then i wouldn't worry"
are you stupid, or just an idiot? - Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4In fact, anybody who opposes the bill must be a spy, terrorist, pedophile, or atheist, and should be shot on sight.
- sh0k, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4And they say the slippery slope doesn't exist.
- hyaena, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@Mrkamikaze
your comment is so naive it's almost funny... maybe you meant to be sarcastic? - SelfAbortion, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Pretty soon it'll be a pine box.
- geekee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2They system needs to be fixed given the FBI didn't think Moussaoui's actions and connections were enough probable cause for a warrant from the FISA court (we'll never know whether or not they would have gotten it if they tried). Spectre's bill goes to far though. Judicial oversite is necessary to prevent abuse.
- BigBaRay, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Only if the second amendment still exist. Hell !!! Gulliani leans left on "Gun Control" or at least he used to.
- spengy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+31. Soap Box
2. Ballot Box
3. Jury Box
4. Ammo Box
Where are we now? - Yage2006, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Don't you sleep better at night ?
With all these nice people watching over you ? - helix400, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5It's hard to make duplicate stories any more obvious. Just 3 stories prior...the exact same thing.
But then, the normal burying rules never apply in the Digg Political sections. - Mrkamikaze, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1""Because the government gets to define what's wrong, and they keep changing the definition.""
The Government is put in place by the people, the people that are underestimated at every turn. If we were living in cold war East Germany then perhaps i would worry but of course we wouldn't be aware of any ease dropping programs. Its all about perspective; a little paranoia is good alot of paranoia is called schizophrenia. - sockpuppets, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Of all the examples to choose from you had to run out and have sex with a 12 year old? You're AOL user 9718845 aren't you?
- MaxDrax, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Soapbox Alert!!
Please accept my apology.
I voted for Nader in 2000. While he's not explicitly the reason Gore lost the election (most importantly Gore failed to win states Clinton won four years earlier) he managed to seduce a lot of political activists like me into believing that Gore and Bush were ideologically the same. He was, and is, wrong and I was wrong to vote for him. As a Libertarian, I dream of representation by more than two parties but for now and the foreseeable future I must vote for the Democrats.
In my opinion, we in the United States live under an insidious dictatorship that has successfully infiltrated and commandeered the three branches of government (and much of the fourth estate). I must do my part to stop this cabal of freedom hating politicians this November and all Novembers from here on out.
Whatever gripes I have against the Democrats (there are many on the table), I feel they are our only hope of stemming the total loss of liberty in this nation.
One might not think it wrong of the NSA and Attorney General to, without warrants, eavesdrop on spies and terrorists thus exposing their villainous plots to harm the United States. But who's next? I think Political adversaries, then Atheists, and even you as you masturbate to hard-core pornography in front of your computer. I believe the final link in the chain will be a complete and utter suspension of individuality and free will, speech, and movement. I see the United States of America eroding before my eyes. I don't think it's beyond the realm of the United States to fall victim to a dictatorship.
I'm not talking about moral relativism here or any other catch phrase the Neocons use to dismiss what I'm saying. In my opinion, this is hard reality *****. The Bush Administration has clearly demonstrated to me over the past six years that it doesn't care about life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness. And I don't think they have any intention of gracefully relinquishing control in two months, let alone two years. I bet there are more men like Bush waiting in the wings to fight against the Republic and everything it stands for in the interest of money and more power.
Please don't be convinced that your vote doesn't count. Don't believe that you can't make a difference. Just think of how relatively few people in Ohio cemented the United States to this path.
9/11 conjures fear and Bush exploits that fear to wage reckless war, thwart political opposition, quiet dissention, and remove the Constitutional guarantees that allow the former in the first place.
Vote Democrat! - GeneralFault, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@BigBaRay
Again, I am sorry to see you modded down (for the Hillary comment of course). I for one can forgive a non-related comment that is contrary to my own beliefs in light of a good point. Privacy rights are not just for our convienince. They are essential to the existance of and the perception of a free society. - jbeckley, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@billspaced
As messed up as your example is, you are correct from the legal side of things. It's called an "Ex Post Facto" Law, and they are explicitly banned by the US Constitution.
"No bill of attainder, or ex post facto law, shall be passed."
Passing the law isn't unconstitutional, but prosecuting you under it would be. - SelfAbortion, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2If the president does it, it's not illegal. Stop your liberal whining, terrorist sympathizers.
- igotdugout, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@selfAbortion
/sarcasm - BigBaRay, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Mr K,
respectfully I say. In the future there might come a time when the people need to overthrow their own government. We should not sit by and let their freedom be decayed. I am all for killing terrorists any whatever fashon needed. But please do not take this too lightly. You might not have anything to be afraid of today but with radicals in the government the time might come.
Very soon if that Commie Hillary gets into office. ( held my rightwing poison to long, had to spout a little) - GeneralFault, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1BigBaRay,
I'm sorry that you got modded down. I think that it is important for people to see just how non-partisan privacy should rights be. In fact, with a self described goal of reducing federal government and empowering the states, this bill is an abomination of conservative (true conservative) and liberal values. Of course, I disagree with your premise of G.W.'s job, but hey, nobody is perfect ;) - RovBoTech, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Future Digg -> "Canada refuses entry to U.S. Refugees - 'Not our problem' says PM"
- BigBaRay, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4@helix400
I think you might be surprised at how many Republicans would vote against this principle if it was targeting American citizens for common crime. - d1carter, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Marked as lame....
- Hobo97, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Why? If you do have a valid reason, you should state it, rather than adding nothing.
- steinbeckgirl, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0It won't become a huge nationwide outcry until they tap the churches
- gtiness, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0several bills floating around, all in or just out of committee. people are posturing, cutting deals. certains things will pass. in the end, nothing "sinister". just enough to allow members of both parties to get a few more votes from their core supporters.
- Mrkamikaze, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4Sounds like fear mongering. It clearely states that this bill is aimed at Spies and Terrorists if you are neither then i wouldn't worry.
- GeneralFault, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0The precedent is to pardon the last guy. Nixon was pardoned after all. Wish it were different. I plan to make as much noise about it as I can (a tiny squeak among a hundred-million voices).
- helix400, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3It's a pretty safe bet that all the Republicans voted one way, and Democrats voted another on this divisive bill. Voice votes aren't all that uncommon either.
- BigBaRay, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3Ironic that the vote on losing privacy. Will be considered private. lol
Whats good for the goose isnt good enough for the Gander here..
This act in itself defines hipocracy.
Dont get me wrong I want terrorist dead as hell and I think Bush has done a good job. (Love me Liberal *****) but this issue is an American foundation. Not saying I disagree with the snooping but I'll be one of the first in line to kick ass when this power is abused in any way (if it passes) I dont like the loss of privacy one bit.
Blah blah before I see the quote.. I know the quote'' he who gives freedom 4 security deserves nither"
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is