George W Bush Made Retroactive NSA 'Fix' After Hospital Room Showdown 258
circletimessquare writes: New details have emerged about the 2004 conflict between George W. Bush and his Attorney General, John Ashcroft, who was hospitalized when he forcefully disagreed with the president's authorization of the NSA's sweeping new collection powers after 9/11. The New York Times has discovered that the conflict was about a retroactive alteration of the President's wording on the legal theory by which the NSA is allowed to siphon up metadata on all Americans, not just certain targets or classes of targets, such as suspected terrorists. 'Mr. Bush, for the first time, explicitly said that his authorizations were "displacing" specific federal statutes, including the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and criminal wiretapping laws... the president had "made an interpretation of law concerning his authorities" and that the Justice Department could not act in contradiction of Mr. Bush's determinations.' The president faced a severe backlash from the Justice Department, including a threat of mass resignation.
A discussion of constitutional limits of power? (Score:5, Insightful)
A discussion of constitutional limits of power ten years ago? How quaint. In 2015 we pretty much expect the president to do whatever he/she wants without regard to law of any kind.
Re:A discussion of constitutional limits of power? (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no 10th Amendment. "Commerce" clause overrules everything.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
I personally kind of like the idea that law would be uniform from state to state. In 1791 travel was difficult and it was very unlikely that people would move around so much as they do today or that they could literally spend a few days half a nation away.
I personally like the idea of rainbows and fairy farts myself, but mine is as fantastical as yours.
Study Plato, Study the French Revolution and really study the US revolution and all of the writings from the founders from that time. The reason for the separation was not because it took a day to travel from here to there. It is really sad that so many people fail to study any history, yet claim to know what a group of some of the brightest minds in history were "really" thinking. Either that, or you did s
Re:A discussion of constitutional limits of power? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:A discussion of constitutional limits of power? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not me. Regions have different cultures, different geography, different levels of wealth. That means they like to do things differently. A national approach means one-size-fits-all, which is never going to be as efficient.
The 55 mph federal speed limit is a perfect example. It may seem reasonable to people who live in hilly places that get bad weather, but if you live in Nevada, say, or Nebraska it's just a dumb idea.
Re:A discussion of constitutional limits of power? (Score:5, Insightful)
Regarding the Commerce Clause.
To paraphrase the fictional character, Dr. Alan Grant, "Tyranny Finds a Way."
Re: (Score:2)
"Commerce" clause overrules everything.
Either Madison was a fool or Hamilton was a genius.
Or both.
History (Score:2)
Funny how Americans still think of King George III as a tyrant, when in fact his powers were far more constrained by law and parliament than those of Bush II or any other recent president.
While a hostile congress makes it harder for the President to pass new laws, they are getting better and better at finding ways around the law.
Re: (Score:2)
Main Core https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] from the 1980's
Salon has uncovered new evidence of post-9/11 spying on Americans. Obtained documents point to a potential investigation of the White House that could rival Watergate. (Jul 23, 2008)
http://www.salon.com/2008/07/2... [salon.com]
1960's Project MINARET https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Wow... (Score:5, Funny)
So, Bush actually went full Gestapo, and the Justice Department and Ashcroft Backed it Down a bit?
That's fucking amazing, really. I'm sure this is Bullshit, but I'm not sure which parts, or how much.
Since Cheney isn't implicated as the originator of the Full Gestapo move, I'd be more willing to bet He's the one now trying to throw Bush under a bus for some reason.
I dunno, but, like Obama found out: You can't vote out the Gestapo.
Once they're here, it takes lives to go back.
Re:Wow... (Score:5, Interesting)
Pretty much, yeah. John "No boobs on the statue of Lady Justice" Ashcroft, and even James "No secure crypto for anybody" Comey, for all their faults, still believe(d) in the rule of law.
When it comes to eliminating the rule of law by neutralizing both the legislative and judicial branches in favor of the executive, the same names always come up - Yoo and Addington - as the real powers behind the throne. Were they working for President Cheney, or did it go one level deeper than that -- they were merely Cheney's keepers (in the B5:Shadows sense of the word) whose job it was to whisper the right words into the ears of the powerful, and working constantly to find ways to legalize what was previously illegal? I'm not one for conspiracy theories, and there's insufficient data to speculate about who the real power behind the throne is/was/will be. We don't know and we'll probably never know.
The most interesting revelation is that it made the NSA/Snowden testimony, in which Clapper and Hayden tried to argue that getting all the metadata but not looking at it somehow qualified as not having the metadata in the first place... now makes a lot more sense, from a legalistic point of view. Their bosses really did manage to make, in a twist of Orwellian blackwhite/doublethink, that "obtaining and retaining" was not the same thing as "acquiring." I kinda feel sorry for those goons during the Snowden hearings. They weren't technically lying, and they really couldn't explain that distinction without committing crimes themselves.
Now, for better or worse, we know the legalistic reasoning behind the distinction. Thank you, Edward Snowden.
Re:Wow... (Score:4, Insightful)
Pretty much, yeah. John "No boobs on the statue of Lady Justice" Ashcroft, and even James "No secure crypto for anybody" Comey, for all their faults, still believe(d) in the rule of law.
The memos that authorized torture came from the Justice Department on John Ashcroft's watch, so I'm not so sure about the "believing in the rule of law". Once you decided that you're ok with torturing people, you've already completely forgotten what the rule of law is.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. That's why this story is such obvious BS. :)
Re:Wow... (Score:5, Informative)
I don't think this is nonsense, and it's actually been reported before. See this Bill Moyers transcript [pbs.org] for another, much older, source. Here are a couple more sources from 2007: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/15/AR2007051500864.html [washingtonpost.com] and http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/16/AR2007081601358.html [washingtonpost.com]. Basically, the White House was so desperate to have DoJ authorization for the program, they visited a man in the hospital who was very ill, almost certainly very medicated, and in no condition to make decisions about the legality of domestic surveillance. It seems like they were trying to take advantage of Ashcroft's state and trick him into signing the papers. Notably, Alberto Gonzales, an attorney general later in the Bush administration, was among those visiting from the White House. Also, Ashcroft wasn't even the Attorney General at the time; because of his illness, he had transferred the power to Deputy Attorney General Jim Comey. Bush went around Comey to try to take advantage of a very ill man to try to get the surveillance authorized.
Re: (Score:2)
Reported yes.
Not complete and total Bullshit; ehhh, odds are low. :)
I'd say the truth in that story is more along the lines of "These people and places actually existed", than anything profound or revealing. rofl.
IMHO, Cheney is the one likely to be holding the defib paddles on someone's balls, "convincing" them to sign something, in that twosome. :)
More Proof (Score:2, Troll)
So...More proof that Bush was just as slimy as Obama.. I used to be an (R) but once I learned that both parties are spawn of the devil, I changed my party affiliation... I'M A FUCKIN' AMERICAN......
Re: (Score:3)
i agree our government is better than somalia or the philippines. but it's not as good as canada or the nordic countries. we can do better. we have a problem with money corrupting our politics, legally
but you are also correct a lot of americans are whiny and spoiled and can't keep the problems in proportion to the world's other problems. and some are so ignorant and uneducated they actually think no government or weak government, hilariously, is somehow better. when those situations obviously are far far wo
PBS Frontline (Score:5, Interesting)
Will PBS re-make "Spying On The Home Front" in the light of subsequent revelations? The Ashcroft hospital incident is documented.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/... [pbs.org]
It's still worth watching.
Above the law (Score:5, Interesting)
From TFS:
'Mr. Bush, for the first time, explicitly said that his authorizations were "displacing" specific federal statutes, including the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and criminal wiretapping laws... the president had "made an interpretation of law concerning his authorities"...
That's the heart of the issue right there. President Bush wrongly believed the threat of terrorism gave him authority to break constitutional law. It actually doesn't, but no one has thus far found a way to correct this mistake. It's absolutely stunning to me after 14 years. The Orwellian-named Patriot Act was supposed to be a temporary measure and yet it's still in place.
Re: (Score:2)
Except the courts have ruled now on multiple occasions his interpretation wasn't actually unconstitutional. Bush only authorized wiretaps on international calls to suspected terrorists, something that had been done on a smaller scale by presidents as far back as Carter.
Who's defending the American Constitution? (Score:2)
My understanding of the package of laws designed to 'defend' against ter ror ism is they have essentially nullified due process in America and a good portion, if not all of the Bill of rights under the constitution have been wound back by the passage of these bills. So who's defending the Constitution against the domestic enemies that seeks to take America over from the inside?
W.Bush passed the laws however Obama hasn't restored due process, so one can only conclude that the American government is no longe
Who's defending the American Constitution? (Score:2)
Continuing on after I accidentally posted:
The 6th amendment was obliterated by the anti democrac^h^h^h^htewworism laws: 6th: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process
Re:And that means... (Score:5, Insightful)
"The DOJ promises to thoroughly investigate its boss and find no wrongdoing."
Re:And that means... (Score:5, Insightful)
Really, anyone about to post condemnations of Bush should consider the fact that Your Hero as he same policies and have argued in court to keep them.
Never mind that President Obama implemented the Republican agenda — Middle East foreign policy, tax policy and healthcare policy — with the Progressives looking the other way. He's probably the best moderate conservative president since Ronald Reagan.
Re: (Score:2)
Never mind is about right. You cannot invent a position and assign it to a group of people while ignoring their objections to it. That's like saying that the black lives matter movement is advancing the agenda of the national police unions.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
RINO = moderate Republican.
Heck, Reagan was a RINO by modern metrics.
Re:Hypocrisy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hypocrisy (Score:5, Interesting)
Just in the last year, I've added single payer health care to the list. We had some staff from a subsidiary in the US come up here for a few days (Canada), and how vehemently and confidently they would disparage a health care system clearly so much better than their own.. the cognitive dissonance against their better interest is staggering. Even typical extreme conservatives can't follow the logic of how a single payer can drastically reduce costs, nor understand how they're already funding social health care for the most expensive groups, the poor and elderly. Health care in the US is an ideological issue, and I don't get why.
Re: (Score:3)
because it doesn't have a fucking thing to do with this topic
Re: (Score:3)
You do realize that the fact that they can't negotiate the prices of pharmaceuticals is due to the republicans and the Bush administration. That occurred before Obama took office with the Medicare part D aspect and now they're cashing in. I just read an article today about how the drug for treating toxoplasmosis went from $13.50/tablet to $750 overnight [nytimes.com] despite being a 62 year old drug. The drug companies are basically price gouging the US public. In another case they raised the price of Doxycycline, an a
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Serious question here - I understand that people love to hate Obamacare/ACA. But I don't understand why. What's bad about federally mandated healthcare that says the health insurance companies must offer all people coverage, cannot drop us after they pay out a certain amount (no lifetime maximums), and in general sets a specific lower rung for basic minimum coverage to maintain quality of life? This is similar to minimum car insurance requirements for all people who drive. Why does everyone hate it so m
Re: (Score:3)
Downside is that with no robust public option (a promised lie) the profiteers of healthcare (big insurance, big healthcare, big pharmy) continue to raise costs and premiums. This is what is happening, insurers will have huge rate hikes for 2016.
Re:Hypocrisy (Score:4, Insightful)
ACA is a start. It's far from perfect. Its shortcomings hopefully will lead to further revision, now that we have something to actually revise.
Re: (Score:2)
The public option plan existed also (and indeed, was the preferred one). It was scuttled.
It's debatable whether ACA is actually better than what was before it long term. It does force you to buy insurance without putting any meaningful price controls in place on the cost of said insurance.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually the poor are better off not on it. because if they get sick they are covered completely already.
Re: (Score:2)
It has helped less desperately poor by making it easier to qualify for that coverage.
Re: (Score:2)
Because it allows them to increase rates at 25% a year. insurance companies have been making RECORD profits. They should be required to make 25% reductions yearly.
They own us, lock, stock, and barrel. (Score:2)
Serious question here - I understand that people love to hate Obamacare/ACA. But I don't understand why. What's bad about federally mandated healthcare that says the health insurance companies must offer all people coverage, cannot drop us after they pay out a certain amount (no lifetime maximums), and in general sets a specific lower rung for basic minimum coverage to maintain quality of life?
You've answered the question yourself, and you don't even know it.
The answer is "insurance companies".
What the hell do they have to do with healthcare? In the ACA situation, this is what:
* They charge people for health insurance
* They charge doctors for malpractice insurance
* They charge nurses for malpractice insurance
* They charge hospitals for malpractice insurance
* They charge doctors with practices or clinics for liability insurance on the premises
* They charge medical equipment manufacturers for liab
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget freedom itself. You are now obligated to purchase something from a third party because of nothing more than being a citizen and of legal age.
Not to mention that roe v wade was decided largely on a right to privacy in that the protections from search prohibit the government from nosing into your health care. Now the federal government has a distinct right to be involved via the ACA which calls roe into question.
Re: (Score:3)
I see that Slashdot is much more anti-Obama than anti-Bush. But then, I was here in the Bush years, and watched the support as he did those things in real time. The same consistent support here has never gone towards Obama.
Re: (Score:2)
Spying on my communications pisses me off.
Keeping me alive and not dying for lack of medical care, is something I can't be angry about.
Does that clear up anything for you?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Hypocrisy (Score:5, Interesting)
Which, in turn, makes you a villain in world's story... so why should anyone care?
Re: (Score:3)
"i knew a guy once who murdered someone and got away with it. therefore we can never criticize any murderer anywhere"
this is your "morality"
when your "morality" means "someone did something bad so someone else should be free of criticism for being bad" (aka, two wrongs make a right) you really don't have any morality at all
it's entirely possible to criticize BOTH bush and obama, for the *separate* things they did wrong. you understand that right? criticizing one does not mean we can't or won't are aren't cr
Re: (Score:3)
Mostly because Obamacare is not what we got. we got Romneycare.
Obamacare was going to be single payer free healthcare. We instead got a system to make insurance companies even richer that was penned by the republicans.
Re: (Score:3)
That's pretty much it. He had to water it down so congress would pass it, and in the spirit of bipartisanship he went along with it.
He should have insisted it was done properly, or not at all.
Re:Hypocrisy (Score:5, Insightful)
When someone we don't like does an evil, it's because they are evil. When someone we do like does an evil, it's okay, because they have goodness in their hearts.
Actions speak louder than words... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's funny.
Reading this just made me realize that Ashcroft took a stronger stand against spying than Obama has, if I judge only actions and not words.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Hypocrisy (Score:5, Informative)
When someone we don't like does an evil, it's because they are evil. When someone we do like does an evil, it's okay, because they have goodness in their hearts.
We tend to overlook the evil things done by people we like.
It doesn't mean every controversial thing done by someone we like is actually evil.
To the extent that Obama has "retroactively and unilaterally revising law passed by Congress" with the ACA he's done it to work around things that most here would recognize as bugs, ie words in the law that make the law do things we didn't actually want it to do.
The issue we're talking about with Bush wasn't a bug fix, he added new features to make the law things it was never intended to do.
Re:Hypocrisy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
The wording in Obamacare was deliberate. Parts were necessary to get it passed; it would not have passed without those "bugs" in place. Other parts were there to punish uncooperative states; that backfired on Obama.
You mean the thing that just went to the supreme court? Everyone understood the subsidies went to all the states right up until Republicans started arguing differently. The only evidence offered to the contrary is a single individual, making a single argument, several years later.
For all we know he forgot about that section entirely, saw it during the talk, then made up a justification on the fly.
Re: (Score:3)
So delaying the corporate mandate was a "bug", in that no on really expected ACA to go into effect for *everyone*, even up until this very day?
You're a useful idiot.
It was written for a specific set of conditions, those assumptions were slightly off meaning the original timeline wasn't possible, that's exactly what I'd call a bug since the intended end state is the same. Running the program intelligently (and fixing bugs on the fly) is precisely the role I think the US President is supposed to fulfil on domestic matters.
The alternative is any significant legislation requiring modification by several successive congresses to work properly. Forcing a President to execute
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's like when a puppy craps on your living room floor. That puppy isn't evil. But when your brother does it, that's a different story.
And when your girlfriend does it, you're probably into scat porn.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for making it weird.
That's what she said...
Re:Hypocrisy (Score:5, Funny)
And what if we don't like either of them?
Then don't post that because fanboys from both parties will mod you down.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The number of people believing something to be true has no bearing on whether or not it actually is true.
The biblical claims of godhood/Jesus' supernatural origins and actions are without any historical or scientific evidence, so there's no reason whatsoever for a rational minded individual to take them as anything but fables and allegory, just like any other old myths.
This is not to say one cannot appreciate the
Re:Hypocrisy (Score:5, Insightful)
One evil doesn't excuse another. But overlooking an evil because it is your kind of evil is the worst kind of evil.
Further, Obama has had six years to fix this "evil" and hasn't. And yet, nobody is blaming him for not doing anything about it ... because he is "your kind of evil" so you overlook it.
Re: (Score:2)
I think there are two permutations of this "worst kind of evil".
1. "My guy is doing it, so I'll look the other way.", and 2."The other guys got away with it, so I might as well use it to my advantage too"
Re:Hypocrisy (Score:4, Funny)
Stop supporting the lessor of two evils .... Cthulhu all the way!
Re: (Score:2)
Try to make up your mind.
I'm the lessor of two evils! (Score:2)
Stop supporting the lessor of two evils .... Cthulhu all the way!
I'm the lessor of two evils!
Sadly, both the Democrats and the Republicans have 99 year leases, with an option to renew.
Re: (Score:2)
Cthulhu is actually a mild one. Nyarlathotep or Yog-Sothoth are big league.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh, I do blame him. It's just that, by itself, it was not enough of a reason to vote for the sorry excuse for a candidate that the Republicans ran against him and there wasn't enough other things to justify electing the Romneytron.
Re: (Score:2)
One evil doesn't excuse another. But overlooking an evil because it is your kind of evil is the worst kind of evil.
Further, Obama has had six years to fix this "evil" and hasn't. And yet, nobody is blaming him for not doing anything about it ... because he is "your kind of evil" so you overlook it.
To be correct, a lot of people have been yapping about it a lot.
But it just gets lost in the Demon Baby from Kenya birth certificate claims, the claims he's a muslim, his FEMA death camps, his death panels, and all the other batshit crazy accusations that have made most Americans numb. And somtimes roll with laughter. So it just gets thrown on the pile with all the other kooky stuff.
My favorite one, and I shit you not - is that He made a secret deal with Mexico for them to send diseased Illegal immig
Re:Hypocrisy (Score:5, Insightful)
How about "I hate Bush for creating this mess, and Obama for continuing it on his watch"
He's had six years in power and hasn't done shit. So he is equal to Bush, no better, no worse.
Re:Hypocrisy (Score:5, Insightful)
Obama has increased the violations of privacy started under Bush; he is worse
Re: (Score:2)
My health insurer keeps begging for my SSN. (Score:2)
Is Obama's increase more than Bush's increase over Clinton?
My health insurer keeps begging for my SSN. I consider them having that to comply with the ACA reporting requirements for the IRS being a substantial invasion of my privacy.
I'm sure most people have just naively called the toll free number and handed it over, so they are pretty screwed, if an industry well known for their lack of information security gets hacked. Again. After the new information is in their system.
That's a pretty steep escalation right there.
Re: (Score:2)
Clinton looked the other way while the Rwanda genocide happened.
The Republicans said to not get involved, then bashed him for doing what they asked. So when Somalia came up, he did get involved, and was bashed for getting involved. That you bring that up labels you a party hack. Clinton was evil for not sending Americans to their deaths to stabilize an African country, and Clinton was evil for sending Americans to their deaths in Somalia trying to stabilize an African country.
Like any good spinner, you try to be fair and balanced, while being neither. I've voted in
Re:Hypocrisy (Score:5, Interesting)
Because behinds the scenes, it's the same people running the show.
Do you seriously think a Black Lawyer who had a small time civil rights practice can become president without being bought?
It cost 100's of millions in Americas corrupt political system to become president.
Re: (Score:2)
Because behinds the scenes, it's the same people running the show.
Who? If you can't give names, it's just paranoia.
Re: (Score:2)
It cost 100's of millions in Americas corrupt political system to become president.
It's OK; if the Trans Pacific Partnership passes, his debt will be considered paid in full.
Re: (Score:2)
You are the only one that has a true argument. Most everyone else here is a stupid parrot whining about "obamacare"
The real problem is that he not only made sure the bush spying and war on freedom was continued, but he also increased persecution of whistleblowers trying to make public gross government spying and overstepping.
I still firmly hold the opinion that anyone that voted for or signed the patriot act and any of it's extensions is actively working against the american public.
Re: (Score:2)
Problem is, if you criticize one you are automatically assumed to be a fanboy of the opposite party. Politics is like a sports game, you are required to choose sides.
Re: (Score:2)
Well they were stolen property in the first place, and all the abolition of slavery did was return them to their rightful owners.
You can't say that Lincoln "stole" them from anyone.
Re: (Score:2)
I do no understand the conflict at all. It is illegal to obey an illegal order, just put in writing the order and, the affected legislation. They fire you and you sue them and demand payment for you losses and as a bonus demand they be prosecuted for attempt to issue that illegal order. Don't be a chick shit, a illegal order is an illegal order.
The bug problem is the repeated failure to prosecute all those individual who broke the law based upon illegal orders and pursue those prosecution up the chain of
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Ashcroft hospitalized over NSA showdown? (Score:5, Informative)
There's no truth to that. Ashcroft had been hospitalized with acute pancreatitis. He had surgery the day before Bush and other White House staff members visited him. Bush didn't cause it, but it certainly says something about the legitimacy of the program when Ashcroft's authorization was sought while he was extremely ill and likely quite medicated.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
yup. that was my fault. bad wording, apologies
http://yro.slashdot.org/commen... [slashdot.org]
Re:Ashcroft hospitalized over NSA showdown? (Score:5, Informative)
i'm the submitter
i wrote
i meant
i didn't mean
apologies, there was no bad intent, i just wrote the summary without being aware that my wording made it possible of someone finding a novel secondary meaning
fuck the english language
Re:Ashcroft hospitalized over NSA showdown? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's a great language, you just write it shit.
Re:Ashcroft hospitalized over NSA showdown? (Score:4, Funny)
when being a grammar nazi asshole, you really have to represent with the good grammar. otherwise it kinda makes you look like a dick AND a hypocrite
Re: (Score:2)
well, this isn't a doctoral thesis here
my meaning was well represented. that an alternative meaning could be construed is a limitation of the language
i really think it is more important for the reader to parse the different meanings before assuming one meaning is the one and true intent
it happens a lot in life. yes, we must be precise in our choice of words, but we're not functioning on all cylinders 24/7, looking at every word choice like a chess move. so it is beholden on the reader/ listener to give the
Re: (Score:2)
you got me
i'm part of the MSM
we try to avoid great internet geniuses like yourself who find us smearmongers and prevent our devious conspiracies from working out
"FALSE FLAG FALSE FLAG FALSE FLAG..."
oh no, the heroes have found us!
fellow lizardmen: abandon plan BlackHand34A for this sector. report back to illuminati headquarters
curses! we cannot defeat these great minds!
Re: (Score:2)
ah, i'm being accused of accused of carrying on too long. fair enough accusation. but it is coming from someone who makes believes their own posts in tandem don't exist. that's some heavy psychological projection there friend
Re: (Score:2)
the ambiguity is in the incongruity
of word and phrase
it goes on for days
and the tower of babel is unfazed
Re: (Score:3, Funny)