Bush Wants Right to ISP Customer Data 565
bryan8m writes "Wired is reporting that the Bush administration wants back the ability to make ISPs turn over information on their customers. The U.S. Court of Appeals is handling the case and of course the feds want to hide details of it from the public. The law giving the government the power to seize communications records from 1986 was strengthened in 2001 by the Patriot Act and struck down after the ACLU challenged it."
Why Bother with the Courts? (Score:5, Insightful)
Now all of the sudden they are getting a read from the courts?
Fucking facists.
Re:Why Bother with the Courts? (Score:5, Insightful)
They're stepping on the toes of large, multi-national corporations many of whom have major media holdings and could make life very, very painful for the US government. Translation: they ARE being watched on this one, so they have to cross the 't's and dot the 'i's.
--Ryv
Shaddup! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Shaddup! (Score:2, Insightful)
We're still sitting ducks for someone sneaking shit onto an airplane while screeners profile for british shoe bombers (oh wait, they're not, they're profiling for "people who look like they might be muslim", ignoring the fact that muslims are in just about every country
Re:Shaddup! (Score:3, Insightful)
I think the most effective way to run things would be to ensure that every person is well screened and all
Re:Shaddup! (Score:5, Insightful)
Yer all a bunch of commie pinko liberal America-haters. Our President is doing the BEST HE CAN to protect us from terrorism, and he NEEDS these powers.
While I am a liberal, classical liberal, just as Thomas Jefferson was, I am not a "commie", I very much am a capitalist just as Adam Smith wrote about in "On the Wealth of Nations" [online-literature.com]. Others here seem to be fascists.
FalconRe:Look! He is making his Tribal identification cr (Score:3, Insightful)
He is announcing to all the world that he wants to associate himself with neoliberal economics.
I don't know what you mean by saying I assoiciate with neoliberal economics, as far as I'm concerned there isn't much difference between it and neoconservative economics, both are for corporate aristocracy. Just as Thomas Jefferson was, I am wary of the corporate aristocracy and believe more people should own and run their own small business. At the same tyme I believe in a small and limited government, and
Re:Shaddup! (Score:5, Insightful)
It's interesting how the current president always gets put on the face of any government operation, as if it were all his idea.
The president doesn't want the names of ISP customers. The Lawyers want those names. The police want those names. The people who want additional power are the people who can actually use it. The president supports it because the idea sounded reasonable when it was presented to him. The only thing he's been personally campaigning about is social security. The rest is just side notes.
Fifty to one says he's got no idea what this whole argument is about. Do you really thing George W. Bush understands this debate?
Re:Shaddup! (Score:3, Interesting)
Terrorism is a buzz word being used to change our entire country from a free society to a corperate police state.
Those in power with money have the say, and you are forced by law to comply.
Vote wisely... Vote for a 3rd party... ANY 3rd party....
Re:Shaddup! (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Why Bother with the Courts? (Score:3, Insightful)
Your comment reminded me of a thought I had regarding the fines that everyone wanted Microsoft to pay for using its monopoly to crush competition. Before the USDOJ action, Microsoft was one of those rare companies that made no significant political contributions to either party. I'm sure this had more to do with their wanting to stay out of s
Re:Why Bother with the Courts? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Why Bother with the Courts? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why Bother with the Courts? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why Bother with the Courts? (Score:5, Insightful)
Apparently eveyone objected to my use of the word "socialist", so I changed it to keep everyone's panties smooth and not bunchy.
Call it by name (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Call it by name (Score:4, Insightful)
What "tenuous implication"? That fascist Nazis posed as socialists to grab power from people who knew fascists were bad, as I explicitly stated in the post that triggered your delusions? Or the explicit statement that Bush poses as a "compassionate conservative", while denying the unnecessary pain and death he creates? Which parallel to the Nazis you expanded further, with your tales of a politician who takes over a credulous party by assuming labels like "conservative" or "socialist", depending on the preference of their targeted constituencies.
Sure, I learned in preschool (too scary to call it "kindergarten", eh?) to recognize an insane bully. Like Hitler, like Bush, and like you, Anonymous raving Coward. Fancy the fascism yourself, eh? Why not be strong enough to come out and strut it?
Re:Why Bother with the Courts? (Score:3, Informative)
* The discussion page seems to signal an overall agreement, but the neutrality/factual accuracy warning banner has yet to be removed.
Re:Why Bother with the Courts? (Score:5, Insightful)
If there is an actual case with actual charges all that has to be done is *file the supoena*. This administration is doing just about everything in its power to 'legalize' the ability to exercise power above the law.
There was once when the 'republican" party and the 'conservatives' meant smaller govt, less spending, and less intrusiveness.
I cant imagine that we need secret laws and skulduggery against our own people to fight the phantom menace
That is so true (Score:5, Interesting)
That is so true. It points up the obvious that Bush people are neocons and an insult to true conservatives. Bush backers are more fascist than conservative but fascist is a tough label to sell in Oklahoma. So they call themselves conservative.
Re:Why Bother with the Courts? (Score:4, Informative)
There was once when the 'republican" party and the 'conservatives' meant smaller govt, less spending, and less intrusiveness.
A small limited government was the platform for the Democrat party and liberals to begin with. Thomas Jefferson was a liberal democrat who wanted a small and limited government. That I am aware of the only tyme the Republican party said they wanted small government was from Nixon onward. Well also Eisenhower who came up with the term "military industrial complex". He started the Viet Nam War though strengthening said complex. Nixon when his presidental committee released a report saying hemp, marijuana, should be legalized he said he didn't care what the recommendation was, there was no way he would allow it to be legalized. It was because of the Nixon Republicans that the Libertarian Party was started. Reagan increased the size of the federal government, increased federal police powers, and pushed for maximizing minimum sentencing for drugs. This is what conservatives wanted back in TJ's tyme, a strong federal government.
Falconless government (Score:3, Insightful)
I think it's funny whenever anyone calls for less government. How do you define this?
I use the COnstitution of the USA as my guideline. Get rid of all the agencies, departments, and offices not specifically authorized by the Constitution. Here's a directory of federal agencies, LSU Libraries Federal Agencies Directory [lsu.edu], most of which aren't specifically authorized by the Constitution.
FalconIt's worse than you say: (Score:5, Informative)
In my opinion it is worse than you say.
Here are reviews of 35 books and 3 movies that discuss how bad it really is: Unprecedented Corruption: A guide to conflict of interest in the U.S. government [futurepower.org].
Background information: History surrounding the U.S. war with Iraq: Four short stories [futurepower.org]. The U.S. government declared war on Arabs long before there was Arab terrorism against the U.S.: New York Governor Pataki's statements are equivalent to a declaration of war. [futurepower.org]
The U.S. government is bankrupt. The value of the U.S. dollar is dropping fast because the Bush administration is rapidly borrowing money [futurepower.org]. Who is doing the borrowing? These people: U.S. Federal Deficit by Political Party [futurepower.org]. If you are a U.S. citizen, you owe: $26,289.01 [brillig.com], even if you are only 1 year old.
Re:Why Bother with the Courts? (Score:5, Insightful)
And we all love Republican's love of ethics. Like how Clinton gets head and it involves an impeachment and Senate trial. But god forbid someone even mention the shit Tom DeLay does. Or Bill Frist's violation of medical ethics with his famous diagnosis via heavily edited video tapes.
Re:Why Bother with the Courts? (Score:5, Insightful)
Just for the record, I AM a citizen of the United States, and I was in secondary school at the time. A senator who came to address some of the students gave an impassioned speech about how he would resign if anyone even brought charges of infidelity against him, and that it was unbecoming of a president to behave so immorally. Two weeks later, a woman DID come up with charges against him. Needless to say, that senator continued to work in Congress as he always had.
Posting AC to avoid the flame machine.
Re:Why Bother with the Courts? (Score:3, Insightful)
Any lawmaker that wants government to be more like business prefers dictatorship over democracy.
Sounds bad but... (Score:3, Interesting)
The most important thing is to make sure that with any additional powers granted there is enough oversight from a disinterested third party to insure said powers are used only within their intended scope for their intended purpose.
Re:Sounds bad but... (Score:5, Insightful)
While I agree with the importsance of this, I'd like to point at the importance of questioning if a power is needed at all, and not granting it if such a need cannot be proven. Checks and balances can only work when they are not bogged down in burocracy and procedure to be effective. Too much power with a too big counterweight (oversight by 'uninterested' 3rd parties) easily results in a substational amount of burocracy.
Re:Sounds bad but... (Score:2)
FISA (oh man, I think that's the acronym) warrants were an enlargement of executive power in that they were granted in a blanket fashion, and arguably caused great damage to checks and balances..... this could be an even greater blow to checks and balances, an
Re:Sounds bad but... (Score:5, Insightful)
This means no oversight, and opens the door for all kinds of abuse. Giving the government a little grief? No problem, they'll just have to make life hard for you.
Re:Sounds bad but... (Score:2)
Re:Sounds bad but... (Score:2)
Besides, even if the Feds could give us a viable excuse for conscripting ISPs to serve as national wiretappers, are there any truly "disinterested" third parties anymore? Everyone
Bush can have my ISP data... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Bush can have my ISP data... (Score:3, Insightful)
What does one thing have to do with the other?
It seems many of us are simply predisposed to attack anyone whose ideology is different from ours. Without thought.
Sadly, I think this is what our political leaders have taught us: shrill reponses to just about anything proposed by our enemies (those who don't align with our politics.) It is a scary, scary practice and one that is getting worse.
Disclaimer: I'm not saying I advocate the war or the topic. In
Re:Bush can have my ISP data... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Bush can have my ISP data... (Score:2)
If you want transparency for all, then that could be argued to be fit within democractic ideals [google.com]. If you want more transparency only for people under you, while wanting less transparency for you and y
Send it in then: (Score:2, Informative)
Here's the address that you can send your ISP info to: president@whitehouse.gov
Hiding the law from the people who it is directed (Score:5, Interesting)
I have read of this before, but it is very strange that in a democracy (?) laws for the popluation can be discussed/made by not letting the population know about them.
Does'nt this seem *too* close to a dictatorship - not that the US is one, but it increasingly is seeming that certain aspects are going in that direction
Re:Hiding the law from the people who it is direct (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Hiding the law from the people who it is direct (Score:5, Insightful)
Hell yeah, it does.
not that the US is one, b
Give it a little more time... These things don't happen overnight.
Re:Hiding the law from the people who it is direct (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Hiding the law from the people who it is direct (Score:2, Insightful)
It looks more like a plutocracy with the wealth and power being concentrated in the top few percent of the population. The only direction now is down into despotism.
Re:Hiding the law from the people who it is direct (Score:5, Insightful)
In the United States the law is so hopelessly complex, the enforcement so arbitrary, and adherence to the concept of checks and balances is such a farce that very few people are entirely sure of the legality of all their actions. Or what the consequences would be. We have developed a culture of lawyers for precisely this purpose - we walk on pins and needles hoping to God we aren't crossing some local, state, or federal ordinance without realizing it.
To live in the United States without having a law degree or the money to employ someone with one full-time is to be a second-class citizen.
--Ryv
Re:Hiding the law from the people who it is direct (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hiding the law from the people who it is direct (Score:5, Interesting)
In Argentina we've recently had a similar law proposal. Fortunately there was enough people who cared to at least stop it for a while. One of the many rumours we had flying around at that time was that the Bush administration was behind all that as part of a deal to relieve some of the pressure regarding our current economical problems.
I personally believe that these are just rumors... but I can't stop to notice that we were in exactly the same situation just two months ago.
What the hell is going on with our so called democracies? Do they really deserve that name?
Re:Hiding the law from the people who it is direct (Score:5, Insightful)
What do I think? All I know is that it certainly feels like whatever any corporation wants they get, but whatever I want (and others like me want), even when it's constitutional freedoms, I don't get it because it would inconvenience some corporation. So I'd have to say we're well down that road to control by corporations and I wouldn't be surprised to see congress and the courts dissolved and the presidency turned into a dictatorship in my lifetime.
For the confused (Score:4, Interesting)
It's about getting blackmail data on government officials to force them to do what the Administration wants.
Re:For the confused (Score:2)
They will defend the US to the point (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:They will defend the US to the point (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, where do you suggest that we move to? Many of the other country's policies are going south as well. The megacorporations are controlling Europe's and Australia's policies as well, and the majority of the rest of the world is third-world and has many of its own issues. People say lots of good things about Canada, but it's only a matter of time until it succumbs to US pressure. I've also thought about Japan, but I don't know how the situation of liberties is in that country.
Are there any free places left, or am I forgetting a few places?
Re:They will defend the US to the point (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't know. I've heard some interesting things about New Zealand. I'm sure it has its drawbacks too.
Re:They will defend the US to the point (Score:2)
Re:They will defend the US to the point (Score:4, Insightful)
The remaining Bush faithful DO want to abandon their civil liberties in the name of security and morality and they want to dicatate the same course to the rest of the world if possible. They had enough of all the liberation that started in the 60's and they want to go back to America's glory days, the 50's, McCarthyism, rigid morality, sex is taboo, homosexuals are safely locked in the closet, censorship, etc. They especially want to strip other people of their civil liberties to get them in to line with what they consider proper behavior and to eliminate any chance that they might pose any threat, real or imagined to, to there comfy ignorant little lives.
There is unfortunately a pretty close correlation between this set of people and the fundementalist Christians in the U.S. who are of the opinion they put Bush in office so they now own the U.S., its government and all the people in it and its their prerogative to dictate to everyone else how to live and if the Constitution gets in the way then the Constitution needs to be ignored or amended. A few weeks ago I saw the scary sign of the times on the news. A church that decided no good Christain could possible vote Democrat, that it was practicly voting for the devil, and that they were now on going to be a political church and anyone who didn't support Bush and Republicans was no longer welcome in the house of God and Jesus. I wonder isolated incident or is it happening all over the country in varying degrees.
And of course as others have said in other posts the second part of the one two punch is there are a bunch of corporations who also own the government in general and the Bush administration in particular. They want two things, docile cowed workers and if they cant get them in the U.S they will get them in China, and they want docile cowed consumers who buy their products and can't complain it they are defective, unhealty dangerous or overpriced (cigarettes and asbestors being classic examples, predatory gas prices another).
Star Wars earned him all the money but the most prescient and important work from George Lucas was THX-1138 which was released on DVD recently and is really worth seeing. It makes you think what might happen if we let government, corporations and control freaks sieze control of our lives. Probably to late to stop it now, but at least you will recognize it as its happening.
Begun the Clone Wars Have (Score:2, Interesting)
Diabloical (Score:5, Insightful)
But I must say, that this initiative is truely diabolical. My freedoms to surf the internet privately is clearly being breached here.
Are we going to see them applying the same interpretationist polcies that they use on television to the internet. I mean whos to say what constituits a "terrorist" website?
Goodbye my friends. I think 1984 has truely, and finally come alive, and its time for some of us to go underground.
Terrorism (Score:5, Informative)
The secretary of state, I think.
And here's the definition of terrorism. Think "direct action activism".
Time to (Score:5, Funny)
It figures... (Score:2, Interesting)
Unfortunately... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Unfortunately... (Score:2)
Of course the feds conveniently ignore little annoying things like facts.
Re:Unfortunately... (Score:2)
I'm so glad... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I'm so glad... (Score:3, Insightful)
It's really that simple.
Re:I'm so glad... (Score:2)
The least you could do is research, vote and be a part of your community.
If you don't do any of that then you simply don't care and i believe that is a sad state of mind to be in.
Re:I'm so glad... (Score:2)
It could be worse.
Re:I'm so glad... (Score:2)
Re:I'm so glad... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I'm so glad... (Score:4, Insightful)
In fact, we need 12 years of solid Democratic rule to even start erasing the damage the unfettered right has done to this nation. Only when the GOP shows some willingness to control it's whacked-out wing should it be allowed veto over anything.
They could get all your hacker information! (Score:5, Funny)
I can see more personals like this in the future (Score:5, Funny)
"Single, white 22-year old Canadian male willing to `marry' American female fleeing fascist regime. Must be intelligent and conversational. Preferably aged 19-25, ethnicity unimportant."
Re:Already happening! (Score:2)
Title is mis-leading. (Score:4, Interesting)
So for all you liberal's out there that say my guy would never vote for this, and Bush is evil because he did. Check the vote records for this back in 2001. It's all posted on the Library of Congress website.
Re:Title is mis-leading. (Score:2)
</sarcasm>
Re:Title is mis-leading. (Score:5, Insightful)
Well now. If you're gonna bash people for being liberal and stupid... perhaps you shouldn't be conservative and stupid.
Fact: it was impossible for anyone other than the authors of the Patriot Act to read it. There was no time. It was rammed through Congress at a time when questioning the content, even if there was time to read it, would have been considered unamerican. Perhaps you'd like to forget that little detail.
As for it passing again without much debate: we'll see. I can see it going both ways, and if it goes down without much debate, I will not be surprised. It's human nature for most people not to get too upset at slow erosion of rights--that's what this is, bit by bit dismantling of our rights. The people standing up (eg, Feingold) are cally "nuts". Go figure.
Re:Title is mis-leading. (Score:4, Interesting)
And that is how democracy really got lost.. repeatedly.
With the risk of invoking Godwin's law here, I'll quote Adolf Hitler on this since he was quite good at it:
'Make people feel so they do not think'.
Re:Title is mis-leading. (Score:5, Insightful)
You may say the article is biased, but frankly you're showing far more bias than it does. Also everything is biased, you have to realize this and learn to read the bias as well so you can make up your own mind. Personally I support some sections of the PATRIOT act and not others. If I had to chose between the whole thing going to get rid of the worst sections I'd err on the side of caution and say yes, it should be removed. As Benjamin Franklin said "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
And frankly, do you really feel more secure now than you did before the PATRIOT act was passed? I don't, at best I feel I have the same level of security, at worst I have a new enemy -- my own government who treats me like a criminal in the name of "fighting terrorism".
Re:Title is mis-leading. (Score:3, Insightful)
Ahem [gets on soapbox] (Score:5, Insightful)
How would people react if the Bush, or any, administration claimed the right to be able to tap anyone's phone for any reason?
From the article:
The legal filing with the 2nd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in New York comes amid a debate in Congress over renewal of the Patriot Act and whether to expand the FBI's power to seek records without the approval of a judge or grand jury.
And will they also seek the entitlement to search domestic residences without a warrant approved by an authority figure? Would I be far off in this seeming to be about the same? For those who lost their short term memory, and those who like repetition:
without the approval or a judge or grand jury
How do you respect a law like that?
They already read your e-mail (Score:2)
There's plenty of blame to go around ... (Score:5, Informative)
Congress creates the bills, the President merely signs them into law.
Where is all the uproar about the Congressmen who voted for these laws? I see plenty of anti-Bush sentiment here, but where's the outrage towards *your* representatives who approve of this?
Get angry all you want at the occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, but don't give a free pass to the occupants of both the Hart and Russell Senate Office Buildings, they typically stick around a lot longer than a President.
Re:There's plenty of blame to go around ... (Score:2)
Both Article 1 and 2 powers are in the hands of one party: Republicans.
Due process.. Privacy... who needs them (Score:2)
Declare the entire population is under investigation, and just get rid of those pesky constitutional rules that protect our rights.
And this country isnt the only one heading this direction.. Moon base anyone?
Re:Due process.. Privacy... who needs them (Score:2)
Information Ministry (Score:2)
If people refuse to give information they will be probably taken to information retrieval.
It seems like Saddam has taken a consultant job for the Bush administration. Since we suck at fighting the revolution in the Middle East Saddam could be a great resource there also.
More on terrorism and the internet (Score:2)
When you wrongfully do others harm... (Score:3, Interesting)
So the more you know about those you screwed, the safer you feel in control...
This Memorial Day -- Remember America (Score:5, Insightful)
I've read that congress is considering revisions to the Patriot Act, and that President Bush is pushing for more powers to intrude in secret into lives of Americans. Please don't let our nation go down this road. I am asking people to discuss this issue and contact your congress person [house.gov] and senator [senate.gov] to let them know how you feel. Freedom is not free, it must fought for and held close dearly, in the statehouse and on the battlefield.
In America a battle is raging that is threatening our freedom in the name of terrorism. It used to be "drugs", then it was "the children", and now its "terrorists". The government doesn't care who the bogeyman is, it simply wants more power, and it will use any excuse possible to get it.
When the events of 9/11 occurred, everyone-- the politicians, the President, the newscasters, and the people everywhere-- said "We must go on with our lives, if we change who we are as a result of the trajedy then the terrorists have won..." I hate to say it then, because that's exactly what we did. We allowed our government to put in all these draconian measures that would have scared the pants off us if we had seen it in a hollywood movie on September 10th. We have fundamentally altered our country in response to what the terrorists did, and our freedom and liberty is at stake.
We are no longer as free as we were. We are no longer as kind to each other as before. We run around the world acting like the bully, and we've even lost the respect for ourselves-- our own moral compass and lamp of righteousness. We used to be the shining beacon of freedom and liberty for all the world to see. Now we're reviled and hated in many parts of the world and shunned by our friends and allies.
We've changed a lot since 9/11. Government agents can search your home and seize your property without anybody ever knowing what happened. They have even made talking about it a "national security" crime. These are things are supposed to happen in Cuba. These are things that happen in China. These are things that are supposed to happen only in the farthest, darkest, most oppressive corners of the world-- not in America, "the land of the free".
It has been said that people who give up their liberty for safety have neither. It would seem that since 9/11, Americans have looked away while lawmakers stripped away fundamental freedoms that are guaranteed to us under our constitution. Since the birth of this nation we have championed against tyranny, oppression, and the subjugation of humanity all around the world. What an irony that we must now remind ourselves of these very principles and warn our politicians to step lightly to avoid leading us into the abyss.
Step away from that edge! Guide us back into the light and liberty. America was great before, and shall be great again. All that is required is the wisdom and the courage to stand up and speak against what we all know is wrong. America has a mighty weapon, and its not our tanks, its not our ships, its not our weapons of mass destruction-- America's mightiest weaspon is ourselves. Our love for humanity, our reaching out to stop the oppressors of the world, our zest for life and our yearning to be free.
The terrorists who aim to defeat us can never win because they simply can't understand our spirit. But the politicians who govern us can defeat us. They are charged with protecting our spirit and keeping the beacon of liberty lit for all the generations that come. It is not the terrorists I fear. We have mighty armies and very smart people that will eventually defeat them, of this I am ce
Re:Christmas List... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Fuck the ACLU (Score:2)
Ah, this undeclared war against a non state enemy you mean? this war on drugs? or oh wait, it was terrorism, or what? copyright violators?
Deciding you are at war comes with many consequences. If you argue that the USA is at war, that implicitly also means your enemy is a party you can be at war with. This means you cannot deny the rules and treaties that govern war to them. Come back when the people in the US government understa
Re:Fuck the ACLU (Score:5, Interesting)
No matter what we do, the threat will always be there, and as such, the war will continue to go on. Granted, a government should be granted special permissions during wartime, with the understanding that when the conflict is over the population can rest easy that things will return to normal.
Only now, any permissions granted to the government won't be temporary. We are setting ourselves up for a government that can violate the principals on which this nation was founded indefinitely.
I for one don't want to live in a country where the government can violate my privacy. I don't want to live in a country where at whim any action can redefined as "terrorist", and I could be labeled a criminal for doing nothing wrong. We've gone past the point where "only guilty people have to worry", and are approaching "innocent people have to worry too."
So kudos to the ACLU. Kudos to any person or group who wants to limit the powers of government. The war just isn't in Iraq, the war is here too. Like the war against terrorism, our domestic war is between those who value liberty and freedom above all else, and those who want to limit it.
The current administration may have the best of intentions, but I can see Bush saying "It is better that the rights of 1,000 innocent Americans should perish at the hands of their own government so that the rights of one American won't be taken by a terrorist."
Re:Paranoia (Score:3, Funny)
Mocking Republicans for doing the same stuff that Democrats were demonized for is pure sport for Libertarians.
The sooner people realize that there is a fractional difference between the two, the sooner we can return to true competition in politics.
Republicans=Democrats who used to smoke pot until their kids started stealing their stash.
Re:Paranoia (Score:3, Insightful)
I am not an US citicen, but when looking from the outside I am worried by the current state of the US democracy. The US election system has been designed to effectively only allow two parties. And during the last decade it seems like these two parties have agreed not to mention several political issues that I would think are important to the US public.
Re:Paranoia (Score:2)
Re:FUCK! (Score:2)
Another classic example of the great informed electorate. I would chalk it up as a typo or trying to make a joke. However, the "l" is nowhere near the "r" key and it wasn't even humorous by the farthest stretch. So I will just go with stupid.
I think history is already doing a stellar job at addressing the "at least you know what you'll get" crap.
Re:FUCK! (Score:2)
That said, maybe you can try reading the argument and ignore the spelling mistake.
Re:FUCK! (Score:2)
Not Kelly. Kerry. John Kerry. I mean Jesus fucking Christ raping the Easter Bunny, it hasn't even been a year, and you're too brain-dead ignorant to know his name?
On the other hand, I guess you pretty well answered the question of how the United States could re-elect W.
Re:FUCK! (Score:2)
Don't underestimate the ability of humans to mess things up.
Re:FUCK! (Score:2)
I made the statement because it is what many of my American friends have told me as their motivation to vote Bush. This does not mean I believe it to be a good reason, but I can see why it was th
Re:Another "So What" (Score:4, Insightful)
I worry that your head is in the sand on this.
Re:The real face of the Republican party? (Score:3, Interesting)