A Snippet From Paul Phillips

[hblask 1]

They made up the thought that NAMBLA has a constitutional right to meet in public libraries but a private organization like the Boy Scouts can't make their own rules....But we can trust them on this?

I disagree with the ACLU on many issues, including the terrible Boy Scout decision. They are extremely statist at times. But in this instance, it's more important to pay attention to the facts they are reporting. This is not stuff they made up. This is a government report. There is a link to the original report in their article. If you have any objections to their summary of the report or the report itself, now would be the time to bring it up. Trying to distract from the issue at hand by bringing up unrelated issues is not really productive.

[hblask 1]

<Hey that's just an issue of false advertising. I always assumed the boy scouts was a gay organization so not letting homosexuals in is just fraud.

[JubilantLankyLad 1,957]

A SNAKE!

[Jeepster80125 0]

if anyone is actually interested, this is what the whistleblower had to support his case:http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/05/70908more on 641A:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641Aaaand a general overview of it with an interview from the guy:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QP2tKBtUpVg

I quoted this because everyone should check out these links.

[copernicus 0]

they take up the causes of all nutjobs, right or left-leaning. this would be a god awful country without organizations like the EFF and ACLU...

Right leaning? what, .000001% of what they take on? I dont remember any in my lifetime.

[strategy 4]

Right leaning? what, .000001% of what they take on? I dont remember any in my lifetime.

I remember seeing a list of cases the ACLU took for causes stemming from the conservative side. pisses me off, because it was in the comments of a digg article, and obvs that is impossible to google thanks to their comments structure.the most recent one I can find is this, but I cannot locate a source that actually says the ACLU stepped in, just some posts on hannity's forums about them doing so...http://www.stoptheaclu.com/archives/2008/0...ti-obama-shirt/another article, the ACLU defending protesters at the DNC in denver:http://www.progressive.org/mag_ms050208also dug up a few stories about one of their attorneys getting disbarred for being caught doing pedo things. can't say I endorse that behavior, but don't act like the ACLU doesn't regularly address legal concerns on both sides, because they do...

[Balloon guy 158]

But the ACLU is based on a scam.They created the law that says any civil rights lawsuit must be paid for with tax dollars, then they spend all their time looking for any case they can charge maximum dollars to the government for.Let's not pretend that lawyers have heartsBTW they also stuck up for Rush Limbaugh when the DA for Brower County tried to get a fishing license to look through Rush's medical records after granting the supposed drug dealer full amnesty in order to get the drug user. First time in history.But they are still lawyers and as such will all suffer during the revolution

[strategy 4]

They created the law that says any civil rights lawsuit must be paid for with tax dollars, then they spend all their time looking for any case they can charge maximum dollars to the government for.BTW they also stuck up for Rush Limbaugh when the DA for Brower County tried to get a fishing license to look through Rush's medical records after granting the supposed drug dealer full amnesty in order to get the drug user. First time in history.

hey, I'm happy to see tax money going to a cause that attempts to curtail some of the government's ridiculousness against its own citizens. it's a shame that the ACLU can't operate with a more neutral mindset (they are left-leaning by nature, imo) or without trying to scam the govt, but I'm still happy that they exist.ok, that one is kinda funny.

[hblask 1]

Lots of attacks on the messenger, no comment on the message. Hmmm.....

[Nimue1995 1]

[

The key is not just tapping phones. What makes this totalitarian is that no warrant is required; the executive branch does not need to prove to the judicial that is has good cause for doing what it is doing. It's an entirely unchecked power which goes against our very philosophy of government.

Despite all the flag-waving that Cope seems to do here, I'm of the opinion that he'd be much more happy and comfortable with an overbearing police state as long as they were Republican and he and his were not harassed by them. And if someone he knew was, well then they deserved it because everyone knows that there aren't any bad cops, bad spies, bad government officials or bad Republicans. Now if it were Democrats, he'd be screaming bloody murder. So watch his tune change once Obama gets elected. But not only is Cope the most arrogant know-it-all on here (and it takes a hell of a lot to beat LMD on this score) but he's also almost as partisan as Nerteva.

[BaseJester 1]

Good. Because I prefer to talk about current LAW and the sanctions it provides, not the past, not signing statements that are challengable in court, not paranoid suppositions about what could happen.

You're completely off in right field. It already did happen.

[Jeepster80125 0]

[Despite all the flag-waving that Cope seems to do here, I'm of the opinion that he'd be much more happy and comfortable with an overbearing police state as long as they were Republican and he and his were not harassed by them. And if someone he knew was, well then they deserved it because everyone knows that there aren't any bad cops, bad spies, bad government officials or bad Republicans. Now if it were Democrats, he'd be screaming bloody murder. So watch his tune change once Obama gets elected. But not only is Cope the most arrogant know-it-all on here (and it takes a hell of a lot to beat LMD on this score) but he's also almost as partisan as Nerteva.

Oh, you're so cute sometimes.

[copernicus 0]

You're completely off in right field. It already did happen.

that claim has been made before and hasnt been substantiated. care to try?

[BaseJester 1]

that claim has been made before and hasnt been substantiated. care to try?

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1216-01.htm

[vbnautilus 48]

that claim has been made before and hasnt been substantiated. care to try?

We pretty clearly established that it did happen.Your only out is to claim that since the law was revised this summer the feds have stopped their program in order to comply, but I haven't seen any evidence of that.

[strategy 4]

that claim has been made before and hasnt been substantiated. care to try?

I swear to god, someday you're going to be one of the people pushing for a ban on encryption.

[copernicus 0]

We pretty clearly established that it did happen.Your only out is to claim that since the law was revised this summer the feds have stopped their program in order to comply, but I haven't seen any evidence of that.

No, the NYT article above is the only one that comes even close to being abuse, and the follow up investigation found that it was not clearly illegal under the law at the time. the Executive branch has been testing its powers since the 18th century.

[copernicus 0]

I swear to god, someday you're going to be one of the people pushing for a ban on encryption.

Encryption of what? I would certainly support a ban on encryption between private individuals, but not between individuals and attorneys or financial institutions or US government agencies etc.

[David_Nicoson 1]

Encryption of what? I would certainly support a ban on encryption between private individuals, but not between individuals and attorneys or financial institutions or US government agencies etc.

Since the point of encryption is that's difficult to tell what's being encrypted, a selective ban doesn't seem to me like it would work, even if it was desirable.Don't you buy things using SSL? Use a cordless phone? Have a wireless network with WPA? You don't want those things in the clear, do you?

[vbnautilus 48]

I would certainly support a ban on encryption between private individuals

You just want to make sure that we cannot have any private communication at all eh? Because we all might be terrorists, is that it?

[strategy 4]

You just want to make sure that we cannot have any private communication at all eh? Because we all might be terrorists, is that it?

I think a ban on encryption is more likely to be related to intellectual property. it's an interesting thought. I honestly have no idea how we'd pull it off without doing serious harm to banks, for instance.

[copernicus 0]

Since the point of encryption is that's difficult to tell what's being encrypted, a selective ban doesn't seem to me like it would work, even if it was desirable.Don't you buy things using SSL? Use a cordless phone? Have a wireless network with WPA? You don't want those things in the clear, do you?

those are not individual to individual communications, they are individual to finance company/bank/vendor w.e. Its not difficult to ban selectively. any transaction involving a commercial/governmental etc agency goes through encrypted, others dont. Foreign governments are screening web sites far more selectively than that.

[Loismustdie 0]

let's not bring loismustdie into this...

Oh, no, make no mistake. I do it for the non-stop gay attention. No more, no less. Nothing cool about it.

[hblask 1]

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1216-01.htm

Lalalalalalal can't hear you lalalalalalalalah lah lah what did you say something lah lah lah laha didn't happen lah lah lah

[hblask 1]

those are not individual to individual communications, they are individual to finance company/bank/vendor w.e. Its not difficult to ban selectively. any transaction involving a commercial/governmental etc agency goes through encrypted, others dont. Foreign governments are screening web sites far more selectively than that.

OK, everybody line up for your tattoos. We need to stamp on your body your classification according to the government, whether you are a "private citizen", a "commercial interest", or a "government official". Don't worry, it's for your own good. We need to do this to protect you from evil terrorists who could be, no wait, ARE your neighbors. No, don't try to get in the wrong line. We'll treat everyone fairly, no matter which tattoo you get. It's just a little ID number.