I didnt know about the roving taps being used like that...I may have heard something about that but i though they had a time limit on those, like if they didnt hear anything pertaining to the investigation within 14 days ro something like that they had to shut it down...Ill have to try to find some information
about the delayed notification though, like i said before, the agent i spoke with said that either way they had 48 hours to produce propper documentation or it was their ass...Thats simply what i was told...
The point i have been trying to make is people need to focus on the details that they dont believe are propper or effective and work on changing that specific part instead of saying "hey the whole thing is bogus we shouldnt have it". Furthermore, I think its just really bent in the media and it is irritating to hear how people talk about something they have no idea. What's worse, everyone just wants to sit around a bitch instead of getting active. The most disappointing thing to me is our lack of interest in politics when it comes time to vote, yet when somethingpops up we dont want to write our congressman or do SOMETHING to get active, we just wanna sit back and complain.
Ah well...The patriot act is here to stay at this point so there really is no use trying to fight it...well let me rephrase that, we need to keep it in check and make sure that it is not misused, but as far as getting rid of it, it hink that ship has sailed.

On another note, where's ur cruise taking you? Have a great time! ttyl
Harrison

I think the part GAM is missing is, if a # being tapped calls another #, like a pizza place he used as an example, then the next call from that # is to a bookie placing an illegal bet, the FBI cannot do anything about the bet, unless it was part of the reason they were tapping the original # in the first place. In fact, I do not beleive they could do anything at all, even something so simple as sending an officer to investigate, if it does not pertain to the original investigation.

It is part of the roving wire taps regs. The Pen register is supposed to be construed very narrowly: to wit, the warrant should read something to the effect of: "registration and collection of information (including all direct connection and routing information) and all conversations originating from *telephone #, Cell phone identifier, or address block, or individual's name* and unknown individuals or organizations within the United States (continental and territory), or international locations.

The problem is that the National Security Letters are NOT warrants. They're a relaxed version of them basically stating that they're fishing for information, and since there is not enough de jure evidence to warrant a direct FISA wire tap, a Federal Judge is allowing the FBI (or investigating agency, remember that the HSA, NSA and about 5 other federal agencies and 24 state/local agencies have access to this legislation) to set up an information drag-net to see if they can get enough de facto information to get a FISA warrant.

This is why the "roving" portion of the wire taps are so intrusive, and go against your right to privacy. It's not a warrant, but it can be used against individuals and organizations... This is part of the reason that it's a dangerous little tool for investigators, because it allows them to side-step checks and balances and basically cast for leads on cases. I have nothing against the FBI, or any other investigative branch of the DOJ, INS or Nat'l Security Establishment (NSE), but, affording them this kind of power is an open invitation (with a Las Vegas style light-up sign) to abuse it. Things got done before through the FISA court provided that there are adequate open and timely information sharing procedures (exclusive of Rule 15A, if I'm not mistaken, I'll look it up, but basically the FBI has an internal Directorate Rule that forbids the sharing of information with other departments regarding ongoing investigations unless there is a vested interest in obtaining greater information of ongoing crimes. I'm going to refer to it as Rule 15A until I get the exact rule), and simple point of fact is that none of the Patriot act provisions have been used to successfully try, convict and discharge punishment upon individuals that are suspected of plotting terrorism: They've all been done through the old FISA court requirements... the only groups that have benefitted from Patriot act is police agencies because of relaxed standards and Nat'l Security Letters... It's not just the FBI (the FBI's mandate begins and ends with US soil, don't forget).

Seriously, if these were indeed warrants, there'd be no problem. A warrant must be supported by a standard of evidence. A National Security Letter has no standard other than an individual officer's belief that there is a possible terrorist crime being plotted or committed... there is no standard of evidence, and worse, the FBI's Rule 15A applies, so there is no need to share information with any interested organization.




Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

You will have to produce that part of the Patriot Act then GAM, because all I have ever heard from law enforcement is that they still need a warrent for phone taps, but that warrent is no longer limited to a single number, but instead is expanded to include all numbers the person the warrent is for would use. It also still exludes information obtained that does not relate to the reason for the warrent.

I think you need to post the actual wording of the act that say's what you have.

Quote:

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/nationalsecurityletters/28969lgl20070309.html

Low-Level Authorization

* Section 505 of the Patriot Act expanded approval authority to “Special Agents in Charge” of field offices to sign NSLs. Previously authority held by a group of senior FBI officials at headquarters. (p. x)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act%2C_Title_V#National_security_authorities
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Letter

The portion of US Title 18, § 2709 that was modified by the USA PATRIOT ACT: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002709----000-.html

Effectively, you're seeing something that was supposed to be narrowly used (and basically required a FISA judge to not only authorise it but gave them the authority to make it conform to US law) made into a tool with broader application that basically allows greater circumventing of laws in the interest of security. This section (title V) has been ruled unconstitutional, but until there are amendments it'll keep going because the alterations to US laws have been re-approved and may possibly be made permanent.

I'll post a thumbnail to sec. 505, but it is from Slate, so take it with the appropriate grain of salt that you'd apply to Wikipedia articles without references.


Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

GAM, neither of those links has anything to do with roving wire taps. A NSL can only get paper information on a person, their phone records and addresses yes, but that has been the same since 1978, and was even expanded under Clinton in 1993. NSL's are not a good thing, but they are not a product of the patriot act either. Also now there is some oversight to NSL's that there has never been in the past due to the patriot act going too far.

The Roving wire taps are actual listening taps that allow law enforcement to tap any phone that someone they are investigating would use. Before they were required to get a warrent for each line and have reason to tap it. I agree with Roving wire taps, but I don't agree with NSL's and I think there is a big difference between them.

Bull...
http://www.cei.org/gencon/019,04991.cfm

The link is from 2005, but its still relevant.

Quote:

Roving wiretaps:
Section 206 expands the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to allow federal agents to wiretap several phone lines based on a single wiretap order, issued by the secret FISA court. The target of the roving wiretaps under 206 can be a “John Doe,” in contravention of previous court rulings that either the person or the place to be wiretapped must be “particularly described.” These wiretaps don’t require after-the-fact justification to the court, though pending reauthorization would change that.

National Security Letters:
Section 505 allows the FBI to obtain from businesses the details of telecommunications and financial records without judicial oversight. As in Section 215, customers need not be a target of an investigation, but only “relevant” to it. NSL’s don’t need specific facts to back their issuance, and it is against the law for a business to disclose that it has received one. Nor is there a right for the business to challenge an NSL. A federal court decision has already declared this NSL power unconstitutional and is pending appeal. Both pending versions of the PATRIOT reauthorization would make Section 505 permanent and provide limited rights to counsel and challenge.

Need it be explained further?

NSL requires no judicial oversight. NSL allows for a Roving wire tap.





Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Sunday, March 25, 2007 8:19 PM

Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

Now that I look at that, it does need a small bit of refinement:

A NSL allows for the Pen Register to applied to any phone # they wish without any real evidence. A Pen Register is only something that tracks your phone # usage... However, Pen Registers also apply to your garden variety IP information (internet info that gets cached even if only for a single clock cycle). This means, VoIP is subject to this information, and therefore, the FBI needn't at all get a warrant, as VoIP phone services are not considered Telephone services.

If someone that is being investigated by your local FBI Office (or any one really) and calls you by mistake... you can have a pen register applied to your phone, If you call someone that belongs to a Mosque that is being surveilled, you're likely to have a looser roving wiretap warrant applied to your phone and from there, your life is basically an open book because someone decided to go snooping.





Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

^^^and that is illegal since they would have to prove that you are a potential threat.

Again, someone get out the constitution doormats, so we the people can walk all over it like the government is.


Goodbye Callisto & Skaði, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.

And again, NSL's are not a product of the patriot act, I feel that has to be said again, because you seem to be refering to them as such.

2 things also, first is the roving wire taps still require court approval as your article clearly states. Also that article has no portion of the patriot act at all in, can you link any real information and not someones guess as to what it may mean?

Approval based on what?

At least with a warrant i know there has to be evidence leading to my guilt. With this trampling of the bill of rights, all i need to do is call a wrong number.


Goodbye Callisto & Skaði, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.

Again that is wrong, for the wire taps they still need a warrent through the courts.

Keeper: That's why there was a "John Doe" clause... They need to assess your threat magnitude, and that means basically quietly getting as much info as they can. until they can see where you sit. All a Pen Register is, is a fancy term for LUDs or Local Usage Details, basically phone calls in and out, phone #, and time spent. Normally to get this requires a court order (which requires a level of evidence standard, and a judge's signature of approval), but NSL's remove the judicial oversight. The other dangerous thing is that if you use VoIP, there's no need for the FBI to get a phone tap warrant of any kind because your internet transactions fall under the Pen Register/Trap and Trace provisions, so if you don't encrypt, your conversations are wide open for eavesdropping if someone thinks they oughtta make it their business to know what you and Miska (sorry, I don't know the proper accent to apply) are talking aboot if you're on Vonage.


Eric: I'll go by the order of your posts:

1: True: NSL's were originally intended for narrow scope, meaning drug cartel money laundering to and from points abroad. Part of Patriot act loosens up the reigns on their use, and expands their scope, as well as who may issue them. It used to require a lot more than a local office administrator (think 2-3 levels above a field agent) to issue a NSL, and it was not supposed to be a widely used drag-net. PA made this latitude and abuse possible.

2: True, but, Roving wire taps are STILL available to be used in a "John Doe" situation.... Even though it has been found to be unconstitutional, the information extracted from these illegal procedures is not considered fruit of the poisoned tree, because the need for info exceeds your rights. Until the section can be rewritten to conform to Constitutional law, it's still in effect. The White House and House Republicans are against "weakening" this piece of the legislation, and Democrats are doing other things. FISA is still issuing warrants (based on looser evidenciary standards) for roving wire taps based on pen register information which are served because of NSLs. If your number is on the pen register of a person that has a wire tap order on their phone, you fall under the Roving Wire Tap order, because there is no technical limit to the number of phone numbers on a roving wire tap (mainly because terrorist cells use disposable phones for a limited amount of time, so this is meant to be a blanket order).

3. Roving Wire Taps are NOT ISSUED BY CIVIL COURTS. They're issued by FISA, which is a court whose proceedings are secret, and will not become part of public record, nor are you (if you are named in a proceeding) required to be notified of any proceedings against you, EVEN IF YOU'RE A BORN OR NATURALIZED CITIZEN. FISA reports to the Attorney General and the President... Not the DOJ, not Congress at large, and is not accountable under the Supreme Court's purview unless a decision under FISA directly contravenes the constitutional rights of a Citizen, except for those whom act as an agent of a foreign power.

On top of that, if you're "investigated" like Dr. Steven Hatfill, it also means your life is upset at regular intervals and your name and rep are dragged through the mud and then press... Part and parcel of the loosened standards that NSL's are issued under. At this point, he's still a "Person of interest" which is a way of saying there isn't enough evidence to indict, or someone has blinders on and won't look elsewhere.

Either way, this isn't something anyone should just accept with a Laissez-faire attitude: when one person gets screwed, everyone is at risk.




Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

1. the PA made it worse that is true.

2. I'm sorry but nothing you have posted has said anything to back this up, you have posted on NSL's and they are messed up, but roving wire taps are a seperate issue and you have posted nothing about them yet. Roving wire taps can be used by any law enforcement agency, it was a modification to allow better survaliance of drug dealers(and terrorist's too) who use several phones including cell phones and disposable phones. Even roving wire taps that require FISA(which would be those with outside require proof, and are under congressional review. Also there is no wire tap out there that requires informing the person being tapped to be notified, I am not sure where you are getting this information?

3. This would depend on who is being tapped and what agency is asking for the wire tap as FISA deals with Foriegn intelligence.

I don't think you understand what a Roving Wire Tap (RWT) is: it is ONLY available through a FISA court, it is not like a domestic wire tap that requires a high standard of evidence of wrong-doing and narrow-scope. It has no theoretical limit to the telephone #'s on it's list, and your constitutional protections of Privacy do not apply.

Because of the "John Doe" nature of the calls outside, if you and a person that has a RWT applied on their phone lines both call a common second number or worse, you're connected directly to that person because of a legitimate wrong number, you are still able to be surveilled under the original warrant for as long as the FBI requires or desires to discern if you're an agent of a foreign power or acting on their behalf.

An NSL provision, for Pen Registers and Trap/Trace Devices can be used (because the standards have been loosened) to justify a FISA RWT warrant. The pen register or trap/trace information for the originating phone # or website can be used to check for other numbers of commonality, if your number is on that list, it can be subject to scrutiny. That scrutiny may become a RWT warrant.

If you want to see it in legislation, it more than likely will not be there. All the Bill does is set out the limits and standards by which evidence is collected and within what contexts it can be used... The rest is up to the individual officer. If you look up your state's legislation on the collection of DNA evidence, you'll get the procedure to how it must be collected, and the standards to which it must conform before it is going to be admissable...

You won't see the laws that state that a person who casts off or throws away a cigarette butt has no reasonable expectation of privacy and therefore police may collect it and test for eleels, provided they attest that they collected the evidence immediately after it was cast-off. It also won't say what weight police must give it in the course of an investigation or what to do with it after it has been processed. That's a decision the individual police agency must make. The same thing goes for what to do with NSL allowed PR and T&T device information.



Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

GAM, you do obviously have no idea what a roving wire tap is, and I no longer believe you know what FISA is either.

http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/199506/msg00027.html

Roving wire taps have been around for a very long time, and were expanded in 1998. Originally they were to deal with drug dealers that would change numbers to avoid taps. They have never and are not now able to be randomly placed for any reason, including terrorism. They require oversight and reason, and another form of surveillance. the PA allowed roving wire taps to be used in terrorism investigations, which originally they were not allowed to do and that made no sense at all. Even in a terrorist investigation they require warrants in all cases, FISA courts are only used in investigations dealing foreign powers, not domestic investigations. This was not changed in the PA.

withhttp://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/

It should also be noted that most of the controversial parts of the patriot act were actually legal long before(NSL's, multi point wire taps, delayed notification search warrants) and the only difference now is that they can be used by FISA courts now.

Again GAM, you are saying a lot of untrue things and back nothing up, but with speculation and more lies to cover the previous ones. I have no idea where you are getting your information, but it is very obvious you need to switch to some form a legitimate news source.

Thank God someone else is trying to show people that most of this stuff was around before the Patriot Act. Ive argued all i can about the subject to be honest but all this stuff was around for a LONG time before the Patriot Act, the act just restates it as useful means of information gathering.

If thats not enough for you and you still think its the devil, look up how many agents there are nationwide. Do you really think they hvae time to do this to each and every person simply bc they call a wrong number?

Harrison

Does it matter how long this has been going on? The executive branch is getting far too powerful and needs to be reformed, IMO.


________________________
Ron Paul in 2008!
Constitution > Politics

Actually Bigj480, this is all the Judicial branch, not the executive. While both have power over eachother in certain area's, the executive cannot force any legal matters that the judicial does not want. If you want to argue that the judicial branch has become overpowered, then please feel free to do so.

Been awhile since I dropped by and looked at this thread. Harrison, I agree with ya. People get worked up, but if you have nothing to hide, then why worry? I got into a heated debate with a local person the other day, and I finally have just gotten fed up with tryin to point out the fact that documentation and proper reason has to be presented before investigation is allowed. Calling the President's actions "idiotic" won't get a viable warrant. Now how's this for ya: in the service, my supervisors are all over my personal life. Financial status, family problems, personal issues, are all talked about and asked about openly. And God forbid you say something degrading or demeaning about the President around the wrong person. You think a phone-tap is bad? You can get in trouble for breaking your oath of enlistment if the wrong person hears it. Now I signed the line and am proud to have taken the enlistment willingly, most countries outside of the US have mandatory enlistments for males, and saying the wrong thing about the leadership or government is punishable by death in those countries. So my basic point is this: if you have so many problems and complaints about this country, then go somewhere you will be happy. You have the choice, great thing about this country is you have the choice to do it. And if you have the will, there is a way. I don't try to debate politics or religion with anyone around here any more, I find more and more people that have nothing good to say about the country. I think it's the greatest nation on this earth, we have more freedoms than nearly all countries. And that's pretty much all there is to say on my behalf.

Eric: Don't insult me. I think I have a good grasp on what FISA is, what a RWT is, and why you're getting mixed up.

Your interesting people link said this:

Quote:


I have seen several articles stating that the "roving wiretap" amendment in the Anti-Terrorism bill would allow the government to wiretap all phones in a wide area. This is false.

In a regional area? no... this was correct. Geographical area is not a factor in getting a RWT in any wiretap legislation.

But, this is the important part, and I want you to pay attention, and look for the bold parts:

Quote:

Sec. 909. REVISION TO EXISTING AUTHORITY FOR MULTIPOINT WIRETAPS.
(a) Section 2518(11)(b)(ii) of title 18 is amended: by deleting "of a purpose, on the part of that person, to thwart interception by
changing facilities." and inserting "that the person had the intent to thwart interception or that the person's actions and conduct would have the effect of thwarting interception from a specialized facility.".

(b) Section 2518(11)(b)(iii) is amended to read: "(iii) the judge finds that such showing has been adequately made.". [The current
wording is: "(iii) the judge finds that such purpose has been adequately shown."

Title 18 deals with Crimes and Criminal Procedures.

Title 50, Chapter 36 deals with Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

They are 2 separate pieces of legislation. You're applying the changes in Title 18 to Title 50... they are NOT the same thing. You knew this, right? If you did, you also knew that they have different Wiretap provisions, and language, and that Title 18 is a domestic investigation statue, and Title 50 deals with non-citizens in the USA....

Title 50, Ch 36 is where you'll find the NSL laws, and the problem is that the USA PATRIOT ACT's modifications to this act have been found to be unconstitutional... the reason is because they do not narrowly specify an individual or group.

Quote:

http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html

SEC. 206. ROVING SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY UNDER THE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT OF 1978.
Section 105(c)(2)(B) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1805(c)(2)(B)) is amended by inserting `, or in circumstances where the Court finds that the actions of the target of the application may have the effect of thwarting the identification of a specified person, such other persons,' after `specified person'.

Did you want to get your legislations straight, or continue with making glaring mistakes?

The problem arises when you look at Sec 203 of the PA.

Quote:

SEC. 203. AUTHORITY TO SHARE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIVE INFORMATION.(b) AUTHORITY TO SHARE ELECTRONIC, WIRE, AND ORAL INTERCEPTION INFORMATION-

(1) LAW ENFORCEMENT- Section 2517 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting at the end the following:

`(6) Any investigative or law enforcement officer, or attorney for the Government, who by any means authorized by this chapter, has obtained knowledge of the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, or evidence derived therefrom, may disclose such contents to any other Federal law enforcement, intelligence, protective, immigration, national defense, or national security official to the extent that such contents include foreign intelligence or counterintelligence (as defined in section 3 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 401a)), or foreign intelligence information (as defined in subsection (19) of section 2510 of this title), to assist the official who is to receive that information in the performance of his official duties. Any Federal official who receives information pursuant to this provision may use that information only as necessary in the conduct of that person's official duties subject to any limitations on the unauthorized disclosure of such information.'.

Why the NSL's are a problem (if you value your privacy) is because Sect. 203 effectively allows and encourages foreign investigations operations agents to share their info with Criminal groups. Why is this pertinent?

If you have to go through a lot of hoops to get a Title 18 wiretap, or just get a sworn affadavit, get a pen register and then apply for a FISA RWT... which would you do?






Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Wednesday, March 28, 2007 8:03 PM

Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

I missed it in that post: Criminal groups should have read Criminal Investigative groups.

djmoore85:

djmoore85 wrote:Been awhile since I dropped by and looked at this thread. Harrison, I agree with ya. People get worked up, but if you have nothing to hide, then why worry?

Do you really think that the gov't has any business snooping in your business because they feel like it?

I have clearances, and I've got that because I was vetted pretty much the same as a cop would be: but I agreed to that. If I'm don't, everyone else can just mind their own damned business, thank you very much. The kind of mentality you're taking is the same one that people took in 1936 in Germany and in the late 40's in Russia... to their own peril. There is a big difference, but there are a whole lot of similarities as well... too many just ignore out of hand. You have the right to your own life, and you have the right to not have to endure unsanctioned scrutiny. National Security Letters are a form of unsanctioned scrutiny because they allow for someone that has little or no proof (I use De Jure Proof as a term because it means hard and fast evidence, but in a lot of cases De Facto proof would have sufficed) beyond a hunch or casual/ephemeral association, to look into your private life. I really don't trust someone with that kind of power, especially when the avenues to redress grievances are curtailed. If someone with that kind of power just decides they don't like you, they can do a lot of things, and they're basically legal, and they can do it to their heart's content.

Quote:

I got into a heated debate with a local person the other day, and I finally have just gotten fed up with tryin to point out the fact that documentation and proper reason has to be presented before investigation is allowed.

The problem is that the burden of evidence has been dropped. Whereas before, in order to get a pen register warrant you had to have evidence of wrong-doing on the part of an individual, you also had to prove that the person was not acting alone, and was in fact part of a larger organization. Now, you need a sworn affidavit (under FISA, under Title 18, you need a modicum of de facto evidence that indicates a possible connection to a larger crime, which varies by crime)... before, once you got a pen register, you needed to cross-check against the phone company's registry to find commonalities that might be indicators of conspiracy in order to get a multi-point warrant, but a Judge would have to sign off on each number individually, and any additions to the warrant would have to be documented and signed off on... now, the standard is that you can basically get warrants to blanket-tap everyone on the outgoing list, and multiple contacts on the incoming list.

The amount of paper required is minimal, and the potential for intrusiveness is huge. The worst part is if someone is found doing something wrong, you don't have to be notified, and even if you are, your way to gain restitution is severely limited.

Quote:

Calling the President's actions "idiotic" won't get a viable warrant.

Not yet, at any rate. You have freedom of speech and association and assembly, but those weren't infringed upon under PA. They would have been under PA II to a degree... and then it's just a matter of time before the erosion of freedoms makes your rights the punchline to a sick joke. This has happened before, and the US is not immune to it.

Quote:

Now how's this for ya: in the service, my supervisors are all over my personal life. Financial status, family problems, personal issues, are all talked about and asked about openly.

We're not talking about living in the armed services... we're talking about the average Joe in the USA. You've said you accepted the burdens and restrictions willingly, average citizens did not.

Quote:

And God forbid you say something degrading or demeaning about the President around the wrong person.

We call it a CLS or BHM in Canadia (Career Limiting Statement or Bone Head Maneuver, when you talk bad about whoever is ultimately in charge and it gets back to the MFWIC)

Quote:

You think a phone-tap is bad? You can get in trouble for breaking your oath of enlistment if the wrong person hears it. Now I signed the line and am proud to have taken the enlistment willingly, most countries outside of the US have mandatory enlistments for males, and saying the wrong thing about the leadership or government is punishable by death in those countries.

Most? I doubt it. Some, sure... but, people that want out of mandated service usually have the option of Conscientious Objector Status, or alternative service... Countries that are under dictatorships, they're a little different in that you can be killed (not just get in trouble) for doing nothing wrong, or doing things too well. In western countries, there's usually options for those that don't want to serve in battle.

Quote:

So my basic point is this: if you have so many problems and complaints about this country, then go somewhere you will be happy.

What about making things better for everyone? Holding yourself to your own principles? Staying within the spirit of your founding fathers? Just words?

The "go somewhere else" idea is usually trotted out when you know you're talking about something that disturbs you, but you don't want to say something against it (for whatever reason), it's unrealistic, and it's utterly unworkable, you're asking someone to leave their home because you don't like what they have to say. It's hardly American.

Quote:

You have the choice, great thing about this country is you have the choice to do it. And if you have the will, there is a way. I don't try to debate politics or religion with anyone around here any more, I find more and more people that have nothing good to say about the country. I think it's the greatest nation on this earth, we have more freedoms than nearly all countries. And that's pretty much all there is to say on my behalf.

I think that the US gets more than it's fair share of criticism, but you can't ignore that a lot of it is justified, if not richly deserved. Doing the right thing, the right way, at the right time, for the right reason; that hasn't happened since WWII. Things are a lot muddier, and there's no real "good guys" anymore... the world is a lot more Machiavellian than most want to believe. It sucks, but that's the way it is.

Thinking of, and believing your country as the best on earth, I won't argue (I happen to think Canada is head and shoulders above the rest of the world, but that's my opinion)... but you cannot look at only the good, you must accept and try to remedy what is wrong with the country as well, the sign of a great country isn't what wars were fought, it's what you accomplished in the offing both abroad and at home. (If you look back, I had a post about a year or two back that was in praise of the US, I'm not a total dick-head, even if the post turned into an "America, @!#$ YEAH! post... )

Debating Religion isn't a good idea... you're questioning someone's leap of faith. I don't debate it, I point out foibles in the story... If you believe, you believe. Hell, Scientology has a bunch of members, and they have at least as whacked out a story as Christianity does. If you want to be happy, keep hold of your beliefs and your tongue.



Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

^^^Couldn't have said it better myself.

IMHO, canada seems to be just as "free" as america, except you don't seem to have a bunch of crust old dustfarts with bad haircuts asjking for money on TV for jesus.


Goodbye Callisto & Skaði, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.

Man, I gotta stop writing after I get home from work...

Minor edits:

The worst part is if someone is found doing something wrong, you don't have to be notified, and even if you are, your way to gain restitution is severely limited.
Should have said:
The worst part is if someone is NOT found doing something wrong, you don't have to be notified, and even if you are, your way to gain restitution is severely limited.

Also:
If I'm don't, everyone else can just mind their own damned business, thank you very much.
Should have read:
If I don't agree to it or am at least notified of it, everyone else can just mind their own damned business, thank you very much.

Keeper:
Religion here isn't a hot-button issue, why? Maybe it's because we require religious institutions to provide a full and accurate accounting of the money that they receive and pay out. Or that we didn't get our start with the Puritans, or that there is a definitive separation of Church and State... which sounds weird coming from a guy who's country has Queen Elizabeth II as the head of state

Either way, the crust old dustfarts still happen, but when they get a peek at how much money Americans dump into religion, they go south... See Benny Hinn.




Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.