Paul writes:
<[Tom is] firing one the wrong target, dude'>
Why am I so not shocked? Tom fires non-stop, indiscriminately, all over the map, and rarely if ever hits any target. This probably explains why he's so against first person shooter games that allow others to hone their skills.
I also support a woman's right to choose abortion. Apparently women have this right nationwide since 1973 and Tom hasn't yet gotten the memo.
I also full support the rights of same sex couples to marry. This is a right afforded to same sex couples by the US Constitution's 5th and 14th amendments. Apparently Tom hasn't gotten those memos either although admitted those may be still considered as 'hot off the press'.
Paul goes on to write <no one should have to live a lie [of pretending to be straight]>
It's been proven conclusively that 'living a lie' doesn't help in the least. Senator Larry Craig states that he is 'completely heterosexual'. He's been married to the same woman for the past 30 years. He has 3 children. He has a perfect 100% voting record against gay rights. Does any this matter one effing bit to anyone sitting in character judgement of him? The answer is 'NO'. It matters not one bit that he states that he not gay. It matters not one bit that he's had a 'traditional' family for the past 30 years. He is hated by Republicans because they think he is gay and thus 'scum of the earth for living a lie'. He is hated by Democrats because they think his is gay and thus 'scum of the earth for living a lie'.
I agree that <no one should have to live a lie>. In my opinion, neither should they be crucified for choosing to live a 'traditional' lifestyle, but since I'm the only one who holds that opinion, I'm 'wrong' especially considering that 'might makes right' and thus mob rule carries the day once again.
-Scott
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2013 12:38:52 -0700
From: godshatter at yahoo.com
To: thansen at moscow.com
CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] GPS Tracking and Secret Policies
You're firing on the wrong target, dude. I'm not a Republican.
I'm ambivalent about abortion, I can see value in both side's
arguments. I fully support the rights of same-sex couples to
marry.
(Obligatory request to break out of the Democrat/Republican
polarization mindset)
The civil liberties I'm talking about refer to the abuses of the
past two administrations with regards to the Patriot Act, NDAA,
assassination-by-drones, illegal wiretaps, Gitmo, foreign wars,
and now the nice little list of badness brought to us by Snowden.
I'm probably missing a hundred others, it's hard to keep up.
Not that it all started with Bush, but 9/11 is a useful
demarcation for these kinds of activities.
Oh, and it wouldn't matter to me if Ann Romney did let everyone
know she is gay. More power to her, no one should have to live a
lie. It wouldn't affect my views of her husband at all, for
better or worse. I would still definitely not vote for him, if
the chance ever came around again. If anything, he appeared to
care less about civil liberties than Obama did.
Paul
On 08/17/2013 12:19 PM, Tom Hansen wrote:
Civil liberties?
Ya mean something like a woman's right to choose and/or a
couple's (regardless of gender) right to marry?
And speaking of "nice speeches", did you like Ann Romney's
coming-out announcement?
http://www.tomandrodna.com/soundbites/Ann_Romney.mp3
Seeya 'round town, Moscow, because . . .
"Moscow Cares" (the most fun you can have with your pants
on)
http://www.MoscowCares.com
Tom Hansen
Moscow, Idaho
"There's room at the top they are
telling you still
But first you must learn how to smile as
you kill
If you want to be like the folks on the
hill."
- John Lennon
On Aug 17, 2013, at 11:55 AM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>
wrote:
When the next election comes around, I plan to look over
the candidates carefully. I certainly don't plan on
blindly jumping on anyone's bandwagon. Civil liberties
will be high on my list of issues to watch for, as will
reigning in past abuses. Let's see who sings that tune
come election time. That's who I will be focusing on.
This time, though, I plan to look for past actions as well
as just nice speeches.
Paul
On 08/17/2013 11:47 AM, Joe Campbell wrote:
Rand Paul is no different than the other candidates
as far as I can tell. I don't see any reason to think
he'd have done better than Obama. Are you going to
support a counter argument with his statements? That's
why we elected Obama in the first place.
On Aug 17, 2013, at 11:15 AM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>
wrote:
I don't get this idea that if the Democrat isn't
that great, you can only look at the Republican
candidate (and vice versa) and then try to choose
the one that will screw us over less.
There are other candidates out there. I'd rather
vote FOR someone than AGAINST someone else. I made
this mistake two elections ago. I voted for Obama
because he billed himself as nega-Bush, the
antithesis of George W. Bush. When it turned out he
was just Bush 2.0, I started looking for someone I
could vote for that I could live with if they were
elected. I chose Gary Johnson the second time
around. There are a surprising number of third
party candidates out there to choose from. They
have to use the system designed by the Republicrats,
which is a major hurdle for them, but things can
change if we just recognize that blind party
affiliation is wrecking this country.
Paul
On 08/17/2013 09:13 AM, Tom Hansen wrote:
So, you are suggesting . . .
Instead of voting for Biden or Clinton, someone
that may go through our sock drawers, we should
vote for Rand Paul (or whoever becomes the GOP
presidential candidate), someone that will ensure
that we cannot afford socks.
Seeya 'round town, Moscow, because . . .
"Moscow Cares" (the most fun you can have
with your pants on)
http://www.MoscowCares.com
Tom Hansen
Moscow, Idaho
"There's room at the
top they are telling you still
But first you must learn how
to smile as you kill
If you want to be like the
folks on the hill."
- John Lennon
On Aug 17, 2013, at 9:06 AM, Sunil Ramalingam <sunilramalingam at hotmail.com>
wrote:
My suggestion, for people who
call themselves 'Progressives' or 'Liberals'
or who oppose what both Bush and Obama, indeed
both parties are doing, is to stop voting for
politicians who support these measures. For
the next election, certainly this includes
both Biden and H. Clinton. Stop buying into
the rationalization that we have to vote for
them for the sake of Supreme Court nominees,
or whatever else is thrown at us. Vote for one
of the small parties. Maybe when the Ds see
that they can't count on our support while
they support and carry out these policies,
they will start to change. Right now there is
no pressure to change, only to continue what
Bush (and with Rendition, Clinton) started or
continued.
Or come to terms with your support of empire,
Wall Street bailouts, illegal spying, the
murder of citizens and non-citizens with
drones, secret bombings etc. Votes for Obama,
Biden, H. Clinton certainly means support for
all those policies.
Please demonstrate for me, if you can, that
I'm wrong. I don't think you can, since it's
quite clear the politicians I named above
(along with most Republicans, though some
would not support the Wall Street bailouts)
all support those policies.
Sunil
CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
From: moscowcares at moscow.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] GPS Tracking and
Secret Policies
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2013 08:38:04 -0700
To: sunilramalingam at hotmail.com
And your suggestion is . . . ?
Seeya 'round town, Moscow, because .
. .
"Moscow Cares" (the most fun you can
have with your pants on)
http://www.MoscowCares.com
Tom Hansen
Moscow, Idaho
"There's
room at the top they are telling you
still
But
first you must learn how to smile as
you kill
If you
want to be like the folks on the
hill."
- John
Lennon
On Aug 17, 2013, at 8:34 AM, Sunil
Ramalingam <sunilramalingam at hotmail.com>
wrote:
Only if we are partisan
and blind to the consequences of his
actions.
He has normalized torture, rendition,
illegal killing of citizens...
We can't do better than this?
Sunil
CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
From: thansen at moscow.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] GPS
Tracking and Secret Policies
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2013 08:33:41
-0700
To: sunilramalingam at hotmail.com
As much as I partially agree
with you, Sunil . . .
He is still the best game in
town.
Seeya 'round town, Moscow,
because . . .
"Moscow Cares" (the most fun
you can have with your pants on)
http://www.MoscowCares.com
Tom Hansen
Moscow, Idaho
"There's
room at the top they are
telling you still
But
first you must learn how to
smile as you kill
If
you want to be like the folks
on the hill."
-
John Lennon
On Aug 17, 2013, at 8:16 AM, Sunil
Ramalingam <sunilramalingam at hotmail.com>
wrote:
Obama promised
the most transparent
administration ever, but has
instead gone after leaks and
whistleblowers with more
prosecutions than any - or is
it all put together - previous
administrations. He's against
leaks except when it suits him
politically; then leaks are
okay.
Sunil
Date:
Sat, 17 Aug 2013 07:50:57
-0400
From: art.deco.studios at gmail.com
To: vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: [Vision2020] GPS
Tracking and Secret Policies
August 16, 2013
GPS Tracking and
Secret Policies
By THE
EDITORIAL BOARD
This week brought fresh
revelations about the
National Security
Agency’s sloppy and
invasive collection of
phone data on Americans
and others, as reported
first by The Washington
Post. In another realm
of surveillance — the
government’s broad use
of location tracking
devices — the Justice
Department was in
federal court on
Thursday defending its
refusal to release memos
containing information
about its policies
governing the use of GPS
and other potentially
invasive technologies.
The American Civil
Liberties Union had
brought the lawsuit to
demand that the
department make the
memos public. The
documents were prepared
after a 2012 Supreme
Court ruling, United
States v. Jones, which
held that placement of a
hidden tracking device
on a suspect’s car
constitutes a “search”
under the Fourth
Amendment.
That case left lots of
questions unanswered,
including whether GPS
tracking always requires
a warrant based on
probable cause, and how
the Fourth Amendment
applies to tracking
someone 24/7 with
cellphone location
technology. After the
decision was released,
the F.B.I.’s general
counsel, Andrew
Weissmann, mentioned in
a public talk that the
government was issuing
memos containing
official guidance for
federal agents and
prosecutors on when they
can use tracking
technology and how the
Jones decision applies
to other types of
techniques, beyond GPS.
The public has a right
to know the government’s
policies on these
matters. There is very
good reason to be
concerned about the
government’s
interpretation of its
police powers,
especially given the
Obama administration’s
insensitivity to privacy
in its mass collection
of phone data in the
national security
sphere.
When the A.C.L.U. filed
a request for the memos
under the Freedom of
Information Act, the
Justice Department
responded by handing
over copies with the
text nearly entirely
blanked out, prompting
the lawsuit. The Justice
Department claims that
the memos were prepared
anticipating litigation
and are exempt from
disclosure because they
are a lawyer’s work
product. But to the
extent Mr. Weissmann
accurately represented
the memos, they also
amount to statements of
official policy, not
merely exchanges by
lawyers on legal
theories, which the
work-product exception
is meant to protect.
Our strong hunch is that
there is material in the
memos that can and
should be revealed
without harm to law
enforcement or the
appropriate discussion
of confidential legal
strategies. At
Thursday’s hearing,
Judge William Pauley III
said he would personally
review the documents
before deciding whether
they should be released.
It is distressing that
the administration,
which claims to welcome
a debate over the
government’s
surveillance practices,
time and again refuses
to be transparent about
those practices. Instead
of awaiting a court
order, the
administration should
release the tracking
memos on its own.
--
Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)
art.deco.studios at gmail.com
=======================================================
List services made available
by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of
the Palouse since 1994. http://www.fsr.net
mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================
=======================================================
List services made
available by First Step
Internet,
serving the communities
of the Palouse since 1994.
http://www.fsr.net
mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================
=======================================================
List services made available by
First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the
Palouse since 1994.
http://www.fsr.net
mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================
=======================================================
List services made available by First
Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse
since 1994.
http://www.fsr.net
mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================
=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
http://www.fsr.net
mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================
=======================================================
List services made available by First Step
Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since
1994.
http://www.fsr.net
mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================
=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
http://www.fsr.net
mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20130817/39a9237c/attachment-0001.html>