[OFB Cafe] PD: Something to Fan the Flames... OFB Endorses Candidates

[Fred Smith]

On Feb 12, 2008, at 3:30 PM, Timothy Butler <tbutler at ofb.biz> wrote:

>> http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/
>> roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00015
>>
>> McCain went on record today to say that he doesn't think the
>> constitution is worth the paper it's printed on.   Clinton, the other
>> republican running for president, had more important things to do  
>> than
>> to weigh in on the debate.   Obama was the only major candidate to  
>> say
>> that the fourth amendment means anything.
>>
>> Anyone who is aware of this fact, and still casts a vote for McCain  
>> or
>> Clinton deserves the police state they'll get.
>
>    Fred, perhaps you can enlighten me on this, because I've thought
> about it a lot. I oppose the PATRIOT Act and a lot of the other
> excesses of the Bush Administration (despite being a Republican --
> that's why I liked Ron Paul, though he had no chance). I've published
> a lengthy critique of the PATRIOT Act on my site, even. That said, I
> don't understand this bill. The government orders companies like AT&T
> to cooperate, and the companies do so. Companies that don't cooperate
> face the potential of serious government inference, right? So, the
> companies cooperate. Now, having cooperated in good faith, the Feds
> pull out their support of the companies and let them hang?
>

The companies were aware that they were doing something illegal, but  
did it anyway.   "just following orders" is never an excuse.  If at&t  
is let off the hook, it sends a message that it's easier and safer to  
help the government do illegal things than to tell them off the way  
qwest did.


>    As a consumer, I don't want my ISP spying on me -- make no mistake
> about it. But, if the government is the one that initiated the
> spying, I shouldn't be able to sue the ISP, I should have to take up
> my case against the government, it seems to me.
>
>    Am I missing something? I'm genuinely curious, because, like I  
> said,
> I agree with you in principle on the issue this arises from, I'm just
> not sure the proper place of the liability is in the private sector
> when the problem was one in the public sector. Wouldn't this set a
> dangerous precedent where companies are damned if they don't
> cooperate with the government, but also must fear being damned if
> they do and the government's policy becomes unpopular? It seems to
> me, if nothing else, the government should be obligated to pay
> whatever settlements the ISPs end up having to make.
>
>    Incidentally, I'm not sure how Sen. Clinton is a Republican

She's a war hawk, a corporate shill, and an authoritarian.  That's the  
republican platform to a 't'.


> on
> all the major issues she seems to be almost indiscernible from the
> senator from the great state neighboring me, only he seems to know
> how to bring a frenzied, revivialist-like emotionalism upon his
> listeners and she does not.
>
>    Then again none of the candidates are ideal. How about I just run
> for president and everyone on this list can vote for me? A non-
> Windows computer on every desk and a free coffee for everyone. How's
> that for a platform?
>
>    -Tim
>
>
> ---
> Timothy R. Butler | "He that has and a little tiny wit—
> Editor, OFB.biz   | With hey, ho, the wind and the rain,—
> tbutler at ofb.biz   | Must make content with his fortunes fit,
> timothybutler.us  | For the rain it raineth every day."
>                                   -- Feste the Fool (Shakespeare)
> _______________________________________________
> OfB Cafe - Cafe at ofb.biz
> Brought to you by your friends at Open for Business.
> http://ofb.biz/mailman/listinfo/cafe_ofb.biz
>
> DISCLAIMER: The views expressed on this mailinglist are the personal
> opinions of the author and do not represent those of Open for  
> Business.