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

[Fred A. Miller]

Timothy Butler 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?

That's about it.

> 	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.

Ah.....but that's logical. The House and the Senate DON'T care about 
logic NOR what is right.

> 	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.

Agreed! I can see this eventually being tested by the Supremes. ;)

> 	Incidentally, I'm not sure how Sen. Clinton is a Republican -- 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.

Hehehehe......it was a slam, not made by me, indicating that most of 
those who ran for the Pres. who are supposed to be Repubs aren't. And, 
Mcain isn't either.

> 	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?

Not good enough......has to be espresso in the form of a latte or. I 
make good ones. ;)

Fred

-- 
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?