Care to elaborate on why you support amnesty for companies that violated the law and profited from it?

__________________
DILIGITE JUSTITIAM QUI JUDICATIS TERRAM

Do I care to opine on the basis of your fallacy?

Nope.

__________________
"We make war that we may live in peace"
"...peace is the highest aspiration of the American People. We will negotiate for it, sacrifice for it, we will never surrender for it, now or ever."
"War critics can no longer credibly argue that we are losing in Iraq, so now they argue the war costs too much."
"Oderint dum metuant"
http://members.cox.net/neddy/bobhope_kerfuffles.wmv
http://youtube.com/watch?v=RnfflRNpwKA
http://youtube.com/watch?v=j-QYIP7o2-A

Then what are you on this site for if not to debate? And what fallacy are you talking about? The Bill of Rights states that we have a right to to privacy unless a warrant is obtained. The government is eavesdropping on citizens without one. Whats the fallacy?

__________________
DILIGITE JUSTITIAM QUI JUDICATIS TERRAM

I wasn't replying to you to begin with.

Those who helped and will now be freed of the fear of people like you sueing them are Patriots as are the companies that aided them. Us

Helping our intelligence agencies counter terrorist actions/people/etc is worth more to me then your sense of well being.

...and that is all I have to say on it at this time or for the forseeable future.

__________________
"We make war that we may live in peace"
"...peace is the highest aspiration of the American People. We will negotiate for it, sacrifice for it, we will never surrender for it, now or ever."
"War critics can no longer credibly argue that we are losing in Iraq, so now they argue the war costs too much."
"Oderint dum metuant"
http://members.cox.net/neddy/bobhope_kerfuffles.wmv
http://youtube.com/watch?v=RnfflRNpwKA
http://youtube.com/watch?v=j-QYIP7o2-A

If I'm not in contact with Al Q, then why should I care if the goverment is listening to my conversations?

Using that same logic:

If the phone companies have done nothing wrong, why do they need retroactive protection?

__________________
While I would never deliberately mislead anyone, take into consideration that any information and advice provided was at no cost to you.

You're just trying to revive the same old lame looney-left argument that has been pretty much discredited numerous times in the past, on this board.

If you read the Fourth Amendment, you'll find it mentions something about "unreasonable" search and seizure without a warrant. I'm not worrying about the government reading any of my normal, everyday emails, because I don't correspond with any known terrorists. Now, if I were to get hold of Osama bin Laden's email address, and send him a little "Hi, how're ya doin'" note, you can bet your rearend that there would be all kinds of bells and alarms going off, and the feds would be knocking at my door. I take huge comfort in knowing that the "gatekeepers" are doing their job. I feel kind of silly arguing against a non-argument.

__________________
http://www.freedomswatch.org/Home/tabid/36/Default.aspx

When religion ruled the world...wasn't that the Dark Ages?

Its a public forum. You're replying to anyone who reads it.

Oh the poor poor NSA and multibillion dollar telecoms. However will they manage to find a lawyer to represent them? I know what you mean, they truly must be shaking in fear.

...Maybe they should have thought about what they were doing before they violated the publics trust.

And worth more than our right to privacy apparently. Don't lecture me or anyone else about hating America again if you are going to brush off such a gross violation of the Bill of Rights so easily.

Over 6500 posts on this site, and you wimp out on this issue. You really must have no rebuttal other than WARONTERRORTRUSTDAGOVERNMENT. I expected more out of you I suppose.

__________________
DILIGITE JUSTITIAM QUI JUDICATIS TERRAM

Again, I'm no loon. I just value my rights and and wary of unchecked government power, as any patriotic American should be. I'm not shouting from the rooftops or wearing tinfoil or worried about cameras in my shower. You just look silly slinging the term around.

If you read the sources provided on the site I linked to, there are plenty of people with concerns of being wiretapped that have no terrorist connections at all. They are journalists, scholars, activists, or the like. Everyday citizens have had their records turned over by telecoms. Simply making an international call is enough reason for the NSA to listen in.

If someone has terrorist connections, then by all means listen in to their talk, but do so after obtaining a warrant. No one quite seems to be able to tell me why it is so hard to obtain a warrant? They can be done in secret through the FISC, and even after surveillance has begun. Why is that not enough?

__________________
DILIGITE JUSTITIAM QUI JUDICATIS TERRAM

No I was replying to what I was replying to. As I made clear.



As for the rest of it...PERSONAL INSULT REMOVED PER TERMS OF USE.

__________________
"We make war that we may live in peace"
"...peace is the highest aspiration of the American People. We will negotiate for it, sacrifice for it, we will never surrender for it, now or ever."
"War critics can no longer credibly argue that we are losing in Iraq, so now they argue the war costs too much."
"Oderint dum metuant"
http://members.cox.net/neddy/bobhope_kerfuffles.wmv
http://youtube.com/watch?v=RnfflRNpwKA
http://youtube.com/watch?v=j-QYIP7o2-A

I don't think you quite understand how a message board works...


So you have no real rebuttal to my points, and instead just toss out a lame school yard insult. Real classy, you sure showed me. What was that about a fallacy again?

__________________
DILIGITE JUSTITIAM QUI JUDICATIS TERRAM