Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
60 thoughts on “EPIC FAIL”
I share much of the concern voiced here, but:
1) As Scalzi put it over on his blog “There’s no such position as ‘President of the Left'”.
2) People who like the Law and sausages shouldn’t see how either is made.
The point should be obvious. If you listen to completely reasonable arguments…”They” are right to want to listen in, and “You” are right to not want them to. The catch is in there is no really good compromise. Sucks that “unreasonable” is a little hard to define. The government goes to extraordinary lengths to protect you from intrusions that you don’t even know about them having the capacity to make. That’s not really something to brag about, however. This makes an outstanding smokescreen, though.
Pete Townsend said it all: “Meet the new boss; same as the old boss.”
* a risk of torture
* a risk to life or
* a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.
Damn, DJC you should never attempt the entire Detroit tour in one trip. Thats even too much for the most seasoned American.
As far as the U.S. Soldiers wanting asylum in Canada I can explain this phenomenon, B.C. Girls damn theyz hot.
“EPIC FAIL” is not only failing to understand your constitution; getting yer dates wrong certainly applies as well.
The Bill of Rights, of which the Fourth Amendment is part and parcel, was not ratified until 1791.
Has anyone gone to any Obama sites and asked why he voted in such a way?
First off, I am disappointed in the result of the vote on this bill, and I’m disappointed that Obama didn’t make a bigger stance on the immunity issue. But I’m more troubled about the increased domestic wiretapping ability the gov’t will have now than about potential civil lawsuits against AT&T et al.
However, I figure Obama was being a pragmatist here. Not voting on a bill this big is cowardly. Voting against it gets you labeled by Rovian opponents as being “for the terrorists.” BO was left with little choice as his campaign moves to the center for the general election. (Note to those upset about this move: it happens in both parties at every presidential election. It’s not new. Get used to it.)
I’m disappointed with the Dems in the Senate, but let’s be realistic here. To all those who say we have a “Democratically controlled Senate,” look at the party breakdown: 48 Dem, 48 Rep, 2 Ind. Does it look like anyone really controls it? Yes, they have majority status and all the power that comes with it, but when it comes down to voting they are still very much balanced out by the Republicans.
Ignorant Canadian sez: Qu’est-ce que c’est passe?
p.s. Wil, I saw David Sedaris (isn’t he a gem?) and I was able to pass along your thank you. He said you’re welcome. :p
Umm so what’s going on? The 4th amendment is dead? How does the 4th amendment go again?
@Toby O:
A Fourth Amendment refresher:
“Amendment Four
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures , shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue , but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
I share much of the concern voiced here, but:
1) As Scalzi put it over on his blog “There’s no such position as ‘President of the Left'”.
2) People who like the Law and sausages shouldn’t see how either is made.
The point should be obvious. If you listen to completely reasonable arguments…”They” are right to want to listen in, and “You” are right to not want them to. The catch is in there is no really good compromise. Sucks that “unreasonable” is a little hard to define. The government goes to extraordinary lengths to protect you from intrusions that you don’t even know about them having the capacity to make. That’s not really something to brag about, however. This makes an outstanding smokescreen, though.
Pete Townsend said it all: “Meet the new boss; same as the old boss.”
* a risk of torture
* a risk to life or
* a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.
Damn, DJC you should never attempt the entire Detroit tour in one trip. Thats even too much for the most seasoned American.
As far as the U.S. Soldiers wanting asylum in Canada I can explain this phenomenon, B.C. Girls damn theyz hot.
“EPIC FAIL” is not only failing to understand your constitution; getting yer dates wrong certainly applies as well.
The Bill of Rights, of which the Fourth Amendment is part and parcel, was not ratified until 1791.
Has anyone gone to any Obama sites and asked why he voted in such a way?
First off, I am disappointed in the result of the vote on this bill, and I’m disappointed that Obama didn’t make a bigger stance on the immunity issue. But I’m more troubled about the increased domestic wiretapping ability the gov’t will have now than about potential civil lawsuits against AT&T et al.
However, I figure Obama was being a pragmatist here. Not voting on a bill this big is cowardly. Voting against it gets you labeled by Rovian opponents as being “for the terrorists.” BO was left with little choice as his campaign moves to the center for the general election. (Note to those upset about this move: it happens in both parties at every presidential election. It’s not new. Get used to it.)
I’m disappointed with the Dems in the Senate, but let’s be realistic here. To all those who say we have a “Democratically controlled Senate,” look at the party breakdown: 48 Dem, 48 Rep, 2 Ind. Does it look like anyone really controls it? Yes, they have majority status and all the power that comes with it, but when it comes down to voting they are still very much balanced out by the Republicans.
Ignorant Canadian sez: Qu’est-ce que c’est passe?
p.s. Wil, I saw David Sedaris (isn’t he a gem?) and I was able to pass along your thank you. He said you’re welcome. :p
Umm so what’s going on? The 4th amendment is dead? How does the 4th amendment go again?
@Toby O:
A Fourth Amendment refresher:
“Amendment Four
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures , shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue , but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”