• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Econ, would you define for us

pointrider

Well-known member
Econ, would you define for us, please - from an economist's point of view - the following:

Capitalism

Free Enterprise

Socialism

Communism

Thanks in advance! Before the questions. let's all get on the same page.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Pointrider,

Did you really expect an honest answer from a dishonest person?

This is the guy who thinks he found fly eggs in his packaged pork loins. This is the guy who thought his phone was being tapped and it turned out to be the local phone company working on the line. This is the guy who thinks Walmart sells "USDA SELECT" as "USDA CHOICE" based on what some lady told him. This is the guy who thinks prices can't come up unless supplies come down as if "consumer demand" was not a factor on beef prices. This is the guy who claims to know so much about the Pickett case after admitting to having never read the testimony.

What did you expect?


~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
Pointrider,

Did you really expect an honest answer from a dishonest person?

This is the guy who thinks he found fly eggs in his packaged pork loins. This is the guy who thought his phone was being tapped and it turned out to be the local phone company working on the line. This is the guy who thinks Walmart sells "USDA SELECT" as "USDA CHOICE" based on what some lady told him. This is the guy who thinks prices can't come up unless supplies come down as if "consumer demand" was not a factor on beef prices. This is the guy who claims to know so much about the Pickett case after admitting to having never read the testimony.

What did you expect?


~SH~

Joined: 12 Dec 2005
Posts: 625
Location: NE Saskatchewan
Posted: Mon May 15, 2006 10:55 pm Post subject:


________________________________________
~SH~ wrote:
Your problem is that you are dishonest just like the rest of the packer blamers here.


That tears it. I may be alot of things, but I am NOT a liar. You wanted to stop tossing mud around, yet you fling it around like crap on a pitchfork. So here's a little mud for you:

You twist people's statements around and attempt to make it seem like they're lying, when its really just drivel that you spew forth like so much crap in a sewer because you lack the ability or knowledge to actually carry on a debate. When you're proved wrong, you either slink away (like you've done in both threads on Tyson financials) or you twist words around to try and slink out of the arguement with some semblance of your integrity intact.

SH, you have absolutely no business experience at all, or if you do, you were bloody incompetent at it. You have no comprehension that someone like Creekstone wouldn't want 100% BSE testing, unless they had customers who wanted it and understood the risk. Are you really so stupid and/or arrogant to believe that the Japanese don't know what 100% BSE testing means? Do you not realize that the Japanese have the internet?

You speak on these forums like you are all knowing and all seeing, yet you don't know a supply graph from a demand graph. You can't even comprehend that changes in demand shifts an ENTIRE graph or points on that graph, while movement ALONG a demand graph means that supply had to change to make the shift possible. Your knowledge of economics comes from possibly taking an Econ 100 course a dozen years ago, so you don't even have the slightest comprehension of what factors influence competition, nor what the effect would be today if we had dozens of smaller packers all competing for the producer's cattle. You can't even begin to comprehend how allowing a company into 3 competing markets is bad news for the consumer, the producer, and the world in general. You don't know because you don't have the necessary knowledge, and you are unwilling to look past your own biases to gain that knowledge.

You spew on and on about economies of scale, yet you don't even realize that the greatest economies of scale come about in ONE plant or manufacturing facility and the addition of more plants only means that a single company can service a larger area, or it allows them to make less money per article produced while still maintaining financial health. You don't even realize that concentrated markets in virtually all sectors of the economy has meant decreasing profit margins for virtually all primary producers, whether they be grain, livestock, lumber or mining.

You utter garbage about how the grain market is completely different than the livestock market, yet you have no knowledge of the grain market at all. You haven't been able to get past your own ego and bias to actually pick up a book and read about the history of grain elevator companies and the formation of the co-operative grain effort.

You yip and yap about the Canadian market, yet you don't have any idea what happens up here. You don't understand the market, you can't even comprehend that a single packing plant servicing an ENTIRE province is insufficient to ensure adequate competition.

You spew on about cuts of beef, and you attempt to decieve people into believing that an 800 lb carcass truly is necessary for the cuts of beef that consumers want. Obviously, you know nothing of meat cutting. While I'm certainly not a cutter, at least I can get past my own ego to call a quality butcher and ask him what size of carcass is required to get the average cuts you see on a store shelf. You should try it sometime. Try to get past what you think you know, and find out what you truly know.

I'm finished with you twisting words around. I'll deliver the proof of the grids when I have a chance to dig through my own books and Gerald has an opportunity to do the same. I'll spell it out in black and white so you can comprehend it, even though I know your ego and bias won't allow you to see past the truth of raw numbers.

You should go back to your government job, SH. You lack the necessary quality of character to be a leader in an industry so desperately in need of leadership.

Rod
 

flounder

Well-known member
SH wrote about econ;

> Econ, would you define for us

snip...

> This is the guy who thought his phone was being tapped and it

> turned out to be the local phone company working on the line.



hey there SH, maybe old econ was on to something


NSA secret database report triggers fierce debate in Washington

Updated 5/11/2006 11:29 PM ET



By Susan Page, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — A massive government database containing the phone records of tens of millions of Americans — reported by USA TODAY on Thursday — marks the modern intersection of two powerful emerging forces: terrorism and technology.
And the firestorm sparked by disclosure of the National Security Agency project mirrors a debate that dates to the nation's founding, and before, over balancing the interests of the government with the rights of individuals.

"It's an issue of our times — a huge issue," said Clayton Northouse, editor of Protecting What Matters: Technology, Security, and Liberty since 9/11, published last month.

VIDEO: Bush defends program | Sen. Leahy reacts

"In the lead-up to 9/11, a lot of the terrorists left a lot of information trails that could have potentially been tracked down. ... But then we bump up against the need to protect civil liberties in this new environment. How can we maintain people's privacy while maintaining the usefulness of the information?"

The White House moved quickly to try to shape the debate. President Bush appeared before TV cameras midday Thursday to say the administration has always acted within the law and protected Americans' privacy while doing everything possible to prevent terrorist attacks.

"Al-Qaeda is our enemy, and we want to know their plans," Bush said before heading to Mississippi to give a speech on Hurricane Katrina relief. He didn't provide any specifics about the program, however, and walked away without responding to questions from reporters.

On Capitol Hill, Democrats expressed outrage over the secret project, and some leading Republicans — House Majority Leader John Boehner of Ohio and Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania among them — expressed concern.

"Are you telling me tens of millions of Americans are involved with al-Qaeda?" Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, railed at a morning hearing. "These are tens of millions of Americans who are not suspected of anything."

Specter said he would call executives from AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth — the companies that supplied to the NSA their records on cellphone and land-line calls made from millions of homes, businesses and government offices — "to find out exactly what is going on."

The confirmation hearings scheduled to open next week on the nomination of Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden, a former director of the NSA, to head the CIA also are likely to become a forum for exploring questions about what the program entailed and how it was approved.

Bush has argued that he has far-reaching authority to approve NSA activities under his constitutional role as commander in chief. In the past, he also has cited a congressional resolution, passed after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, authorizing him to use "all necessary and appropriate force" against those responsible for the attacks.

"If all they're doing is have a computer program anonymously select people who are making phone calls to known terrorists or something like that, I don't see a problem," said Robert Turner, director of the University of Virginia's Center for National Security Law.

"That's not comparable to going into our bedrooms or even listening to our conversations," Turner said. "Stopping terrorist attacks is the greatest of our national interests."

No warrants

Among the controversies over the database, however, is that it was built without court warrants or the approval of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, a panel of federal judges established to issue secret warrants, according to people with direct knowledge of the arrangement.

Some critics questioned whether the administration's warrantless programs violate the Constitution's Fourth Amendment, which bars "unreasonable searches and seizures" and requires warrants for searches, as well as the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) that established the secret court.

Harold Koh, dean of Yale Law School and author of The National Security Constitution, called the scope of the database "quite shocking."

"If they had gone to Congress and said, 'We want to do this without probable cause, without warrants and without judicial review,' it never would have been approved," said Koh, a former law clerk for the late Supreme Court justice Harry Blackmun.

"I don't think any FISA court would have approved this kind of scale of activity."

As a general rule, telecommunications companies require law enforcement agencies to present a court order before they will turn over a customer's phone records. Under Section 222 of the Communications Act, first passed in 1934, phone companies are prohibited from giving out information about their customers' calling habits.

Senate Finance Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, questioned why the phone companies would cooperate with the NSA.

"Why are the telephone companies not protecting their customers?" he said. "They have a social responsibility to people who do business with them to protect our privacy as long as there isn't some suspicion that we're a terrorist or a criminal or something."

One major telecommunications company, Qwest, did refuse to participate in the NSA program because of concerns about its expansiveness and the lack of judicial oversight, USA TODAY reported.

Some Republicans defended the program and called the outcry against it overblown.

"This is nuts," said Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz. "We are in a war, and we have got to collect intelligence on the enemy."

Finding where to draw the line

Since 9/11, Americans have debated and disagreed over how to balance security with liberty.

As time has passed, the instinct to protect civil liberties has grown. Four months after the attacks, in January 2002, Americans split 47%-49% in the USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll when asked whether the government should take steps to prevent terrorism even if it meant violating basic civil liberties.

Nearly four years later, in December 2005, however, when the question was repeated, Americans by more than two to one — 65%-31% — said the government shouldn't take steps against terrorism that would violate basic civil liberties.

A year after the 9/11 attacks, in September 2002, 55% of Americans said the Bush administration had been "about right" in restricting people's liberties in order to fight terrorism; just 15% said the administration had gone too far.

This year, the public is almost evenly divided on that question. In a January 2006 survey, 40% said the administration had been about right, but 38% said it had gone too far.

Even the friendly crowd gathered Thursday outside the Mississippi Coast Coliseum in Biloxi, hoping for a glimpse of Bush, was divided on whether the NSA program was acceptable.

"If you've got anything to hide, stay off the phone," Carol Cuevas, 57, a banker from Gautier, Miss., advised with a laugh.

Nearby, Gladys Skinner, 42, a laundress from Gulfport, wasn't so sure. She liked Bush but had qualms about the program. "It's invading people's privacy," she said. "How can we be sure they're not listening?"

Actually, the program doesn't involve monitoring the content of telephone conversations, USA TODAY reported. The NSA is expert at using computers to review vast quantities of digital data — such as phone numbers — to identify patterns of activity.

Customers' names, street addresses and other personal information are not being handed over as part of the program, USA TODAY reported. But the telephone numbers the NSA collects can easily be cross-checked with other databases to obtain that information.

A boost for Bush?

In terms of the likely political fallout from this controversy, some Republicans argued that the debate could turn to Bush's advantage by focusing on his efforts to fight terrorism — still the area in which he gets his strongest ratings, though his standing on this and other issues has eroded. Last month, 48% approved of Bush's handling of terrorism; 50% disapproved.

"At first it sounds like, well, people's privacy is being violated, but the more people learn about it, the more it plays to the president's benefit," said GOP strategist Charlie Black, a regular adviser to the Bush White House.

"If you think about it, going back to 9/11, every time the Democrats have disagreed with the president on a significant security issue, they have lost politically — every single time," Black said.

In 2004, Democrat John Kerry sought to tap unease over the Iraq war in his challenge to Bush's re-election. But surveys of voters as they left polling places in 2004 found that the president's stance on terrorism was the strongest single factor behind his re-election.

Democratic strategist Peter Fenn said that issue may be losing its edge for Bush. Fenn was assigned to examine the NSA in 1975 as a staffer on the so-called Church Committee, a Senate panel that investigated intelligence agency abuses in the wake of the Watergate scandal.

"On balance, voters have given the president a lot of latitude when it comes to fighting terror and personal freedoms," Fenn said. "They have given him the benefit of the doubt. But when our telephone companies are turning over every telephone record without responding to any kind of warrant, I think people are concerned about executive power run amok."

He predicted the issue also would divide and disenchant some conservatives worried about the expansion of government power. Bush's support among conservatives has dipped significantly in recent months.

What Congress knew

Bush said "appropriate members of Congress, both Republican and Democrat," had been briefed about the NSA program. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn.; Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.; and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., acknowledged receiving some briefings.

Pelosi said, however, that she hadn't been told all of the information included in the USA TODAY story. And all but a handful of lawmakers learned of the program for the first time in the news account.

"Unfortunately, a lot of this goes on clandestinely, and ... it takes a journalist to discover its existence," Northouse said. "Congress doesn't know what's going on and is dependent on the news media to tell them what's going on in DOD (Department of Defense) or the CIA, just because there's no formal mechanisms for oversight."

The Pentagon has built several large databases of information, part of its intelligence-gathering within the borders of the USA that has dramatically expanded since 9/11.

A Pentagon data-mining program called Total Information Awareness (TIA) provoked an enormous controversy when it was disclosed in 2003.

The project scanned information in e-mails and commercial databases of health, financial and travel companies in the USA and overseas in an effort to spot patterns linked to terrorism. The leader of the program was John Poindexter, a Reagan national security adviser implicated in the Iran-contra scandal.

After protests from both liberal and conservative lawmakers and advocacy groups, Congress voted to prohibit the use of TIA technology against Americans without congressional approval.

The objections to the telephone database Thursday also crossed party and ideological lines.

"This is an outrageous invasion of privacy and a frightening expansion of government power," said Bob Barr, a former Georgia congressman and conservative Republican who served as one of the House managers of President Clinton's impeachment.

Ralph Neas, president of the liberal group People for the American Way, used similar language in calling the program "an unconscionable infringement on the rights and freedoms that are the birthright of every American."

He added, "We can destroy the terrorists without shredding the Constitution and the Bill of Rights."

Boehner, the House Republican leader, said he is "concerned" about the program. "I'm not sure why it was necessary for us to keep and have that kind of information."

On the other hand, Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., argued that there was nothing to worry about. "I don't think this action is nearly as troublesome as being made out here," he said, "because they are not tapping our phones."

Contributing: Leslie Cauley, David Jackson, Kathy Kiely, Andrea Stone, wire reports

Posted 5/11/2006 3:58 PM ET



TSS :shock:
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Many of the laws regarding private communication rights in the U.S. for citizens was a reaction to the Nixon whitehouse of using government power for political purposes. The same thing is happening right now.

No one cares about the U.S. govt. trying to use data or information for terrorist surveillance. The FSIS allows for wiretaps when it goes through a court. They even have automatic rights to wiretap and then can go through the courts to get a warrant. The key here is that there is a record of the wiretap and of the information the govt. is gathering and analyzing to make sure it is not being used for political purposes. Under this administration's definition, none of these protections are afforded to U.S. citizens and abuse of power is allowed. The oversight committees are just seeing if they can get away with not doing anything in regards to thier own political circumstances. They don't believe in the precepts of our nation's founding nor in the meaning of integrity. They are running the country on crisis mode.

It is de ja vu all over again.

The abuse of power from this administration under the guise of protecting us from terrorism is just plain appalling. "Trust me" has been a little overused. Bush is in the worst place you can be in politics but it is because he has put unethical/incompetent people in positions of power that answer to him only. The "decider" needs a little more integrity in his administration and the real republicans need to stand up. They are not doing it in the agriculture oversight committees and therefore are complicit in the frauds.

If this is what the Republican party is at its base, they are in for some long term trouble.

The worst thing than a very liberal democrat is a republican with no integrity or one that is corrupt or unethical. They do for themselves the very thing they decry the liberal democrats do for the people---give unnecessary and unfair advantage to those who do not deserve it.
 

Happy go lucky

Well-known member
I don't buy all this on the phone tapping garbage! If anyone thinks people have the time and will power to listen to me talk on a phone to a friend or relative then you must be crazy! How many phone calls are made each day in the US? both hard line and cell phone and 2 way walkie talkie on nextel? Some think the governemnt has got 1,000's of people llistening in on all these calls? To what hear their politcal views? Get real another of the Dems moves to try and tarnish the current administration with no backbone to the complaint at all.

I can listen in on any portable phone and any cell phone in the bands that can be had on a scanner and so can veryone else, you have been able to do it for many,many years. The old 2 party lines where the same way. Who wants to or has the time to devote to listneing in on all calls? If they want to listen let them, they won't hear much and I really doubt they have the power and people to sit and listen to millions of pfone calls each and every day. Don't you think they are smart enough to have some protocol to get the ones that will help keep us safe? No let's just pas 1,000's to sit around and listen to aunt mable give her nieace the cake receipe for a half hour. We have many more issues in the US that takes higher priority than this phone tapping and who has been misused and abused by this? Can anyone give factual cases? If ya got um let's hear about them.
 

ocm

Well-known member
pointrider said:
Econ, would you define for us, please - from an economist's point of view - the following:

Capitalism

Free Enterprise

Socialism

Communism

Thanks in advance! Before the questions. let's all get on the same page.

Using those four words and only those four words, how would you describe China.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Happy go lucky said:
I don't buy all this on the phone tapping garbage! If anyone thinks people have the time and will power to listen to me talk on a phone to a friend or relative then you must be crazy! How many phone calls are made each day in the US? both hard line and cell phone and 2 way walkie talkie on nextel? Some think the governemnt has got 1,000's of people llistening in on all these calls? To what hear their politcal views? Get real another of the Dems moves to try and tarnish the current administration with no backbone to the complaint at all.

I can listen in on any portable phone and any cell phone in the bands that can be had on a scanner and so can veryone else, you have been able to do it for many,many years. The old 2 party lines where the same way. Who wants to or has the time to devote to listneing in on all calls? If they want to listen let them, they won't hear much and I really doubt they have the power and people to sit and listen to millions of pfone calls each and every day. Don't you think they are smart enough to have some protocol to get the ones that will help keep us safe? No let's just pas 1,000's to sit around and listen to aunt mable give her nieace the cake receipe for a half hour. We have many more issues in the US that takes higher priority than this phone tapping and who has been misused and abused by this? Can anyone give factual cases? If ya got um let's hear about them.

Happy, I tend to agree with you to an extent. Anyone listening to my phone calls is just wasting their time. They will never get any real good information from me that way. There are times, however, when I am interested in keeping my contacts private. Ask any large business doing any big transaction and they will tell you the same thing. It isn't all about politics, sometimes it is about business information that rivals can use to their own purpose.

Don't worry, no one is really interested in stealing cake recipes. That is probably why they will not ever listen in on aunt mable.

During Watergate, it was Nixon using the intelligence gathering information for political purposes. That is the thing that knocked him out of office. I doubt G. Gordon Liddy would be interested in your aunt mable's information either.

The issue is whether or not the U.S. govt. is using their powers to collect information for industrial espionage, political espionage, blackmail, etc.... the list goes on.

There should be a check on the ability of the govt. to use government resources against the people in the U.S. and there is. The check is not being used as the Pres. thinks he can hide behind the idea that he is not doing any of these things (trust me) when doing this kind of surveillance.

To think it has anything to do or not do with a cake recipe is small time thinking. A check with the FSIS's court filings should be all there is to do to prove that nothing untoward is being done. We don't even have that right now. They should have a record of who they are listening in on and it should be filed with the court---it is the law----and it protects us all from an out of control government.
 

agman

Well-known member
Econ101 said:
Many of the laws regarding private communication rights in the U.S. for citizens was a reaction to the Nixon whitehouse of using government power for political purposes. The same thing is happening right now.

No one cares about the U.S. govt. trying to use data or information for terrorist surveillance. The FSIS allows for wiretaps when it goes through a court. They even have automatic rights to wiretap and then can go through the courts to get a warrant. The key here is that there is a record of the wiretap and of the information the govt. is gathering and analyzing to make sure it is not being used for political purposes. Under this administration's definition, none of these protections are afforded to U.S. citizens and abuse of power is allowed. The oversight committees are just seeing if they can get away with not doing anything in regards to thier own political circumstances. They don't believe in the precepts of our nation's founding nor in the meaning of integrity. They are running the country on crisis mode.

It is de ja vu all over again.

The abuse of power from this administration under the guise of protecting us from terrorism is just plain appalling. "Trust me" has been a little overused. Bush is in the worst place you can be in politics but it is because he has put unethical/incompetent people in positions of power that answer to him only. The "decider" needs a little more integrity in his administration and the real republicans need to stand up. They are not doing it in the agriculture oversight committees and therefore are complicit in the frauds.

If this is what the Republican party is at its base, they are in for some long term trouble.

The worst thing than a very liberal democrat is a republican with no integrity or one that is corrupt or unethical. They do for themselves the very thing they decry the liberal democrats do for the people---give unnecessary and unfair advantage to those who do not deserve it.

In all due respect the FISA courts are not up to speed with terrorist mobility-physical and transmitted. It is not the simple process to gain a FISA warrant as some claim. How would I know this? I just happen to have a relative and very close friend involved in intelligence gathering for the government and he has been to the FISA courts over forty times. By the time you even get to a judge terrorists have switched phones and locations multiple times. The system needs drastic revision to compete on the terrorist's turf if our intelligence gathering efforts are to succeed in providing maximum protection for the U.S. Most Americans did not disapprove of the NSA listening in to suspect terrorist conversations. Most citizens have more common sense than most politicians and certainly all leftist lawyers concerning this issue.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
agman said:
Econ101 said:
Many of the laws regarding private communication rights in the U.S. for citizens was a reaction to the Nixon whitehouse of using government power for political purposes. The same thing is happening right now.

No one cares about the U.S. govt. trying to use data or information for terrorist surveillance. The FSIS allows for wiretaps when it goes through a court. They even have automatic rights to wiretap and then can go through the courts to get a warrant. The key here is that there is a record of the wiretap and of the information the govt. is gathering and analyzing to make sure it is not being used for political purposes. Under this administration's definition, none of these protections are afforded to U.S. citizens and abuse of power is allowed. The oversight committees are just seeing if they can get away with not doing anything in regards to thier own political circumstances. They don't believe in the precepts of our nation's founding nor in the meaning of integrity. They are running the country on crisis mode.

It is de ja vu all over again.

The abuse of power from this administration under the guise of protecting us from terrorism is just plain appalling. "Trust me" has been a little overused. Bush is in the worst place you can be in politics but it is because he has put unethical/incompetent people in positions of power that answer to him only. The "decider" needs a little more integrity in his administration and the real republicans need to stand up. They are not doing it in the agriculture oversight committees and therefore are complicit in the frauds.

If this is what the Republican party is at its base, they are in for some long term trouble.

The worst thing than a very liberal democrat is a republican with no integrity or one that is corrupt or unethical. They do for themselves the very thing they decry the liberal democrats do for the people---give unnecessary and unfair advantage to those who do not deserve it.

In all due respect the FISA courts are not up to speed with terrorist mobility-physical and transmitted. It is not the simple process to gain a FISA warrant as some claim. How would I know this? I just happen to have a relative and very close friend involved in intelligence gathering for the government and he has been to the FISA courts over forty times. By the time you even get to a judge terrorists have switched phones and locations multiple times. The system needs drastic revision to compete on the terrorist's turf if our intelligence gathering efforts are to succeed in providing maximum protection for the U.S. Most Americans did not disapprove of the NSA listening in to suspect terrorist conversations. Most citizens have more common sense than most politicians and certainly all leftist lawyers concerning this issue.

I just happen to have a relative and very close friend involved in intelligence gathering for the government and he has been to the FISA courts....

So do I, Agman.

The FISA court may be an extra step, but Congress has given plenty of time to do the surveillance while the FISA courts do their thing. The FISA judge resigned over the fact that the administration doesn't want to go through the FISA step as the law requires. GW has lead such a sheltered life because his father was Pres and in intelligence that he believes he doesn't have to follow the law as long as he can sell a "good reason". Typical elitist view.

It is amazing to me that GW espouses the rule of law abroad while ignoring it at home. It is a self serving attitude.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
HGL,

Don't hold your breath waiting for proof to back the phone tapping allegations. If proof was required to back every allegation, the "Lying King" and "The Master of ILLUSION" would disappear immediately. The only thing that keeps those guys having anything to say is conspiracy theories.


~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
HGL,

Don't hold your breath waiting for proof to back the phone tapping allegations. If proof was required to back every allegation, the "Lying King" and "The Master of ILLUSION" would disappear immediately. The only thing that keeps those guys having anything to say is conspiracy theories.


~SH~

SH, there is never enough proof to contradict your bias. Keep calling names, keep acting childish, let everyone know your age equivalent.

I have been to South Dakota so I know you are not a representative sample of that state or its people.

Thank goodness.

SH, have you read the OGC report yet?
 

agman

Well-known member
Econ101 said:
agman said:
Econ101 said:
Many of the laws regarding private communication rights in the U.S. for citizens was a reaction to the Nixon whitehouse of using government power for political purposes. The same thing is happening right now.

No one cares about the U.S. govt. trying to use data or information for terrorist surveillance. The FSIS allows for wiretaps when it goes through a court. They even have automatic rights to wiretap and then can go through the courts to get a warrant. The key here is that there is a record of the wiretap and of the information the govt. is gathering and analyzing to make sure it is not being used for political purposes. Under this administration's definition, none of these protections are afforded to U.S. citizens and abuse of power is allowed. The oversight committees are just seeing if they can get away with not doing anything in regards to thier own political circumstances. They don't believe in the precepts of our nation's founding nor in the meaning of integrity. They are running the country on crisis mode.

It is de ja vu all over again.

The abuse of power from this administration under the guise of protecting us from terrorism is just plain appalling. "Trust me" has been a little overused. Bush is in the worst place you can be in politics but it is because he has put unethical/incompetent people in positions of power that answer to him only. The "decider" needs a little more integrity in his administration and the real republicans need to stand up. They are not doing it in the agriculture oversight committees and therefore are complicit in the frauds.

If this is what the Republican party is at its base, they are in for some long term trouble.

The worst thing than a very liberal democrat is a republican with no integrity or one that is corrupt or unethical. They do for themselves the very thing they decry the liberal democrats do for the people---give unnecessary and unfair advantage to those who do not deserve it.

In all due respect the FISA courts are not up to speed with terrorist mobility-physical and transmitted. It is not the simple process to gain a FISA warrant as some claim. How would I know this? I just happen to have a relative and very close friend involved in intelligence gathering for the government and he has been to the FISA courts over forty times. By the time you even get to a judge terrorists have switched phones and locations multiple times. The system needs drastic revision to compete on the terrorist's turf if our intelligence gathering efforts are to succeed in providing maximum protection for the U.S. Most Americans did not disapprove of the NSA listening in to suspect terrorist conversations. Most citizens have more common sense than most politicians and certainly all leftist lawyers concerning this issue.

I just happen to have a relative and very close friend involved in intelligence gathering for the government and he has been to the FISA courts....

So do I, Agman.

The FISA court may be an extra step, but Congress has given plenty of time to do the surveillance while the FISA courts do their thing. The FISA judge resigned over the fact that the administration doesn't want to go through the FISA step as the law requires. GW has lead such a sheltered life because his father was Pres and in intelligence that he believes he doesn't have to follow the law as long as he can sell a "good reason". Typical elitist view.


It is amazing to me that GW espouses the rule of law abroad while ignoring it at home. It is a self serving attitude.


Who believes anything you say? All you do is make up phony accusations and perpetuate your version of events which are a gross distortion from reality.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
agman said:
Econ101 said:
agman said:
In all due respect the FISA courts are not up to speed with terrorist mobility-physical and transmitted. It is not the simple process to gain a FISA warrant as some claim. How would I know this? I just happen to have a relative and very close friend involved in intelligence gathering for the government and he has been to the FISA courts over forty times. By the time you even get to a judge terrorists have switched phones and locations multiple times. The system needs drastic revision to compete on the terrorist's turf if our intelligence gathering efforts are to succeed in providing maximum protection for the U.S. Most Americans did not disapprove of the NSA listening in to suspect terrorist conversations. Most citizens have more common sense than most politicians and certainly all leftist lawyers concerning this issue.

I just happen to have a relative and very close friend involved in intelligence gathering for the government and he has been to the FISA courts....

So do I, Agman.

The FISA court may be an extra step, but Congress has given plenty of time to do the surveillance while the FISA courts do their thing. The FISA judge resigned over the fact that the administration doesn't want to go through the FISA step as the law requires. GW has lead such a sheltered life because his father was Pres and in intelligence that he believes he doesn't have to follow the law as long as he can sell a "good reason". Typical elitist view.


It is amazing to me that GW espouses the rule of law abroad while ignoring it at home. It is a self serving attitude.


Who believes anything you say? All you do is make up phony accusations and perpetuate your version of events which are a gross distortion from reality.

No one has to believe anything I say----if they can think for themselves. Obviously a lot of people do, Agman. If you don't want to be included in that group, it is totally up to you.

By the way, did you watch the Frontline show on "The End of Retirement?"

If I am a little cynical it is because there is plenty of evidence to support that view.
 

agman

Well-known member
Econ101 said:
agman said:
Econ101 said:
I just happen to have a relative and very close friend involved in intelligence gathering for the government and he has been to the FISA courts....

So do I, Agman.

The FISA court may be an extra step, but Congress has given plenty of time to do the surveillance while the FISA courts do their thing. The FISA judge resigned over the fact that the administration doesn't want to go through the FISA step as the law requires. GW has lead such a sheltered life because his father was Pres and in intelligence that he believes he doesn't have to follow the law as long as he can sell a "good reason". Typical elitist view.


It is amazing to me that GW espouses the rule of law abroad while ignoring it at home. It is a self serving attitude.


Who believes anything you say? All you do is make up phony accusations and perpetuate your version of events which are a gross distortion from reality.

No one has to believe anything I say----if they can think for themselves. Obviously a lot of people do, Agman. If you don't want to be included in that group, it is totally up to you.

By the way, did you watch the Frontline show on "The End of Retirement?"

If I am a little cynical it is because there is plenty of evidence to support that view.

It would be unfortunate for anyone to believe anything you say. Your stream of unsupported accusations says alot about you and nothing about those whom you accuse. Accusatory comments are often cheap, from you they have proven to be totally worthless.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
agman said:
Econ101 said:
agman said:
Who believes anything you say? All you do is make up phony accusations and perpetuate your version of events which are a gross distortion from reality.

No one has to believe anything I say----if they can think for themselves. Obviously a lot of people do, Agman. If you don't want to be included in that group, it is totally up to you.

By the way, did you watch the Frontline show on "The End of Retirement?"

If I am a little cynical it is because there is plenty of evidence to support that view.

It would be unfortunate for anyone to believe anything you say. Your stream of unsupported accusations says alot about you and nothing about those whom you accuse. Accusatory comments are often cheap, from you they have proven to be totally worthless.

Agman, I think you have written your own epitaph here.

Front line does a whole show on our argument on ERISA and UAL supporting my arguments and dismissing your counter claims in our previous discussion cheating thousands of americans out of their earned retirement, very well documented, and all you have to say is the above.

Next time you see an old person working in this country becauses of these types of frauds, you should feel ashamed.

The problem is that people like you oftentimes put their self interest above their social conscience.

It is not a good quality.
 

Latest posts

Top