@55378008_GitEmSteveDave: BTW, if anyone watched/listened/read the debates, Obama said right there that if he wanted to know what his foreign policy was, he would consult pretty much all conservatives/Republicans. I think his ticket was happy that so many people blindly followed him w/o asking too many questions, b/c if they did, they might have found out exactly how much "business as usual" means "change". This video just begins to show what I mean:
Bunk. Plain and simple. How about an eye for an eye? We should get to listen to his day to day non work related phone conversations too. It would only be fair.
I hate to say it but I am going to and you can hate me for it, but this Presidency scares my more then any other I have lived through. I have hope but there is this underlying fear that this country might change in a way we all are not ready and willing to except. Yes change is good if it is in the right direction, but things could go south pretty fast if we all don't do something about it and stand up for our rights. Things are so fragile right now and if he doesn't handle the U.S. with kid gloves it's going to hit the fan and we will all pay. I don't care who you are, you have no right to invade my privacy and take notes on my life. I am not trying to hide anything but I would hate to see this glorious country founded on freedom and the right to pursue individual happiness crumble at the strong hold of a head strong leader. I pray he knows what he is doing....we all shall see and pay the consequences. -good or bad
oh and I am not right or left, more of the independent nature much like our fathers who came before us.
@Philip Marquis: Do you honestly believe that Hillary was any different? Taxes were increased under Bill. And they needed to be. She isn't a moderate, she's a far-right liberal in a moderate's clothing.
Bush's tax cuts were in response to the fact that the economy was fucking tanking before Bill left office. He inherited a recession that was further exacerbated by Sept 11th.
@Lite: is gonna die twice: People seem to forget the dotcom bubble bursting before Bill left office. How we cycled down, then came back up, like we will now. I think our biggest problem is the country as a whole goes apeshit crazy and we hit a new high point, which just makes the inevitable low point lower. If that makes sense.
@GMoney749: Watch "Countdown" from 1/21/09 and 1/22/09. A former analyst and whistleblower was the guest, talking about how all communication is monitored. Even domestic.
I can't understand why people are so against this. If the government wants to listen to my phone calls, I would have absolutely no problem with it. Because I have nothing to hide. I just don't understand what the problem is with you liberals... it's like you want our country to be attacked again or something.
@Dan Bock: Again, the issue seems to be lost on people when it's not obtrusive. If, for example, government workers decided that every month, they'll come and take a thorough inspection of your home, you'd probably get a little tired of that really friggin' quick. Whether you have anything to hide is not the issue. Not in the least.
@Dan Bock: Guess what. I'm not a liberal and even I don't support the Patriot act.
Basically what you're espousing is the Puritanical roots of our country, not what the law says. That all people are morally corrupt, and therefore should be suspect.
@Dan Bock: I will say this once more: The "I have nothing to hide" argument is pure and straight-up bullshit.
This is a matter of convenience. For as long as the scrutiny is invisible, no one minds. Your safety is not guaranteed by stricter delving into the personal affairs of the population. If you were to sift through every home with a fine tooth comb, it won't actually make you safer, but at the same time, it will actually introduce a more formidable foe, that being the government itself. Granted, it hasn't gotten nearly as bad as the picture I painted above, but I truly believe that the tipping point for people is only when things become an impedance. If suddenly there were random bag searches on the sidewalk, and police asked you for your ID without cause, if you were pulled over on the highway just so that they can search your trunk, it's very possible that they could catch a criminal in the middle of doing something dreadful, but does this truly justify the strict controls? My answer, is no.
@Jesus Diaz: Yeah, some thing's won't change. Dropping one case doesn't mean that other, stronger ones, can't be brought later on. Cripes. The guy hasn't even popped his first weekend beer as President, and already Jesus Diaz, Philip Marquis, Dan Bock and a host of others are swinging from the rafters over one or more things that hasn't changed or gone the way they'd prefer.
It's government. It's slow. Somtimes good government means coming to compromises nobody likes but everyone can live with. Cut the man a little slack. Nobody's going to like everything he does. Let's keep a little perspective. Let's be patient. Mmmkay?
@ninjagin: There's a reason why I said I believe in the man, and I voted for him, but I'm waiting to reserve judgment on his ability to be a good president until he actually does something.
If this report turns out to be true, then I hope that we all will take him to task in 4 years when he's up for re-election.
Along the lines of the article early this morning about Yang being murdered... this has no business being in Giz. If, you want to discuss the wiretapping methods I'm on board. However, if I wanted to read a bunch of ignorant political rants (such as the original post), I'd go to a different blog, turn on the news or listen to Rush Limbaugh's radio show.
@Scott Funk: Actually, I have no problem w/ the Yang murder information being posted here. These are people who have come to the US for technical training. It also talked about how the notification system was used after the event. Which is a technology put in place after Cho's attack a few years ago.
@Kaiser 'Google Street View' Machead: agree. Wire tap and film me for all I care. If you arent breaking the law who gives a $%^&. All I can say is it will be the most boring crap they will every watch or listen to.
@MorganRW: I mainly take issue with the "I'm not guilty so I don't care" argument, mainly because there's a difference between observing suspects and violating the sanctity of an innocent person's privacy. In situations where there are security protocols, like entering a courthouse or a federal building, I can understand the broad and indiscriminate scrutiny within the confines of those facilities, but there's always a line to draw, I feel. Would this argument still stick when a cop randomly asks for your identification on a public street even if you weren't doing anything? I think people don't mind how far reaching this sort of thing goes when it's largely invisible. Just remember: Once something is initiated, it's often hard to prevent it from expanding, and even harder to make it stop.
@MorganRW: The reason it is illegal is because it goes directly against the tenants of innocent until proven guilty. Which is actually a reversal in process from many countries in Europe where you are required to prove your innocence once accused.
It isn't about whether or not you're guilty, it's about Roe vs Wade. The basic expectation of privacy as a right.
You're dead wrong. They aren't accusing anybody of anything, they are simply listening for suspicious activity. If they hear you admitting to a murder over the phone, the same rules still apply... they can't use that evidence against you in a trial... but if they hear you plotting a bombing, they can use that info to stop the bombing (but not to prosecute you)
People like you are an embarrassment to the country because you prance along like you know what you're talking about, but in reality you have no clue.
@Dan Bock: Actually, people like you are. The people who are willing to roll over and smile at anything the government does in the name of "protecting the people".
Kind of how gays are unable to marry because it protects the rights of non-gays. That somehow them being able to marry would cheapen marriage.
It is your civil duty and right to question and demand answers from your government. You are the only person who can stand up for yourself and demand that your right be upheld.
The basic premise of recording everything is the presumption that you're doing something wrong and need to be monitored. That somehow even though you're an adult, you're not responsible enough to police your own actions.
This governmental either you're with us or you're not an American bullshit needs to end. We're a partisan country, our government is a partisan government. This is because we need people to dissent, to disagree, to make sure that the other side of the argument is heard.
The government has no business listening to my private life. For all you know, the murder charges I'm being brought up on are because I was insane and having a conversation about nothing that happened.
Grow up and learn to protect your rights. Hell, where I live you see people with both NRA stickers AND OBAMA 08, Kerry 04 stickers on their cars.
Maybe the government should take our guns away, because we might commit a crime with them. Or, our cars away because we might speed. Innocence until proven guilty is a basic premise of our constitution and due process. If the government has no reason to believe you're doing anything wrong, they're not to interfere.
@Dan Bock: Thank goodness we have you around to identify these embarrassing people, Mr. Sanctimonious. I agree with Lite in principle, but I think his reasons aren't as strong as others that could have been touched on.
@ninjagin: You mean like the fact that I could go out, buy a bunch of drugs, take them all because I'm hardcore like that, and the government can't do anything about it unless they catch me?
As my Driver's Ed instructor put it. "Nothing is illegal until you get caught." You are innocent until proven guilty.
@squish123: People have different values for privacy. Saying that all people who are ok with wiretapping are stupid or ignorant is like saying all people who are gay will burn in hell. This is a very debatable issue - so much that a very liberal politician like Obama is apparently willing to do it. I would argue that only ignorant people (or the Sith) deal in absolutes, even in matters as sensitive as privacy rights.
First of all, I'm not a total moron. When you lower expectations, less is expected.
Second, the internet made you. There's simply no two ways around it. Your Presidency is based on the whims of a faceless conglomeration of people of dubious social skills who are prone to fits of extremism. They voted for you in no small part because you are not me. And as soon as they start to think you are like me, they will pillory you. The internet made you. It can break you.
Don't try to play the middle. Being neutral is great if you're a professor employing the Socratic Method. It's not good for a leader. Turn your back on the people who put you in office and you will be Jimmy Carter.
Sincerely,
George Walker Bush
P.S. - You don't have to take my advice. After all, I'm just some guy who managed to be President of the United States of America for eight years in spite of numerous scandals and low approval ratings and in spite of running against candidates who were arguably far more qualified.
@aerospaceman: Let's face it. With the economy well on its way into recession in 2001 combined w/ Sept 11th, Bush had a tough presidency.
We may not like all, many, or most of his decisions. We may not agree with his opinions. But I'm sure the man did the best he felt he could, making the decisions he felt he needed to. Unfortunately he let his ego get the best of him. He's far from being a moron and as far as I can tell his texan drawl is a trained afectation to appeal to the common people.
If you listen to his debates from when he was Governor of Texas he was far more articulate and well spoken.
Bush did what he felt would advance his political goals. Many of the things that happened, while not intentional, were by-products of active strategic decisions.
Bush is a hard-right neoconservative who believes in full deregulation and as little government as possible. Ten years ago, were you to propose getting rid of FEMA, you'd be run out of town on a rail. FEMA was the symbol of governmental efficiency during the Nineties when the Mississippi was flooding. So how do you get rid of a government program? Break it.
If you can show people that government doesn't work, they'll want to get rid of it. And if you have to break it, so be it.
Louisianans have no faith in FEMA anymore. Put it to a vote and they'd get rid of it. Same with the NHTSB in Minneapolis.
Why should the government pay to maintain roads? Privatize them. Let the roads rot until people complain. Then, have private companies own and maintain the roads. They can charge tolls. Better roads will get more traffic. It's the invisible hand of the free market.
Public schools stink. Break the system. Make it so people don't trust public schools. Instead, private companies can teach our children. We'll pay people a stipend to make up the difference.
@Dan Bock: Now that's just bullshit. We all know that Bush used NASA weather control satellites to cause Hurricane Katrina.
This was why Obama was going to gut their funding until NASA blackmailed him and threatened to wipe out the White House with him in it after they hid the satellite.
Ok seriously listen. NO ONE has a clue atm what Obamas plan isin regards to this.
The REAL report though, which is also unconfirmed but been reported in a lot more places than one Wired article, was that Obama was looking to make some of the changes Bush made legal, BUT (and this is the big but) it would not be warrantless, and have to get court approval.
@Jim Topoleski: OK, seriously listen: The news is that the Obama administration has urged the courts to DROP THE BLOODY CASE against the government program.
If that doesn't you a signal that some things won't change, I don't know what will.
It's not necessarily Obama, I think it's the VP, he's the one that wants complete governmental control of the internet. Broke my little patriotic heart when Obama picked Biden :(
@Jesus Diaz: Pretty much there are certain realities that come with being the president that people who are not yet the president don't understand.
It isn't surprising, I doubt Bush would happily want to wiretap everyone unless he truly felt he had to.
Which is the better president? The one who does what is popular, or the one who does what he feels he has to in order to do his sworn duty which is protect the people. As much as I detest Bush I do no believe that he is, or ever was evil. Just heavily misguided.
@Philip Marquis: As much as it pains us, there is such a thing as national security, need to know, and I'm sure there is quite a lot that every president has done behind closed doors that never sees the light of day.
@catfewd: Meh. Privacy is overrated. I don't really care if people listen to me talk to my mom over the phone - as long as I don't find out about it. If it really helps national security, then sure, Obama, go for it. I'm sure some people will disagree with me.
@catfewd: That's what happens with a socialist regime? Don't tell me you're actually surprised by this! Liberals are the one who want to expand government power and control what we do.
@catfewd: Obama supporting the wiretapping and the Patriot Act are nothing new. I'm a Chicagoan and every time that I've called his office while he was senator, I'd get the same response. ...something to the effect of: While civil liberties are on the top of Obama's priorities, he is working to ensure that the Patriot Act balances both the needs of the country and the needs of the people. ...bs, bs, bs.
Above all, Obama is a politician. He might be a bit better choice but, he's still one of "them".
@Philip Marquis: Having recently had some very interesting discussions w/ the former Attorney General of Mexico I can definitely tell you that immigration issues are far more complex than you seem to believe they are.
They're not Mexicans, they're also central and south americans. They're people so poor that living in poverty in the US is such an insane increase in quality of life that they'll risk their lives to get here.
They're people who don't speak spanish, who don't speak english. They speak some tribal dialect after crawling out of the jungle where they've been living in 16th and 17th century conditions to provide for their families.
Yes, let's throw out +11 million people when our statue of liberty says, "Give me your tired your poor your huddled masses." We need them, just as much as they need us.
Yes, we need better border enforcement, but we also need to drop our xenophobic rhetoric, fix our immigration laws, and develop better ways to indoctrinate and integrate these people openly into US culture. Even BUSH understands this basic premise.
@PynkFloydd: The patriot act is needed, but it definitely needs adjustment.
We live in a world where we have to adapt. Which means that as technology advances, the rules governing monitoring of those devices needs to adapt as well. There is a balance to be had, and the current patriot act falls to far on the side of government, and not enough on the side of the people.
@Dane Bendixen: So when Bush does it, he's protecting us from terrorism. When Obama does it, its part of the grand socialist conspiracy. Where does it say that Obama wants to go beyond what Bush has done?
PS- just because he's asked the court to drop a case, doesn't mean he's going to continue Bush's policies. He could be requesting dismissal for being moot as he's not going to do it anymore.
@ARP: "PS- just because he's asked the court to drop a case, doesn't mean he's going to continue Bush's policies. He could be requesting dismissal for being moot as he's not going to do it anymore."
I disagree with this. Obama obviously knows that the Patriot Act is unpopular. If he was getting rid of wiretapping, he would say so; its good PR. For instance, they made a big announcement about closing Guantanamo Bay, which is (was?) similar in spirit and contentiousness to the Patriot Act.
01/23/09
01/23/09
01/23/09
[www.thedailyshow.com]
01/23/09
I hate to say it but I am going to and you can hate me for it, but this Presidency scares my more then any other I have lived through. I have hope but there is this underlying fear that this country might change in a way we all are not ready and willing to except. Yes change is good if it is in the right direction, but things could go south pretty fast if we all don't do something about it and stand up for our rights. Things are so fragile right now and if he doesn't handle the U.S. with kid gloves it's going to hit the fan and we will all pay. I don't care who you are, you have no right to invade my privacy and take notes on my life. I am not trying to hide anything but I would hate to see this glorious country founded on freedom and the right to pursue individual happiness crumble at the strong hold of a head strong leader. I pray he knows what he is doing....we all shall see and pay the consequences. -good or bad
oh and I am not right or left, more of the independent nature much like our fathers who came before us.
~Peace out
01/23/09
ive found a new friend on giz welcome to my friend list ..
i dident support Obama from the begining..i was a hillaray supporter..
but ron paul and nader were backup plains ended up voteing for nader..
the spread the welth around tax the ritch and give it to the poor shit was what really turned me off from him..
its a sad sad time...and i saw this comeing a mmile away :(
01/23/09
Bush's tax cuts were in response to the fact that the economy was fucking tanking before Bill left office. He inherited a recession that was further exacerbated by Sept 11th.
01/24/09
01/23/09
Do you really think the government really gives a crap about what YOU have to say on the phone?? Get over yourselves.
01/23/09
01/23/09
01/23/09
01/23/09
01/23/09
I don't see your point. I just see another mindless know-it-all liberal that actually doesn't know the real facts.
01/23/09
Basically what you're espousing is the Puritanical roots of our country, not what the law says. That all people are morally corrupt, and therefore should be suspect.
01/23/09
This is a matter of convenience. For as long as the scrutiny is invisible, no one minds. Your safety is not guaranteed by stricter delving into the personal affairs of the population. If you were to sift through every home with a fine tooth comb, it won't actually make you safer, but at the same time, it will actually introduce a more formidable foe, that being the government itself. Granted, it hasn't gotten nearly as bad as the picture I painted above, but I truly believe that the tipping point for people is only when things become an impedance. If suddenly there were random bag searches on the sidewalk, and police asked you for your ID without cause, if you were pulled over on the highway just so that they can search your trunk, it's very possible that they could catch a criminal in the middle of doing something dreadful, but does this truly justify the strict controls? My answer, is no.
01/23/09
01/23/09
It's government. It's slow. Somtimes good government means coming to compromises nobody likes but everyone can live with. Cut the man a little slack. Nobody's going to like everything he does. Let's keep a little perspective. Let's be patient. Mmmkay?
01/23/09
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I was not a Jew.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
01/23/09
If this report turns out to be true, then I hope that we all will take him to task in 4 years when he's up for re-election.
01/23/09
Go on your tirades elsewhere Diaz, Christ!
01/23/09
01/23/09
01/23/09
ppl like you should be clubed like baby seals and made into mink coats
01/23/09
01/23/09
01/23/09
01/23/09
01/23/09
It isn't about whether or not you're guilty, it's about Roe vs Wade. The basic expectation of privacy as a right.
01/23/09
You're dead wrong. They aren't accusing anybody of anything, they are simply listening for suspicious activity. If they hear you admitting to a murder over the phone, the same rules still apply... they can't use that evidence against you in a trial... but if they hear you plotting a bombing, they can use that info to stop the bombing (but not to prosecute you)
People like you are an embarrassment to the country because you prance along like you know what you're talking about, but in reality you have no clue.
01/23/09
Kind of how gays are unable to marry because it protects the rights of non-gays. That somehow them being able to marry would cheapen marriage.
It is your civil duty and right to question and demand answers from your government. You are the only person who can stand up for yourself and demand that your right be upheld.
The basic premise of recording everything is the presumption that you're doing something wrong and need to be monitored. That somehow even though you're an adult, you're not responsible enough to police your own actions.
This governmental either you're with us or you're not an American bullshit needs to end. We're a partisan country, our government is a partisan government. This is because we need people to dissent, to disagree, to make sure that the other side of the argument is heard.
The government has no business listening to my private life. For all you know, the murder charges I'm being brought up on are because I was insane and having a conversation about nothing that happened.
Grow up and learn to protect your rights. Hell, where I live you see people with both NRA stickers AND OBAMA 08, Kerry 04 stickers on their cars.
Maybe the government should take our guns away, because we might commit a crime with them. Or, our cars away because we might speed. Innocence until proven guilty is a basic premise of our constitution and due process. If the government has no reason to believe you're doing anything wrong, they're not to interfere.
01/23/09
Anyone who says I DUN CARE IF THEY LISSEN TO ME TALK TO MAH GRAMMA needs to take a history course.
01/23/09
01/23/09
As my Driver's Ed instructor put it. "Nothing is illegal until you get caught." You are innocent until proven guilty.
01/23/09
01/23/09
01/23/09
Dear Barack,
First of all, I'm not a total moron. When you lower expectations, less is expected.
Second, the internet made you. There's simply no two ways around it. Your Presidency is based on the whims of a faceless conglomeration of people of dubious social skills who are prone to fits of extremism. They voted for you in no small part because you are not me. And as soon as they start to think you are like me, they will pillory you. The internet made you. It can break you.
Don't try to play the middle. Being neutral is great if you're a professor employing the Socratic Method. It's not good for a leader. Turn your back on the people who put you in office and you will be Jimmy Carter.
Sincerely,
George Walker Bush
P.S. - You don't have to take my advice. After all, I'm just some guy who managed to be President of the United States of America for eight years in spite of numerous scandals and low approval ratings and in spite of running against candidates who were arguably far more qualified.
01/23/09
I thing that if Obama manages to be just a wee bit better than Bush, he's got the next 8 years in the bag.
01/23/09
We may not like all, many, or most of his decisions. We may not agree with his opinions. But I'm sure the man did the best he felt he could, making the decisions he felt he needed to. Unfortunately he let his ego get the best of him. He's far from being a moron and as far as I can tell his texan drawl is a trained afectation to appeal to the common people.
If you listen to his debates from when he was Governor of Texas he was far more articulate and well spoken.
01/23/09
i will say this...bush did have a tough job..
he fucked up...but he did have a tough job..
01/23/09
Bush did what he felt would advance his political goals. Many of the things that happened, while not intentional, were by-products of active strategic decisions.
Bush is a hard-right neoconservative who believes in full deregulation and as little government as possible. Ten years ago, were you to propose getting rid of FEMA, you'd be run out of town on a rail. FEMA was the symbol of governmental efficiency during the Nineties when the Mississippi was flooding. So how do you get rid of a government program? Break it.
If you can show people that government doesn't work, they'll want to get rid of it. And if you have to break it, so be it.
Louisianans have no faith in FEMA anymore. Put it to a vote and they'd get rid of it. Same with the NHTSB in Minneapolis.
Why should the government pay to maintain roads? Privatize them. Let the roads rot until people complain. Then, have private companies own and maintain the roads. They can charge tolls. Better roads will get more traffic. It's the invisible hand of the free market.
Public schools stink. Break the system. Make it so people don't trust public schools. Instead, private companies can teach our children. We'll pay people a stipend to make up the difference.
01/23/09
01/23/09
But you are forgetting that President Bush made hurracaine katrina with his bare hands and wanted to wipe out the entire African American population.
01/23/09
This was why Obama was going to gut their funding until NASA blackmailed him and threatened to wipe out the White House with him in it after they hid the satellite.
01/23/09
how can you hide an object the size of a van in a randome orbit that lookes like a pice of space jun...
ohhhh NVM xD
01/23/09
01/23/09
The REAL report though, which is also unconfirmed but been reported in a lot more places than one Wired article, was that Obama was looking to make some of the changes Bush made legal, BUT (and this is the big but) it would not be warrantless, and have to get court approval.
01/23/09
If that doesn't you a signal that some things won't change, I don't know what will.
01/23/09
01/23/09
01/23/09
01/23/09
01/23/09
actuialy Obama dident give Binden the same powers dubya gave Dick (Dead Eye) Chainey
so yah this kinda falls squarely on Obamas sholders..
hell Obama thinks thair are some detaineys in getmo
who shouldent git a trial bc evadince is tyed to nashanial securaty..
so much for openiess too :'(
01/23/09
It isn't surprising, I doubt Bush would happily want to wiretap everyone unless he truly felt he had to.
Which is the better president? The one who does what is popular, or the one who does what he feels he has to in order to do his sworn duty which is protect the people. As much as I detest Bush I do no believe that he is, or ever was evil. Just heavily misguided.
01/23/09
If only Monica Lewinsky had been one of those...
01/23/09
nashanial securaty is dead simple..
the enimy and potechial enimes need to know thair fucked thay will think twice before doing something stupid
as well as sealing our borders with a NEW berlin wall
gun torrets razer wire landmines and all
and trowing every illigal mexacian and lateno over the freaking wall
how is a guy who trew a hand gernade at some Us solders
a nashanl securaty treat? thair is this amazeing thing called a war going on...
corce ide rather ALL captured alquida members captured tryed in open US cort
and locked in US prions civialn prisons
01/23/09
01/23/09
01/23/09
Above all, Obama is a politician. He might be a bit better choice but, he's still one of "them".
01/23/09
They're not Mexicans, they're also central and south americans. They're people so poor that living in poverty in the US is such an insane increase in quality of life that they'll risk their lives to get here.
They're people who don't speak spanish, who don't speak english. They speak some tribal dialect after crawling out of the jungle where they've been living in 16th and 17th century conditions to provide for their families.
Yes, let's throw out +11 million people when our statue of liberty says, "Give me your tired your poor your huddled masses." We need them, just as much as they need us.
Yes, we need better border enforcement, but we also need to drop our xenophobic rhetoric, fix our immigration laws, and develop better ways to indoctrinate and integrate these people openly into US culture. Even BUSH understands this basic premise.
01/23/09
We live in a world where we have to adapt. Which means that as technology advances, the rules governing monitoring of those devices needs to adapt as well. There is a balance to be had, and the current patriot act falls to far on the side of government, and not enough on the side of the people.
01/23/09
PS- just because he's asked the court to drop a case, doesn't mean he's going to continue Bush's policies. He could be requesting dismissal for being moot as he's not going to do it anymore.
01/23/09
01/23/09
I disagree with this. Obama obviously knows that the Patriot Act is unpopular. If he was getting rid of wiretapping, he would say so; its good PR. For instance, they made a big announcement about closing Guantanamo Bay, which is (was?) similar in spirit and contentiousness to the Patriot Act.
01/23/09
"Give me your tired your poor your huddled masses."
There should be a limit on this, however. We can't take everyone forever.
01/23/09