To a large degree, Bill Clinton had the budget balanced for him by a huge infusion of tax revenue mostly from California that was driven by an economic boom created by the tech industry there. I doubt he would be able to repeat that fiscal feat in today's environment.

Not knocking Bill necessarily - at least he knew what to do with that money... as opposed to someone like Bush who stepped in and wasted all of it in his first term... and STILL had to borrow more to support his expanding government.

Rick Perry lacks the skills that people like Karl Rove have when it comes to being underhanded. I'm surprised that he lasted as long as he has. But then again, being a Republican guarantees the support of a LOT of politically ignorant people.

You lie. The FBI can still investigate the people and activity inside mosques but since 2011, any deception used in such investigations have to be approved - same rule applies to any deceptive investigations in a church or a temple or anywhere else.


:roll:


Aww... what the matter? Ya gonna cry now because the people you hate can't be targeted by big brother?


You can't even keep your BS straight... first you say we all KNOW who these people are and then you say no one knows, because it's all a secret. LOL.

BTW, The rules for making the decisions are clearly stated in the "Undercover and Sensitive Operations Unit - Attorney General's Guidelines on FBI Undercover Operations"

http://www.justice.gov/ag/readingroom/undercover.htm#operations

There's the link - get someone literate to read it to you.

The ACLU sued the FBI in an isolated case because the FBI under the Bush Administration was targeting mosques in violation of the 1st and 4th Amendments. No policies or laws suggesting that mosques should be treated differently than anyone else has been established or even considered. The ACLU would have done the same thing for a Christian community if the government was doing the same thing to them, but they weren't, they were only targeting the mosques.

If you are THAT frightened of terrorists then maybe you think we should change our values and start pledging "Liberty and Justice for Some." But I stand for Liberty and Justice for ALL and that takes courage... something you don't seem to have much of. It means having the courage to let Muslims have as much liberty and privacy as we do. Will that make it easier for the extremists among them to organize terrorist activities? Yes, of course it will. That's why it takes courage.

No, you're right. The NSA would need information from the ISP to complete their picture and that's where the Patriot Act comes in, which basically did away with numerous telecommunication acts that were designed to protect our privacy. Right after the Patriot Act was passed into law the government started asking ISP's for that information.

BTW, an ISP can generally only backtrack to the device which uses one of their own IP addresses, such as your router. It has no control over how you set up your own private network behind that which can involve several computers, cell phones, DVRs, printers and anything else with an IP address. So if you're doing something wrong on the internet while using your mother's ISP connection then she will likely be targeted. This is why some people prefer to use public hotspots when dealing with risky stuff.

My understanding is that the NSA would most likely use the ISP information to narrow the hunt down to a specific house or business, issue a warrant and then it's search and seizure time. Oh, wait... almost forgot, the Patriot Act says they can skip the warrant. In any case, once they start looking at the computers on your network they can find the specific computer pretty fast.

Depends on whether your referring to IPv4 or IPv6. Most systems still use IPv4 which provides approximately 4.294 billion addresses.

It's a complicated system so I won't bore you with too much detail but to answer your question - I'll just explain that a greater number of computers can be served by establishing private isolated networks that can reuse addresses. For instance a typical business may have 150 computers on a private network with the same addresses being used by another company, but each of these private networks is connected to the internet through a gateway that maps any address from the private network to a single address on the Internet.

Your home computer is most likely a private address... something like 192.168.x.x that routes traffic through a gateway with an address like 192.168.1.1. That gateway, usually a router or proxy server, will map to a unique address on the internet that is owned by your ISP.

The NSA might see something suspicious related to a particular IP, trace that back to the ISP and the ISP can then look at the routing tables to trace it back to your non-unique IP on your home (private) network.


Well, when I say "it's not the terrorists that I worry about" I am of course suggesting a larger worry. For me that would be the 1%.

Some people worry more about the government, but the way I see it, the government is a means not an end. So to me blaming government makes as much sense as blaming a gun for killing someone. We all know a gun can be used for good or evil depending on who controls it... Well, the government is no different and when I see people getting hurt by the government, it seems it's always the 1% pulling the trigger.

LOL - sums it up pretty well, I think.

But it's US companies that USE these Swiss banks... US companies, including Google, Facebook, Microsoft and many others also set up off-shore subsidiaries in the Caymans and Bermuda to avoid paying taxes. So choosing a US company doesn't guarantee any kind of transparency, or ethical standard.

Figures... The Netherlands is one of the most free nations on Earth.

Also, in case anyone is interested, there are many other legal ways to avoid surveillance... For instance, anonymous browsing using technologies like Tor, which I highly recommend. The government doesn't like it, but so far they haven't shut these options down.

You can also use VPN systems that change your IP address. I use a system called VPNUK to tunnel into the UK so I can watch programming that's commercially censored in this country. For me it's mostly sporting events not covered by US media companies that nevertheless demand exclusive control over your viewing. With a UK IP I can get around that. I can also use this system to tunnel to Canada, the Netherlands, Germany and a few other places where information is more available than it is here.

Hamachi is another good VPN system that you can use to connect with other people using the same system and it supports 128-bit encryption. You can also get PGP packages (Pretty Good Privacy) to encrypt things like your e-mail. So... there are still legal options that the government hasn't shut down... yet.

Just beware that if your throwing a lot of encrypted traffic around it *may* attract attention - so you need to know your rights. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is an excellent place to get your bearings in this regard. I support them regularly as they are also stout champions of online privacy, complete with lawyers and lobbyists.

This may not sit well with a lot of conservatives here, since they seem to like censorship and control but again... none of the systems I've listed are illegal... yet... and I for one, would like to see these systems gain more popular support as that maybe the only thing that keeps the government at bay. Does this make it easier for terrorists? Yes, of course it does, but I'll take freedom over security any day and honestly, it's not the terrorists that I worry about.

Is that supposed to be a bad thing?

That's because the policies weren't defined enough. You can't leave open ends with the government or the corporations that control it.

Thanks ;)

Reaction? Aunti, that's the problem! This is what California is is saying... companies like Wal*Mart are intentionally staffing up with part-timers so they don't have to cover their benefits. The part timers are left with little choice but to depend on tax subsidized insurance. This is how they are in effect subsidizing their own profits.

The basic problem is that companies have an obligation to cut expenses wherever they can and if they can push expenses off to the government - then you can't expect them not to.

As a matter of fact, they can and often do... I will explain, but first, let me say that I was referring to operations... The NSA (and the military as you might already know) operates under the guidance of the Executive Branch. But I'm SO glad you brought up funding, because so many people don't get this... There are essentially two types of funding, which politicians often refer to as "online" and "offline".

Online funding is the process by which Congress decides how much tax money (if any) will be allocated to the expense. This is the process defined by our Constitution that we learn about in school.

Offline funding, on the other hand, is the process by which the President BORROWS money. He tells the Treasury Department (which also operates under the Executive Branch) to issue bonds and then asks the Federal Reserve (which does not operate under ANY branch of the government) to purchase them. Since the Federal Reserve has the unconstitutional power to print money, they just enter in some digits in their computers and *poof* the money appears out of thin air, they buy the bonds and the Treasury funds the expense. This is the process by which Bush funded 90% of his wars...
AND the process by which the national debt grows...
AND the process by which Republicans are able to spend as much, sometimes more than the Democrats while cutting taxes at the same time and pretending to be fiscally responsible...
AND since Congress is not involved, offline funding doesn't draw much attention which makes the illusion even easier to pull off.

Sorry, but some things have to be said.

A follower of Alinsky... Huh... this just keeps getting better all the time.