|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
atomic42
Joined: 06 Jul 2007
Location: Gimhae
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
 Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 12:19 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| agentX wrote: |
MSNBC has a detailed story on the issue, similar to the NYT story.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23263742/
Here's what McCain said:
| Quote: |
| "Any hint that I might have acted to reward a supporter," he wrote, "would be taken as an egregious act of hypocrisy." |
Here's what he did;
| Quote: |
| John McCain, the Republicans' likely presidential nominee, also cast votes today in the Senate, siding with his party to preserve telecom immunity and pass Bush's preferred bill. |
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/feb/12/terrorism.usa
Regardless of an affair, he has clearly shown that his 'ethics' are as bought off as Bush's. |
what is wrong with passing immunity for telephone companies.
I wonder how Hizzbollah supporters in the US stand on the issue of immunity for the telephone companies?
AT any rate If McCain had an affair I hope he had a good time. This ought to be a non issue just as Monica Lewisnksy ought to have been a non issue. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 12:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
I've read a little more since the OP this morning. At this point, I sympathize with McCain. There is no evidence of sexual shenanigans, and besides, who cares about that. There is some suspicion of influence peddling, but no evidence.
Until there is evidence, I'll continue to accept McCain's claim of innocence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
agentX
Joined: 12 Oct 2007
Location: Jeolla province
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 6:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| agentX wrote: |
MSNBC has a detailed story on the issue, similar to the NYT story.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23263742/
Here's what McCain said:
| Quote: |
| "Any hint that I might have acted to reward a supporter," he wrote, "would be taken as an egregious act of hypocrisy." |
Here's what he did;
| Quote: |
| John McCain, the Republicans' likely presidential nominee, also cast votes today in the Senate, siding with his party to preserve telecom immunity and pass Bush's preferred bill. |
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/feb/12/terrorism.usa
Regardless of an affair, he has clearly shown that his 'ethics' are as bought off as Bush's. |
what is wrong with passing immunity for telephone companies.
I wonder how Hizzbollah supporters in the US stand on the issue of immunity for the telephone companies?
AT any rate If McCain had an affair I hope he had a good time. This ought to be a non issue just as Monica Lewisnksy ought to have been a non issue. |
We're after Al-Qaeda, not Hezbollah. Bush may have them as target #3, but so far he's leaving them up to Israel.
What's wrong with it? Why would the telecoms involved need immunity if what they were doing weren't illegal? More importantly, if they did have our safety at heart, why would the telecoms stop the wiretapping when FedGov stopped paying the bill?
If it were a simple 'affair' then sure, your point is fair. But it's not. It may well be bribery, which is illegal.
The straight talk express just lost another wheel. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
caniff
Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Location: All over the map
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 6:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| djsmnc wrote: |
| I also heard he fathered a black baby! |
The way this campaign season has been going, maybe that would actually help his cause. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blaseblasphemener
Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Location: There's a voice, keeps on calling me, down the road, that's where I'll always be
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 7:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo, isn't it HEZZ, not Hizz? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wannago
Joined: 16 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 8:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| blaseblasphemener wrote: |
| Joo, isn't it HEZZ, not Hizz? |
Its an Arabic name. We can only spell it phonetically and approximately. Either way works. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stillnotking
Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Location: Oregon, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 8:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| what is wrong with passing immunity for telephone companies. |
What's wrong with it is that it subverts the rule of law and enables an unconstitutional power grab by the executive branch.
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| I wonder how Hizzbollah supporters in the US stand on the issue of immunity for the telephone companies? |
Who cares? Are you suggesting we evaluate our opinions on the basis of what Hezbollah supporters think? Get back to us when you find out what flavor of ice cream they prefer, OK?
Last edited by stillnotking on Thu Feb 21, 2008 8:05 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
twg
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Location: Getting some fresh air...
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 8:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
what is wrong with passing immunity for telephone companies.
I wonder how Hizzbollah supporters in the US stand on the issue of immunity for the telephone companies? |
I was going to post up my Kool-Aid Man image, but this was so out of left-field (or right-field, as the case may be) that I feel a simple "WTF?" would suffice. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 9:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| twg wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
what is wrong with passing immunity for telephone companies.
I wonder how Hizzbollah supporters in the US stand on the issue of immunity for the telephone companies? |
I was going to post up my Kool-Aid Man image, but this was so out of left-field (or right-field, as the case may be) that I feel a simple "WTF?" would suffice. |
Why should I be against immunity for telephone companies when they respond to government requests for information that is used to protect US national security.
Hezbollah has a large presence in the US. Experts are almost united in the opinion that Hizzbollah is capable of attacks within the US.
| Quote: |
Hezbollah in the U.S.: Fundraising or Worse?
by Guy Raz
Listen Now [3 min 57 sec] add to playlist
Enlarge
Hezbollah has been tied to the 1996 Khobar Towers attack in Saudi Arabia that left 19 U.S. servicemen dead. Getty Images
All Things Considered, July 25, 2006 � After the State Department designated Hezbollah a foreign terror organization in 1996, the FBI began to conduct wide-ranging operations to shut down the group's fundraising activities in the United States.
"Before 9/11, they had killed more Americans than anybody else on the terrorist scene," says Ken Piernick, a former FBI special agent who ran the bureau's Hezbollah program.
In addition to other terrorist attacks, Hezbollah has been tied to the 1983 Marine barracks bombing in Beirut that left 241 U.S. personnel dead, and the 1996 Khobar Towers attack in Saudi Arabia that left 19 U.S. servicemen dead.
One U.S. law enforcement official, speaking on condition of anonymity, says there is considerable forensic evidence tying Hezbollah bomb experts to roadside explosions in Iraq.
Dennis Lormel, who founded the counterterrorist financing program at the FBI, says the United States has been a cash cow for Hezbollah.
"They raise funds through business fronts, through criminal activity, use of shell companies and through fundraising mechanisms," he says.
Before the Sept. 11 attacks, Hezbollah was the top priority for counterterrorism agents at the FBI, Lormel says.
In 1999, U.S. Attorney Ken Bell received a strange telephone call from Washington. The FBI urgently wanted to talk with him.
Bell had gathering evidence in a case against a cigarette-smuggling ring operating out of Charlotte, N.C.
"While the case was still under investigation," Bell says, "the FBI came to us in a classified setting and let us know that the targets of that investigation were members of a Hezbollah cell in Charlotte."
Bell successfully prosecuted six members of the cell, including the ringleader, Mohammed Hammoud, now serving a 155-year sentence in a federal prison.
The cigarette-smuggling operation generated $8 million in revenue.
"Hammoud would convert it to cashier's check and just hand it to the next guy going home on a plane who'd put it in his coat pocket and fly to Lebanon," Bell recalls.
A support cell in Canada served as the procurement office purchasing dual-use materiel such as night-vision goggles, communications equipment and drone technology. All of it eventually made its way to Hezbollah in Lebanon.
Most law enforcement officials interviewed agree that Hezbollah is one of the best-trained and most sophisticated terrorist organizations in the world. "The A-team of terrorism," as former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage described the group.
Hezbollah has the capacity to carry out large-scale terrorist attacks worldwide. But there is some debate within law enforcement circles over whether the group would launch attacks in the United States.
"Because they have had the ability to raise funds the way they do," says Lormel, "[they'd be] less inclined to want to commit a violent act [in the United States] because it could alienate their fundraising base."
Tom Diaz, author of Lightning Out of Lebanon: Hezbollah Terrorists in the United States, spent six years researching the group's domestic network. He says the threat of a Hezbollah attack in the United States shouldn't be underestimated.
"I think we dismiss the potential of Hezbollah striking in the United States at our peril," he says in an interview with NPR. "If you go back to the months before 9/11 and look at some of the mainstream writing -- including, incidentally, some of the senior people in [NPR] -- about Osama bin Laden and was he really a threat and what did he amount to. Well, the growing opinion seemed to be that he was just a sort of weirdo, a guy who had a lot of money but not really a serious threat."
Related NPR Stories |
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5579252
Look it is NPR not Fox News.
TWG you have very strong opinions but you are remarkably uninformed.
Last edited by Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee on Thu Feb 21, 2008 9:45 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 9:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
stillnotking"]
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| what is wrong with passing immunity for telephone companies. |
| Quote: |
| What's wrong with it is that it subverts the rule of law and enables an unconstitutional power grab by the executive branch. |
It also takes away a useful tool the US can use to protect itself.
Americans have the right to be safe from terror. There is something in the consitution about the right to life. In fact it even comes before liberty.
Life , liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Just following the consitution. If there is a choice between the two look how the consitution came down on the issue.
Now telephone companies have to choose between helping the govt protect national security and being sued.
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| I wonder how Hizzbollah supporters in the US stand on the issue of immunity for the telephone companies? |
Who cares? Are you suggesting we evaluate our opinions on the basis of what Hezbollah supporters think? Get back to us when you find out what flavor of ice cream they prefer, OK?[/quote]
Why if those who are the enemy don't like something because it threatens them maybe there is something good about it.
Hezzbollah does presence in the US, especially in Michigan .. And where do the people who support them (not refering to you ) stand on the issue of wire taps? Why do you think this is? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 10:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
The Times Upholds Its Standards
The New York Times smears John McCain in tomorrow's paper, accusing him of ethics violations and insinuating that he had an affair with a lobbyist. What is most striking, though, if you actually read the story, is how thin it is. It's mostly about the Keating Five scandal, which dates to the late 1980s. The "news" that gives the story a hook has to do with McCain's friendship with a pretty blonde lobbyist that apparently ended in 2000. As for the purported affair, the Times offers zero evidence. This line sums up, I think, the absurdity of the paper's attempt to cobble together an anti-McCain story out of these widely-separated elements:
It had been just a decade since an official favor for a friend with regulatory problems had nearly ended Mr. McCain�s political career by ensnaring him in the Keating Five scandal.
Just a decade! Every ten years, McCain does something that the Times can unfairly paint as inappropriate. For what it's worth, when the Keating Five scandal was unfolding, Barack Obama was in law school. I guess making oneself vulnerable to two negative stories in forty years is the price of a lifetime of public service.
. |
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/02/019842.php |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 10:27 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Why if those who are the enemy don't like something because it threatens them maybe there is something good about it. |
Hezzbollah doesn't like a total lack of punctuation. It threatens them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 10:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| You are not worth the effort. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stillnotking
Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Location: Oregon, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 10:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| stillnotking wrote: |
| What's wrong with it is that it subverts the rule of law and enables an unconstitutional power grab by the executive branch. |
It also takes away a useful tool the US can use to protect itself. |
No. It does not. The US is perfectly capable of obtaining evidence from telecommunications companies. There is a legal procedure for doing this. The executive did not follow it, and chose instead to twist arms through backdoor, secretive channels. Now, why do you think that would be? Why would the government want to conceal its own surveillance activities from the secret court that ordinarily evaluates them, in accordance with the law? Does Al Qaeda have a plant on the FISA court? Or could it be -- just maybe, and bear in mind this is a totally wild hypothesis -- that the executive wanted to collect information that is not strictly germane to the stated goal of "fighting terrorism"?
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
Americans have the right to be safe from terror. There is something in the consitution about the right to life. In fact it even comes before liberty.
Life , liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Just following the consitution. If there is a choice between the two look how the consitution came down on the issue. |
Yes, let's do that, by all means. (Your example is from the Declaration of Independence, FYI.) There is no question about how the Constitution comes down on the issue. For that matter, there is no question about how statutory law comes down on the issue. The relevant areas are covered by, respectively, the Fourth Amendment and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. If you're going to cite the law, I suggest you read beyond the Declaration of Independence, which is not a legal document in any case.
This is not a choice between "life" and "liberty". The federal government already has all the tools it needs to conduct surveillance of terrorist organizations, and absolutely no one is suggesting that it shouldn't do that. It just has to do it under the law, because America is (at least nominally) still a Constitutional Republic, and not an autocracy.
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Now telephone companies have to choose between helping the govt protect national security and being sued. |
Nope. They had to choose between allowing the executive branch to rifle through their customers' drawers, or asking it to come back with a warrant. If the cops asked your ISP to send them a log of all your internet traffic, and your ISP complied, you would be completely justified in filing suit.
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Why if those who are the enemy don't like something because it threatens them maybe there is something good about it. |
They don't like Judaism, either. Should we all convert?
It is, literally, nonsensical to base one's moral, political, or religious compass on the beliefs of a bunch of ignorant savages with no tradition of the rule of law. Automatically opposing anything Hezbollah likes is as ridiculous as automatically approving of it. And, for the record, I seriously doubt Hezbollah has any opinion one way or the other about telecom immunity, has the capacity to understand the issue, or indeed has ever heard of it at all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
