And People Thought Patriot Act Curtailed Rights

[Kathianne]

Welcome to the brave new world, where SEC doesn't need to inform the public; Government doesn't pretend to listen to the people; now gives itself the power to gather communications without warrants:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=topnews

White House proposal would ease FBI access to records of Internet activity
By Ellen Nakashima
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, July 29, 2010; A01

The Obama administration is seeking to make it easier for the FBI to compel companies to turn over records of an individual's Internet activity without a court order if agents deem the information relevant to a terrorism or intelligence investigation.

The administration wants to add just four words -- "electronic communication transactional records" -- to a list of items that the law says the FBI may demand without a judge's approval. Government lawyers say this category of information includes the addresses to which an Internet user sends e-mail; the times and dates e-mail was sent and received; and possibly a user's browser history. It does not include, the lawyers hasten to point out, the "content" of e-mail or other Internet communication.

But what officials portray as a technical clarification designed to remedy a legal ambiguity strikes industry lawyers and privacy advocates as an expansion of the power the government wields through so-called national security letters. These missives, which can be issued by an FBI field office on its own authority, require the recipient to provide the requested information and to keep the request secret. They are the mechanism the government would use to obtain the electronic records...

[namvet]

let Biden do it. he's still looking for the internet number

[Palin Rider]

Do you think that a Republican administration would be against a proposal like this? I don't.

[Kathianne]

Do you think that a Republican administration would be against a proposal like this? I don't.

I don't know about a Republican administration, but that's a non-issue as they aren't in power. Many conservatives and many folks now identifying as tea party adherents didn't like much of what was in Patriot Act. This is the same, again on steroids. Much like the spending, this administration is like the past, but moreso.

[Palin Rider]

I don't know about a Republican administration, but that's a non-issue as they aren't in power. Many conservatives and many folks now identifying as tea party adherents didn't like much of what was in Patriot Act. This is the same, again on steroids. Much like the spending, this administration is like the past, but moreso.

A genuine conservative would definitely not have liked the Patriot Act; I totally agree.

As for the tea party groups, people might take them more seriously if they did something besides just attack Obama and the Democrats. You either lead, follow, or get out of the way - and the tea party is doing none of these three.

[Kathianne]

A genuine conservative would definitely not have liked the Patriot Act; I totally agree.

As for the tea party groups, people might take them more seriously if they did something besides just attack Obama and the Democrats. You either lead, follow, or get out of the way - and the tea party is doing none of these three.

Ah, you mean like telling Armey to sit down and listen? They did that. Seriously, those that disagree that government should not be the first answer to all ills and projects in society, will not find anything good about the tea party ideals.

It may not be able to avoid the Republicans efforts to co-op the name, but the ideals are not in line with either major party.

[Gaffer]

It's interesting that the repubs want to coop the tea party and the libs want to demonize it. Yet it will be the deciding factor in elections come Nov.

[Palin Rider]

IMO, most of the electorate is not very interested in what a party's ideals are. Instead, people want to hear what parties and candidates plan to do to solve the existing (and perceived) problems.

In other words, they want to see proactive goals, not one reactive protest after the other. As far as I'm aware, nobody associated with the tea party has explained how they want to revamp the government to achieve their goals.

[Kathianne]

It's interesting that the repubs want to coop the tea party and the libs want to demonize it. Yet it will be the deciding factor in elections come Nov.

The ideals of the tea party lend hope to Republicans that they are more able to voice consistently the words that are wanted. Problem for them however is those that are identifying with the tea party ideology, recognize that while the 'leaders' of tea party are aligning with some of the leaders of the GOP, the GOP has not acted on ideals for decades.

The name may actually be meaningful, as something new is brewing here, whether a party or something else, it's bringing change. The ideals will be felt in November, but the real changes are going to be local and more long term.

[Palin Rider]

The repubs' major goal is obviously to keep their own base from eroding (further). They know that most of the key players in the tea party movement were previously loyal Republicans.

[Kathianne]

The repubs' major goal is obviously to keep their own base from eroding (further). They know that most of the key players in the tea party movement were previously loyal Republicans.

Not so, but it's been discussed before. You don't really know much about the tea party, do you? Most were not 'base Republicans.'

[Palin Rider]

Not so, but it's been discussed before. You don't really know much about the tea party, do you? Most were not 'base Republicans.'

Fine, please correct me. Do you have any links to their demographics?

[Kathianne]

Fine, please correct me. Do you have any links to their demographics?

That's just it, there aren't any. It's not a political party. I am on board of one of the IL parties. 5 of us: 1 Republican, 2 libertarians, 1 Democrat, 1 independent. Of course those self-identifications could change. None of them are in lock step with their parties, obviously. If they were, they wouldn't have volunteered to work on the board.

There were 13 tea parties in IL last I checked, almost no cross over between them. It's not organized, obviously an understatement.

It's not the 'movement' that's causing the two traditional parties fits, it's the thinking.

[Palin Rider]

That's just it, there aren't any. It's not a political party. I am on board of one of the IL parties. 5 of us: 1 Republican, 2 libertarians, 1 Democrat, 1 independent. Of course those self-identifications could change. None of them are in lock step with their parties, obviously. If they were, they wouldn't have volunteered to work on the board.

There were 13 tea parties in IL last I checked, almost no cross over between them. It's not organized, obviously an understatement.

It's not the 'movement' that's causing the two traditional parties fits, it's the thinking.

I don't understand: how can you say that the tea parties nationwide are mostly not ex-republicans when you don't have any data about them?

[Kathianne]

I don't understand: how can you say that the tea parties nationwide are mostly not ex-republicans when you don't have any data about them?

Go to a 'rally.' You will find that everyone is getting along fine. There is agreement on spending, taxes, size of government. Beyond that? Not much agreement, but an acceptance to let everyone have their own opinion.

How many state boards to you think the DNC or RNC have? More than 1? Hardly.

As I said, the movement is not a political party. Oh there may be some 'tea party' candidates, but they represent themselves and maybe or not some in agreement with them. They are not going to be representative though of everyone that says they are tea party.

What I think eventually we'll see are candidates that align their campaigns along the lines of general thinking. They'll gain the votes. Then when they win, they better hold true to ideals, 'fiscally conservative' in name only will not allow them to remain in office.