Bush: U.S. doesn't eavesdrop on phone calls of ordinary Americans

[The Overlord]

Chomsky is overated, he may have ground breaking in the 60s, but at this point a grad student could do what he does. Chomsky has been saying the same thing since 60s, he's a broken record. Frankly students of Hobbs would look at of his critcism of the US and say "so what, every country in the world acts like that, they all engage power politics". I don't think I ever heared him explain how anarchism is supposed to be a viable system.

 

[Darthphere]

Im not an ordinary american.

 

[The Overlord]

I do agree that the two-party system in seriously jacked up (I would prefer a no party system) but I really don't think 'Republicans' as an entirety are going to go out on a limb with the only fear being loss of power for the party. The people within the party have lives and careers to think about and I don't think political parties have reached the point of being secret societies that people hold more important that that. Like I said above, our government is set up and still functioning in a way that keeps things pretty stable.

And merely speaking ill of the President isn't going to draw any flags, it's talking about the President in conjunction with words like bomb, kill and assasinati-

So if someone is talking about a movie that involved someone trying to kill the President on the phone, they would get tapped?

 

[BAH HUMBBUG!]

I said it before, I'll say it again. Screw Bush and this society is screwed. Have a nice day

 

[jaguarr]

Chomsky is overated, he may have ground breaking in the 60s, but at this point a grad student could do what he does. Chomsky has been saying the same thing since 60s, he's a broken record. Frankly students of Hobbs would look at of his critcism of the US and say "so what, every country in the world acts like that, they all engage power politics". I don't think I ever heared him explain how anarchism is supposed to be a viable system.

Doesn't the fact that much of what he's said since the 60's is still applicable and has never really been fixed frighten you? Just because the issues he cites occur in other political environments in other countries doesn't make his criticisms any less valid, either.

jag

 

[Mr Sparkle]

get'im Jag

*plays banjo*

 

[The Overlord]

Doesn't the fact that much of what he's said since the 60's is still applicable and has never really been fixed frighten you? Just because the issues he cites occur in other political environments in other countries doesn't make his criticisms any less valid, either.

jag

Is criticism has become rather irrelevant, because I have never heard him offer any viable solutions to his own criticism. All he does is identify problems, anyone can do that at this point, people who develop solutions to the problems, they the true great thinkers.

 

[Mr Sparkle]

Ipeople who develop solutions to the problems, they the true great thinkers.

true dat

 

[jaguarr]

Is criticism has become rather irrelevant, because I have never heard him offer any viable solutions to his own criticism. All he does is identify problems, anyone can do that at this point, people who develop solutions to the problems, they the true great thinkers.

I won't disagree that the people who develop solutions to those problems are absolutely great thinkers. Sometimes, though, it does take someone capable of stepping back and saying "Hey. Wait a minute. Something's not right here.", even if they don't offer a solution of their own. Simply seeing past the status quo and identifying issues is something far too few do or are even capable of. So, his criticisms aren't irrelevant. They're identified problems looking for solutions. There's no rule that says just because he pointed them out that he has to solve them. Would it be better if he did? Sure. No disagreeing on that point. But at least he's been able to provide an alternative viewpoint in a manner that's been heard more often than not, and that's a step up from what most people do.

jag

 

[Mr Sparkle]

they'z that can see the flaws....they be the illest of all thinkers yo!

 

[The Overlord]

I won't disagree that the people who develop solutions to those problems are absolutely great thinkers. Sometimes, though, it does take someone capable of stepping back and saying "Hey. Wait a minute. Something's not right here.", even if they don't offer a solution of their own. Simply seeing past the status quo and identifying issues is something far too few do or are even capable of. So, his criticisms aren't irrelevant. They're identified problems looking for solutions. There's no rule that says just because he pointed them out that he has to solve them. Would it be better if he did? Sure. No disagreeing on that point. But at least he's been able to provide an alternative viewpoint in a manner that's been heard more often than not, and that's a step up from what most people do.

jag

The problem is whether any of criticism can make a diference and whether it can or it, boils down to debate between Hobbes and Rousseau. Followers of Hobbes believe that humans are naturally violent creatures and need an organizing body, like the state in order to control his violent urges (through force of course) and because there is no real organizing body in the international stage, states like individuals in the state of nature, violent and lustful.

Rousseau on the other hand, people that humans were naturally kind and compassionate in the state of nature, it was only when they wanted again recongintion from others that they become violent and built power structures (religion, the state, guilds, companies, etc) to oppress their fellow man. So Rousseau believed that these structures are leads to man's violence and lustfulness and must be done away with to encourage good behaviour and a return nature amongst humans.

Now whether Chomsky's criticism has any real meaning depends on who the winner of this debate is, if Hobbes is correct than Chomsky's criticism is useless, because states and people are ntural violent and lustful and nothing will change that. Chomsky's criticism is onlt relevant if Rousseau is correct, but let's face it, that debate has been going on for a few centuries at this point, it won't be solved anytime soon.

 

[Darthphere]

Ordinary Americans:

 

[jaguarr]

The problem is whether any of criticism can make a diference and whether it can or it, boils down to debate between Hobbes and Rousseau. Followers of Hobbes believe that humans are naturally violent creatures and need an organizing body, like the state in order to control his violent urges (through force of course) and because there is no real organizing body in the international stage, states like individuals in the state of nature, violent and lustful.

Rousseau on the other hand, people that humans were naturally kind and compassionate in the state of nature, it was only when they wanted again recongintion from others that they become violent and built power structures (religion, the state, guilds, companies, etc) to oppress their fellow man. So Rousseau believed that these structures are leads to man's violence and lustfulness and must be done away with to encourage good behaviour and a return nature amongst humans.

Now whether Chomsky's criticism has any real meaning depends on who the winner of this debate is, if Hobbes is correct than Chomsky's criticism is useless, because states and people are ntural violent and lustful and nothing will change that. Chomsky's criticism is onlt relevant if Rousseau is correct, but let's face it, that debate has been going on for a few centuries at this point, it won't be solved anytime soon.

I suspect that the solution lies somewhere in the middle. Both of your examples are on the relatively far polar opposites of the spectrum, leaving a lot of ground between them to cover that others tend to do more than Hobbes or Rousseau, admittedly. I think Chomsky makes valid criticisms that are applicable in that middle ground as well, but definitely not in Hobbes' particular outlook.

jag

 

[Admiral_N8]

Ordinary Americans are the ones who ARENT calling Iraq, speak in Arabic about anti-american terrorist plans, who dont call Afghanistans mountain regions, talk about bombs/visas and such.

 

[Darthphere]

Ordinary Americans are the ones who ARENT calling Iraq, speak in Arabic about anti-american terrorist plans, who dont call Afghanistans mountain regions, talk about bombs/visas and such.

 

[Admiral_N8]

???

 

[Erundur]

^

 

[The Overlord]

I suspect that the solution lies somewhere in the middle. Both of your examples are on the relatively far polar opposites of the spectrum, leaving a lot of ground between them to cover that others tend to do more than Hobbes or Rousseau, admittedly. I think Chomsky makes valid criticisms that are applicable in that middle ground as well, but definitely not in Hobbes' particular outlook.

jag

Perhaps, perhaps not, depends on your point of view. Not that it really matters, its clear Rove has read Hobbes and gave Bush "Hobbes for Dummies" for Christmas, so I doubt they care what Noam has to say.

 

[jaguarr]

Perhaps, perhaps not, depends on your point of view. Not that it really matters, its clear Rove has read Hobbes and gave Bush "Hobbes for Dummies" for Christmas, so I doubt they care what Noam has to say.

LOL! "Hobbes For Dummies". Nice. Yes, you're defintely dead on about Rove's influences.

jag

 

[raybia]

Ordinary Americans are the ones who ARENT calling Iraq, speak in Arabic about anti-american terrorist plans, who dont call Afghanistans mountain regions, talk about bombs/visas and such.

Read my sig.

 

[Kritish]

Bush: U.S. doesn't eavesdrop on phone calls of ordinary Americans

Tuesday, May 16, 2006; Posted: 12:41 p.m. EDT (16:41 GMT)


President Bush speaks about telephone eavesdropping at the White House on Tuesday.
International Business Directory
Using the latest web technology, Taiwantrade helps buyers around the world and...
www.taiwantrade.com.tw International Business Degree Online
Earn your degree in Business entirely online. Choose from undergraduate,...
www.degreeusa.com International Business
Find some of the leading online schools for a degree in international...
www.guidetoonlineschools.com
More Useful Links
• Electronics
• Baby Registry
• Notebook Computers

RELATED
• U.S. not 'trolling through personal lives'
• Bush defends surveillance
• Report: Firms aid eavesdropping
• Reporter: NSA collects numbers
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush insisted Tuesday that the United States does not listen in on domestic telephone conversations among ordinary Americans.

The president did not respond directly, however, when asked whether it was a violation of privacy for the National Security Agency to seek phone records of millions of people from telephone companies.

The NSA has been collecting records of calls made in the U.S. by ordinary Americans as part of its anti-terrorism efforts, according to USA Today. The newspaper story followed reports that the NSA has been conducting eavesdropping on the electronic communications of suspected al Qaeda members and their contacts in the U.S. without warrants.

"We do not listen to domestic phone calls without court approval," Bush said in an East Room news conference with Australian Prime Minister John Howard.

"What I've told the American people is we'll protect them against an al Qaeda attack. And we'll do that within the law," Bush said.

"This government will continue to guard the privacy of the American people. But if al Qaeda is calling into the United States, we want to know, and we want to know why," the president added.

A Senate confirmation hearing is scheduled for Thursday on Bush's nomination of Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden to head the Central Intelligence Agency. As the NSA director from 1999-2005, Hayden oversaw the government's warrantless surveillance program.

Questions about that program, and the new revelations about the NSA's phone data bank, may be obstacles to Hayden's confirmation.



Can someone please define "Ordinary Americans"?

I would like to determine whether that includes me.

Smells like Bull ****.

 

[sinewave]

Ordinary Americans are the ones who ARENT calling Iraq, speak in Arabic about anti-american terrorist plans, who dont call Afghanistans mountain regions, talk about bombs/visas and such.

the thing is, though, not all terrorists reside in the middle east. many of them are scattered throughout europe, asia and other continents accross the globe. besides, what about the peaceful middle-easterners who have moved to this country and have no ties to terrorism? is it right to listen in on their phone calls? say a muslim living over here with absolutely no ties to terrorism calls a family member in the middle-east and discusses how displeased he is with bush's policy, without making any threats of violence, and the nsa makes note of maybe some key words from their discussion. that person could be blacklisted, harrassed or even detained, all for doing absolutely nothing. and don't say that doesn't happen because the government is noted to have done that to several american citizens in the last few years. they call it "extraordinary rendition". that doesn't sit well with me. this administration seems to be taking things to an extreme measure, all under the guise of trying to protect it's citizens. i'm scared of how much farther they'll go if unchecked.

 

[logansoldcigar]

The problem is whether any of criticism can make a diference and whether it can or it, boils down to debate between Hobbes and Rousseau. Followers of Hobbes believe that humans are naturally violent creatures and need an organizing body, like the state in order to control his violent urges (through force of course) and because there is no real organizing body in the international stage, states like individuals in the state of nature, violent and lustful.

and , of course, Hobbes liked Susie Derkins. whereas Calvin couldnt stand her. (personally, i think he had a crush on her, but they were awful young)

 

[Reader]

Noam Chomsky - "describes himself as a libertarian socialist and a sympathizer of anarcho-syndicalism"

Sounds crazy.

Only to the people that think Bush sounds sane.

 

[Reader]

So if someone is talking about a movie that involved someone trying to kill the President on the phone, they would get tapped?

I don't know. Doesn't it worry you that you can't be sure? I'd prefer a place where you could say anything and not even have to worry about your phone being tapped. Oh, wait. I'm already there. Sorry Stateside.

And: As if in this heightened time of faux-war you could make a movie that involved someone trying to kill the President.