Castro Resigns

[Texsox]

Linked everywhere this morning.

http://www.cnn.com/

 

Wow, the day was near. I guess it's the end of an era.

[kapkomet]

So when do we invade? (no green?)

[Texsox]

What will be most interesting is how we handle any changes in immigration. Currently, if a Cuban touches the sand, they are a citizen. If they are intercepted in the surf, they are returned. Perhaps we will normalize relations and put something together that is less risky for the Cubans.

 

I am certain there will be much speculation over the coming weeks and months. But in the end not much change at all.

 

He had a very long reign.

[Rex Kickass]

His brother takes over. So, nothing really changes.

[StrangeSox]

I've never understood why we treat Cuba like crap but do plenty of business with China.

[Rex Kickass]

Anti-Castro Cuban Americans make a lot of political donations. That's why.

[kapkomet]

Anti-Castro Cuban Americans make a lot of political donations. That's why.

Not to totally hijack the thread, but kinda like a bunch of trial lawyers giving a bunch of money to Democrats to let FISA expire? Just sayin'.

 

[Texsox]

Not to totally hijack the thread, but kinda like a bunch of trial lawyers giving a bunch of money to Democrats to let FISA expire? Just sayin'.

 

Exactly. Thankfully it doesn't happen with Republicans

[kapkomet]

Exactly. Thankfully it doesn't happen with Republicans

Oh, hell, it happens all of the time. That's why our government totally sucks and is corrupt to the gills.

[HuskyCaucasian]

So when do we invade? (no green?)

they dont have oil. Just poor people. Need oil to invade.

[Rex Kickass]

Not to totally hijack the thread, but kinda like a bunch of trial lawyers giving a bunch of money to Democrats to let FISA expire? Just sayin'.

 

FISA didn't expire. Modifications to FISA that allow the Federal government to wiretap without a warrant expired. The FISA court still exists and the government can still call on the secret court to get the warrant up to 72 hours after the fact.

 

What's worse? Democrats letting these "crucial" modifications expire because they think that if crimes were committed previous to this law being passed that they should be prosecutable? Or Republicans letting these "crucial" modifications expire because companies that give their party a lot of money should be immune from lawsuits for things they may have illegally done before the modifications took place? If this legislation supposedly will save thousands of lives, why should the lawsuits of a few companies hinge on the Republican party's obstruction of the bill?

[GoSox05]

I hope our next president ends the embargo.

[EvilMonkey]

FISA didn't expire. Modifications to FISA that allow the Federal government to wiretap without a warrant expired. The FISA court still exists and the government can still call on the secret court to get the warrant up to 72 hours after the fact.

 

What's worse? Democrats letting these "crucial" modifications expire because they think that if crimes were committed previous to this law being passed that they should be prosecutable? Or Republicans letting these "crucial" modifications expire because companies that give their party a lot of money should be immune from lawsuits for things they may have illegally done before the modifications took place? If this legislation supposedly will save thousands of lives, why should the lawsuits of a few companies hinge on the Republican party's obstruction of the bill?

The first one. Because it is so unabashedly about the money and looking for the deep pockets instead of trying to 'right a wrong'. And to turn your question around, if this legislation will save thousands of lives, why should the greed of 60 or so lawyers keep the Democrats from doing the right thing?

[Rex Kickass]

Because this legislation does nothing to save any lives. If the telcom companies didn't break the law, why is immunity so important?

[kapkomet]

Because this legislation does nothing to save any lives. If the telcom companies didn't break the law, why is immunity so important?

But they didn't break the law, until a couple of days ago at midnight... or did they? The thing is, Rex, no one knows what's happening, and why, and if the telecomms were told to intercept something that *could* have saved lives prior to the amended FISA law from last summer, then they DO deserve immunity because some assclown who was having phone sex with his girlfriend on the phone might choose to sue and help said trial lawyers who just FLOODED the Democrats with money - and wow, they all get paid nice and fat from those bogus lawsuits, now don't they) - even though the government or the telecomms don't even give a s***. (niee run on, eh?)

 

And by the way, don't think that I am trying to single out Democrats... on this issue, yes, but the same thing happens the other way. I understand that. I just hate it when politics and money mess up something that could kill innocent people. No, that's not "fearmongering", it's a fact in the world we live in today. I would choose to have the means necessary to take care of this stuff available to us rather then the assclowns on capital hill make a mockery of the whole thing due to constituent money swaying their decisions.

 

 

Edited February 19, 2008 by kapkomet

[Balta1701]

But they didn't break the law, until a couple of days ago at midnight... or did they? The thing is, Rex, no one knows what's happening, and why, and if the telecomms were told to intercept something that *could* have saved lives prior to the amended FISA law from last summer, then they DO deserve immunity because some assclown who was having phone sex with his girlfriend on the phone might choose to sue and help said trial lawyers who just FLOODED the Democrats with money - and wow, they all get paid nice and fat from those bogus lawsuits, now don't they) - even though the government or the telecomms don't even give a s***. (niee run on, eh?)

Then fine. Accept the Feinstein provision that would grant the telecom companies immunity but would change the defendant in all of those lawsuits to the federal government, so that the cases go forwards but the government, which you claim is the one asking for the taps, is the one facing the lawsuit, and thus the question of legality will still get its day in court.

 

The real fun of that immunity is that if it does pass...it essentially ends the last court route available for finding out whether or not the program is actually illegal or not, and it prevents us from ever finding out what they were actually doing unless the next president decides to put out a report detailing exactly what they did. Because the government has already shown a willingness to defy Congress, and Congress has shown no willingness to use any of its powers to enforce subpoenas against the government, and has shut down all those nasty partisan "investigations" that could actually answer that question.

Edited February 19, 2008 by Balta1701

[Rex Kickass]

But they didn't break the law, until a couple of days ago at midnight... or did they? The thing is, Rex, no one knows what's happening, and why, and if the telecomms were told to intercept something that *could* have saved lives prior to the amended FISA law from last summer, then they DO deserve immunity because some assclown who was having phone sex with his girlfriend on the phone might choose to sue and help said trial lawyers who just FLOODED the Democrats with money - and wow, they all get paid nice and fat from those bogus lawsuits, now don't they) - even though the government or the telecomms don't even give a s***. (niee run on, eh?)

 

The FISA law allows the federal government to get a warrant up to 72 hours after the act of a wiretap. If the federal government knew enough to wiretap someone before a call is made, why doesn't it know enough to get the warrant?

[kapkomet]

The FISA law allows the federal government to get a warrant up to 72 hours after the act of a wiretap. If the federal government knew enough to wiretap someone before a call is made, why doesn't it know enough to get the warrant?

Because it's technology beyond "wiretapping", and the laws that are enacted gives the people who need it the ability to adapt to changing methodology of communications.

[Balta1701]

Because it's technology beyond "wiretapping", and the laws that are enacted gives the people who need it the ability to adapt to changing methodology of communications.

Then they should go to Congress, as they've done several times since taking office, and ask that FISA be amended to adapt to those technological changes. They shouldn't just decide to ignore the current law because I'm now sending an email over a connection instead of a phone call.

 

Just openly deciding the law doesn't apply would be something Castro would do. (Like that? Right back on topic. There ya go!)

Edited February 19, 2008 by Balta1701

[Rex Kickass]

Again, they can still get the warrant up to 72 hours after the fact. A warrant is issued to check government power. To give that up is a precedent I'm not terribly comfortable with.

 

What if the Democrats offered to split out the immunity provision in its own separate bill? This way immunity gets its own uperdown vote.

[kapkomet]

Then they should go to Congress, as they've done several times since taking office, and ask that FISA be amended to adapt to those technological changes. They shouldn't just decide to ignore the current law because I'm now sending an email over a connection instead of a phone call.

 

Just openly deciding the law doesn't apply would be something Castro would do. (Like that? Right back on topic. There ya go!)

Well, that's what Congress just did for us. They decided to change the law (or read: let the old one lapse) to allow the backing of the lawyers presenting these lawsuits.

[Balta1701]

Well, that's what Congress just did for us. They decided to change the law (or read: let the old one lapse) to allow the backing of the lawyers presenting these lawsuits.

And the Bush Administration and the Republicans allowed the law to lapse because they wouldn't accept and in fact blocked passage of extensions to the old law because they were so determined to get their immunity.

 

If this law were that important, the Dems were more than willing to give additional extensions. But the Republicans would not allow that because they wanted to get guys like you out there saying this is the worst thing in the world because now we can't wiretap anyone and the terrorists are evil and are going to kill us all tomorrow!

 

If you believe the Dems are making this country less safe to protect their trial lawyers, then the Republicans are making this country less safe to protect AT&T.

Edited February 19, 2008 by Balta1701

[EvilMonkey]

And the Bush Administration and the Republicans allowed the law to lapse because they wouldn't accept and in fact blocked passage of extensions to the old law because they were so determined to get their immunity.

 

If this law were that important, the Dems were more than willing to give additional extensions. But the Republicans would not allow that because they wanted to get guys like you out there saying this is the worst thing in the world because now we can't wiretap anyone and the terrorists are evil and are going to kill us all tomorrow!

 

If you believe the Dems are making this country less safe to protect their trial lawyers, then the Republicans are making this country less safe to protect AT&T.

You say 'Dems' like it was a party-wide thing, when in fact it was only Pelosi that kept this thing from coming to a vote at all. if it had come to a vote, it would have probably passed. So you have a small minority beholden to the trial lawyers using the system to personally enrich themselves, and some trial lawyers. Because really, even if they sue the telecoms and win, who benefits here. One group: lawyers. The world isn't safer, just lawyers richer.

[sox4lifeinPA]

who did he resign with?

[GoSox05]

who did he resign with?

 

 

The Giants. They love aging vets.