talk about a kangaroo court approach to the wheels of justice.

I submit that Verizon also would not want to slow my efforts to improve my ever more ambitious standard of living and hence, immediately need to provide me with the keys to their company vault.

Funny, but something tells me I don't think when their own interests are at stake they will be so generous.

Not sure so check me on that, but I'm leanin' towards "Verizon: we don't give a shit for the customers' right to privacy".

Regards,
etc.

My experiences with the monumental incompetence, indifference, and general worthlessness of Verizon, its equipment and most of its employees leads me to believe they are capable of doing anything, except serve the public.

Verizon: we don't give a shit for the customers' right to privacy".

That's pretty damned catchy, Storm!

Verizon are co-operating with authorities requests fer data/information w/o bothering with cheesy minor details likes laws or privacy rights

Just goes to show that privacy is becoming a commodity available only to the wealthiest among us. (Think Cheney/Google-earth fer a sec) as governmental secrecy continues to accrue under the rubric of national security.

We live in interesting times, indeed.

Can you hear Spud NOW?

Be Well.

Fortunately, I use code words when trying to find a bag of nugs.

"You working at the restaurant tonight? Cool, how's the salad? Good, eh? I'll have to stop by and try it."

Judging by the astounding levels of competence demonstrated by this administration so far, I don't have to worry about anyone figuring out the lingo anytime soon.

I know idiots who think it's "code" to call up and say "Is Buddy Green there?"

Shit dude! I can't believe the cops cracked your code!

I hope you all realize that Tadowe's name is on that list of Verizon subscribers.

Who said there's no such thing as poetic justice.

The company said it does not determine the requests' legality or necessity because to do so would slow efforts to save lives in criminal investigations.

and this,

"Verizon: we don't give a shit for the customers' right to privacy".

This hits home to a factor of 10.

So they can ask and get even if there is no criminal investigation.

And Verizon is the one who asked the government to provide a bill to protect them for this outright invasion, and guess what, the congress will give it to em.

Amasing how people just don't see there is no difference between the two parties, just different rhetoric.

Can't wait to see the likes of BOWA, Eberly, and clan here to defend such and swearing their oath that no one has lost their rights.

Yep, we lost them and don't even know it, and since we don't know it won't hurt us. Oops! until some unforeseen circumstance puts ya in court to defend oneself, and all this not hurting ya comes to light!

The real question of the day is, how many politicians phones and data were given away. I smell Verizon gate instead of water gate!

Can they hear you now?

Can they hear you now?

How about now?

And libs go nuts. Well thank goodness when HillRod gets in we can stop worrying up the Gov snooping around peoples internet and overseas communications. Won't you all feel much safer that people who promote and visit those Jihadist web sites be Democratic protected?

Can you hear Spud NOW?

They should replace their catchphrase with


"Can the NSA here you now?"

I always thought the people standing behind the customer in their commercials were the "network". How did we know that the "network" was comprised of the government listening in.

Verizon sucks. This just reinforces that.

And libs go nuts

What is truly sad is that you are not outraged over this invasion of privacy.

Thankfully the telecom market is no longer a monopoly. Switch carriers.

I don't own a cell phone, much less Verizon, but I wonder about y'all who do -- is there anything in your 1 year contract that would allow you out of it for this reason?

Ness, our code word was always "chicken, don't ask me why. Hey, have you baked that chicken yet? If its good I may stop by and pick some up.

Goat,

I have a two year contract with these assholes and they just extended another 2 years for up-ing my minutes. Go figure. Somebody needs to sue. These guys are way too arrogant.

Somebody needs to sue. These guys are way too arrogant.

I agree, Yav. Do you have your contract handy? Does it mention this or leave a loophole that would allow class action? I hope so.

Goatman - that should be directed at BenFranklinn.

I posted a picture of my sentiments.

The fact that Bush is adamant that immunity be retroactively granted indicates that the telecoms are at risk and have violated the telecommunications act of 1994. That McConnell has told the telecoms to STFU when talking to Congress also indicates probably violation of law has been taking place.

If I was BenFranklin, I'd be making calls to Verizon and demanding to be let out of my contract for their willful violation of my right to privacy. I'd ramp it up, call over and over again, document my calls, who I spoke with, dates/times.

If that didn't work, I'd them summarize the content and have a Lawyer put it on his letterhead and mail it to Verizon, certified.

I'd then*

Nothing is secret about your telephone conversations or your telephone records, and never has been. If you want to talk about civil right abuses, let's talk about the 110,000 Americans sent concentration camps without any due process by the DEMOCRATIC PARTY and their God Franklin Roosevelt. I've had dozens of Democrats tell me that if he were still alive, they would still be voting for him.

""let's talk about the 110,000 Americans sent concentration camps without any due process by the DEMOCRATIC PARTY and their God Franklin Roosevelt.""

Oh, the interment that Michelle Malkin says was so great. But, I thought it was just Democrats who were in favor of that??? No??? Oh, I see, Burt is talking out his ass.

"If you want to talk about civil right abuses, let's talk about the 110,000 Americans sent concentration camps without any due process by the DEMOCRATIC PARTY and their God Franklin Roosevelt."

Or instead we could talk about something from THIS century. Something we can actually do something about before it gets worse.

Oh, the interment that Michelle Malkin says was so great. But, I thought it was just Democrats who were in favor of that??? No??? Oh, I see, Burt is talking out his ass.


A vast majority of those on the right oppose internment.

It is very disingenuous of you to pluck one nutcase and act as if that stupid bitch speaks for the right as a whole.

Perhaps I should cut and paste some Ward Churchill quotes and pretend they speak for the left as a whole. Would you be in favor of that???? No???? Once again Danni is talking out of her ass.

"A vast majority of those on the right oppose internment."

Of course they do NOW, just as the vast majority of the left does. But then it was most definitely not a left or right, Republican or Democrat issue and the majority of the country and both parties supported it.

Of course the salient point being that it has NOTHING whatsoever to do with this thread.

"It is very disingenuous of you to pluck one nutcase and act as if that stupid bitch speaks for the right as a whole."

Anyone hear anything from the right, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Hannity... calling Malkin a "nutcase" and a "stupid bitch"?

Anyone?????

"Perhaps I should cut and paste some Ward Churchill quotes and pretend they speak for the left as a whole."

But that is exactly what many rightwingers were doing when Churchill was in the news.

Just like Bill O'Reilly went off the deep end during YearlyKos, citing their blog comments section as proof of the "hatred" shared by the left as a whole.

Hans

Bert, do you see any differences between WWII and our current one? I urge you to watch the PBS documentary "War". Its pretty eye opening, and about 5 hours long so take your Ridlan beforehand.

Yav, I would live to raise a stink about Verizon. I am in a legal class where my law proffesor loves this kind of stuff. Maybe I could sick him on them. He is a product of Berkley so he would probably do it for S & Gs.

Anyone hear anything from the right, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Hannity... calling Malkin a "nutcase" and a "stupid bitch"?


She was on Hannity and Colmes and both Hannity and Colmes were opposed to her praise for internment.


Just like Bill O'Reilly went off the deep end during YearlyKos, citing their blog comments section as proof of the "hatred" shared by the left as a whole.


First off, he almost always qualifies it as the 'Far Left', and then says he doesn't have a problem with liberals.

Secondly, you are proving my point for me - Both sides engage in this disingenuous behavior. So many on this blog operate under the delusion that either:

A. The Left is absolutely squeaky-clean when it comes to this sort of thing.

-Or, after being bludgeoned over the head with some pesky facts:

B. That while the Left does it too, the right is far worse.


Both of which are bullshit and demonstrably false.

I have Verizon FiOS... meaning my cellphone, home phone, internet, and TV are all provided by Verizon. Shockingly, I'm not in Gitmo, and even if they looked at me they got bored quickly and stopped.

No big deal...

"and even if they looked at me they got bored quickly and stopped."

Like so many others.

JEffJ, I think both sides do it. Your side just laps it up more frequently. The ratings Rush, Hannity, and BillO have is staggering.

"She was on Hannity and Colmes and both Hannity and Colmes were opposed to her praise for internment."

They "opposed" her "praise for internment." My, how gentlemanly of them. But that's a far cry from calling her a "nutcase" and a "stupid bitch." I wonder if they "oppose" her stalking of the Frost family?

"First off, he almost always qualifies it as the 'Far Left', and then says he doesn't have a problem with liberals."

Nuance and the fine print. How special.

"Both sides engage in this disingenuous behavior."

JeffJ, I don't seem to remember you coming to the defense of anyone on the left when your rightwing brethren were bludgeoning the left with Churchill's comments.

I especially find it interesting that you defend O'Reilly's nuance and fine print ("he almost always qualifies it as the 'Far Left', and then says he doesn't have a problem with liberals.") but then call behavior such as his "bullshit and demonstrably false."

Sorry to say, but after almost 7 years of "a uniter, not a divider" leading this country, and his minions following his lead ("you're either with us or against us"), the days of nuance and gentlemanly conduct are behind us.

Hans

"I have Verizon FiOS... meaning my cellphone, home phone, internet, and TV are all provided by Verizon. Shockingly, I'm not in Gitmo, and even if they looked at me they got bored quickly and stopped.
No big deal..."
-Rob-

Translation: If you aren't doing anything wrong you don't have anything to worry about.

Same old statement we have heard for 70 years now. I wonder where it originated.

Holy fucking shit! 720 instances in over 2 years!!! Why, why, why that's preposterous!


I think the nerd with the glasses in the Verizon commercials personally listened in on the calls, wrote the transcripts, and handed them to Bush, but not before shit-kicking Randi Rhodes.

How can anyone be surprised when large corporations secretly cooperate with government intrusions into the private conversations of citizens when the government and large corporations are really parts of the same entity.
If you want to understand why this connection between large corporations and government is dangerous just look up fascism.
I believe many Americans today accept the reality of fascism though they reject the word.

"Public officials, not private businessmen, must ultimately be responsible for whether the legal judgments underlying authorized surveillance activities turn out to be right or wrong -- legally or politically," wrote Wayne Watts, AT&T's senior executive vice president and general counsel. "Telecommunications carriers have a part to play in guarding against official abuses, but it is necessarily a modest one."




I understand exactly what this guy is saying and I completely agree. I also can see the slippery slope arguement being used (actually it isn't being used by you fruitcakes, as usual you believe the sky is falling).

If your kid or loved one was kidnapped you'd give fuck one about what rules were bent or broken to get info that would lead to the safe return of that person.
Unless there is a specific example they can give that would justify the pant pissing thus far I'll chalk this up to the typical over-reaction by the strange agents on this site.

They "opposed" her "praise for internment." My, how gentlemanly of them.


What do you want them to do? Slap her in the face and call her a cunt? She's wrong on that issue and is a bit of a nutcase, that doesn't make her wrong about everything 100% of the time.


JeffJ, I don't seem to remember you coming to the defense of anyone on the left when your rightwing brethren were bludgeoning the left with Churchill's comments.


At the time it was a story I did comment that he didn't speak for the entire left - several times.

I also defended Kerry's recent speaking gaffe (you'll get stuck in Iraq), once his clarification was given - the inadvertant ommission of the word "us". Check out the crocodile murder thread and see my comment about DR lefties.

It's interesting: Myself and a number of other righies acknowledged Kerry's mistake for what it was, yet I don't recall a single lefty acknowledging Rush's 'phony soldier' comment for the grossly misconstrued and out-of-context that it was.


I especially find it interesting that you defend O'Reilly's nuance and fine print

Of course I do. He makes that distinction to avoid painting with too broad a brush, to avoid pigeon-holing ALL liberals with the actions of the kooks. Are you actually deriding the fact that he offers such a qualifier?


Sorry to say, but after almost 7 years of "a uniter, not a divider" leading this country, and his minions following his lead ("you're either with us or against us"), the days of nuance and gentlemanly conduct are behind us.


It takes 2 to tango, Hans. Bush DID start off his presidency trying to be a uniter - he immediately re-nominated some of Clinton's stalled judicial appointments. He reached accross the aisle and brought Ted Kennedy in to help craft NCLB. That said, he has contributed to the current level of divisiveness as you correctly point out. However, he had an awful lot of help from the left side of the aisle. It is disingenuos to suggest otherwise.

Like so many others.

Posted by Zarkov


Yeah Zarkov... so many people could honestly give a fuck about you I'll bet... I'm sure every government agency wants to know how many times you call your mother a week... or I'll bet you think there is actually a folder in some NSA office about you because you once sent an email to the friend you experimented with at camp saying how you think Bush should be impeached...

Yeah Zarkov...I'm sure every government agency wants to know how many times you call your mother a week...

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole at 2007-10-17 10:12 AM | Reply


Read the article stupid. They're only tapping phones, not basements.

Read the article stupid. They're only tapping phones, not basements.

Posted by 101Chairborne


Touche... lol

Gotta run.

Rob, just to clarify, are you ok with the government getting phone records without warrants? What about tapping the phones of US citizens?

""It takes 2 to tango, Hans. Bush DID start off his presidency trying to be a uniter""

Yeah, going to the SC to stop the recount really united the nation. What a laugh.

As is so often the case, Robbie, the point just whizzes by and you miss it. But you are right about one thing:

"and even if they looked at me they got bored quickly and stopped."

Chins up: Your wife says she's not bored, just not interested.

"Are you actually deriding the fact that he offers such a qualifier?"

Like Limbaugh's 10-years-later apology to Hillary Clinton over his calling Chelsea a dog, O'Reilly's qualifier is too little, too late. In truth, I've never heard him give that little qualifier, which accomplishes his main objective: 1) say it for the JeffJ's of this world to be able to repeat it, but 2) say it quiet enough (or not often enough) so that lesser individuals don't hear it or even catch its nuance, so that their impression is that O'Reilly is talking about all Liberals.

"However, he had an awful lot of help from the left side of the aisle."

Interesting how you included Kennedy and NCLB as indications of the "uniter, not divider." But just 11 months after it was signed into law Max Cleland was defeated in his re-election bid in Georgia after having his patriotism, even his war injuries, called into question. In fact, several Democrats were defeated that year using procedural votes on various parts of the HLS bill against them, calling them "terrorist supporters," and worse.

"It is disingenuos to suggest otherwise."

My take is after that almost 7 years of "a uniter, not a divider" leading this country, and his minions following his lead ("you're either with us or against us"), the days of nuance and gentlemanly conduct are behind us.

Your take is "It takes 2 to tango."

And that just serves to illustrate the wide gulf which exists in the country today.

Hans

And that just serves to illustrate the wide gulf which exists in the country today.

Hans

Posted by Hans at 2007-10-17 10:36 AM | Reply


Which didn't exist in 1992-2000...

Up until 2000, liberals and conservatives got along swimmingly, the usa never tortured, and our military was never mis-used...

Rob, just to clarify, are you ok with the government getting phone records without warrants? What about tapping the phones of US citizens?

Posted by BenFranklinn


In the case of rare emergencies where speed is critical I am okay with it, but I want it explained in detail to some type of oversight committee, and if that committee determines that they acted inappropriately then I want those who acted without a warrant punished.

In the generic sense that you asked, no I am not okay with the government just listening in to whoever they want where ever they want when ever they want.

Chins up: Your wife says she's not bored, just not interested.


Posted by Zarkov


Wow... its not often you see such a zinger here... a fat joke and a wife joke all at the same time... holy fuck you should be doing the comedy central roasts, you funny, funny bastard.

Zarkov you sound like the typical egotisical self centered liberal, who thinks that if it was done to someone it must have been done to you... let me clear it up for you. You are not important... outside your family and a handful of friends, the vast, vast majority of the 300,000,000 Americans including the government do not give a fuck about you. Your life will go unnoticed by most and your death by even fewer... there is no government file on you, nobody is listening to your phone calls, nobody is reading your email, and nobody cares how many times you've rented Revenge of the Nerds cuz you have a hairy twat fetish... get over yourself, you are nothing... just like me and the rest of the retorters and most Americans... most humans for that matter.

But you would be remembered for the ages, if anyone really gave a damn.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

"Up until 2000, liberals and conservatives got along swimmingly"

What you guys are ignoring is the fact that your constitutional rights were still violated; whether you ended up in Gitmo is not the issue. If we let the Federal Government and Corporations get away with it now how will we stop them in the future when it could be something worse?

Well there you have it folks, because Clinton signed a name tag for Dick Armey, there was no wide gulf in the country...

Give it a rest Hans. You can google until your heart is content, but you'll never convince anyone other than yourself that there wasn't a giant divide in our country between 1992 and 2000.

But you would be remembered for the ages, if anyone really gave a damn.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Posted by Zarkov


reading problems zark?

get over yourself, you are nothing... just like me and the rest of the retorters and most Americans... most humans for that matter.

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole


You've got to love it when someone does the big Homer Simpson "BWAHAHAHAHA" laugh, and it just makes them look foolish...

If we let the Federal Government and Corporations get away with it now how will we stop them in the future when it could be something worse?

Posted by taxman at 2007-10-17 11:03 AM


So now Corporations need government liaisons and are responsible for determining which kidnapping victims deserve a speedy response?

Do you subscribe to the gay marriage slippery slope (farm animals, multiple wives, porpoises)?

you'll never convince anyone other than yourself that there wasn't a giant divide in our country between 1992 and 2000.


Posted by 101Chairborne


Why would anyone even try? The Republicans impeached the President... and for pretty weak reasons... I'm thinking partisan politics/hatred may have played a role... maybe...

What you guys are ignoring is the fact that your constitutional rights were still violated

See that's the whole problem here... No, not everyone's constitutional rights were violated... not even every Verizon customer's rights were violated...

It can be argued that maybe a small percentage of their customers' rights were violated, but it is an insanely small percentage when even compared to just all of verizon subscribers...

I've never heard him give that little qualifier, which accomplishes his main objective: 1) say it for the JeffJ's of this world to be able to repeat it, but 2) say it quiet enough (or not often enough) so that lesser individuals don't hear it or even catch its nuance, so that their impression is that O'Reilly is talking about all Liberals.


He gives that qualifier quite frequently - I would know because I watch his show a fair amount.

And libs go nuts. Well thank goodness when HillRod gets in we can stop worrying up the Gov snooping around peoples internet and overseas communications. Won't you all feel much safer that people who promote and visit those Jihadist web sites be Democratic protected?

Yes, I will feel alot better that I am protected. It is kind of funny your statement DAVE, your worried about the jihadist being protected but not yourself.

Mighty noble but extremely stupid.

Thankfully the telecom market is no longer a monopoly. Switch carriers

Guess what?

If Verizon owns the lines, they still get paid albeit not as much. Last time I looked out the window there are not 18 sets of telephone lines running through the hood.

No, not everyone's constitutional rights were violated... not even every Verizon customer's rights were violated...

So that makes it okay. What fucking percentage would you allow to have their rights violated?

Who's rights were violated? Who's rights will be violated tomorrow?

But I guess we can selectively trade away our rights, let the government decide who gets to keep em and who loses them, for a false sense of security.

Corporations need government liaisons

They already have them. They are called corporate counsel.

Verizon sure doesn't seem to mind using them every time you sign up for something, hey why wouldn't they use them for something important like ensuring their actions are inside the framework of the Constitution?

Because there is no money in that?

I think Clinton thought it was a nice thing to do for some kid, and he was happy to do it." Armey said that when he went to his first meeting in the White House with President Bush, he explained the tradition with Clinton and asked the president if he would care to continue it. "Bush refused to sign the card. Rove, who was sitting across the table, said, 'It would probably wind up on eBay,'" Armey continued

That is because the neocons cannot put partisan politics aside for even just one moment and they are consumed by hatred for the other side. That is why they are the biggest fucking idiots on the planet.

I have to laugh at these supposed ex military guys and the support of revealing data without courts.

The know it is a violation of the constitution, they at one time swore to protect the constitution, and now could careless about the whole bloody thing.

Really tells you how the military treated them, they are all out for protection of their country and its laws of the land.

So that makes it okay. What fucking percentage would you allow to have their rights violated?

It would have to be at least .001%

Who's rights were violated?

Very few if any

Who's rights will be violated tomorrow?

Even less...

But I guess we can selectively trade away our rights

Let me know when we actually do that...

let the government decide who gets to keep em and who loses them

that would be stupid, which is why it hasn't and won't happen.

for a false sense of security.


Posted by 726 at 2007-10-17 03:51 PM


Actually the cases in which this was used probably helped lead us to a real sense of security... either by catching and building a case against people wishing to do us harm, or by clearing the name of innocent people leading us to stop wasting time on them.

Win-Win...

No, not everyone's constitutional rights were violated... not even every Verizon customer's rights were violated...

No, you are quite wrong, if one customers rights were violated, all of them were violated.

There is no way of knowing who they violated so it is reasonable that they were all violated.

You see that stinking can't tell you national security bull shit is going to send companies down the drink. Verizon is already trying to defend itself in a lawsuit for giving the information away. It violated the constitution and their is multi-millions on the line here.

This is why all the phone companies have asked for protection with a bill. It won't matter, even if congress makes a bill, it violated the constitution and no bill will stop that, they are in trouble.

It also shows the relationship between government and corporation, 30 years ago this would be front page news and the corporation would be going out of business.

The U.S. is taking the slow road but all good thing end if we as a people don't stand up for what this nation was founded upon.

let the government decide who gets to keep em and who loses them

that would be stupid, which is why it hasn't and won't happen

It is ALREADY happening in this instance. If you can't see that you are beyond hope.

No, you are quite wrong, if one customers rights were violated, all of them were violated

really? I'm a verizon customer for just about every service they offer... my rights weren't violated...

It is ALREADY happening in this instance.

Posted by 726


Says you... I say different. You're rights weren't violated, mine weren't, $war's weren't... very few if any rights were violated... calm down.

The government asked for the information and Verizon complied with the request. This has zilch to do with the government. If you're pissed at anyone be pissed at Verizon, but you can't be all that pissed, because they own the data. Its theirs... if you don't like that, switch to AT&T or some other company.

No rights were violated... the Government can ask for whatever they want, you and everyone else do not have to give in... Verizon did.

It would have to be at least .001%

To this:

Very few if any

We all know why this gentlemen is no longer in the military, dishonorable discharge for failing to up hold the values of the oath. :p

It always strikes me funny listening to these supposed military mikeys spout about honor, pride, and such but clearly this isn't the case.

All here can see the type of honor and pride they have for this country and the constitution.

really? I'm a verizon customer for just about every service they offer... my rights weren't violated...

No, you don't care and that my asswipe is different. You're just making a political stupid stand which should go against the very grain of what you continue to post of your service.

The only people I have actually ran across in real life that is not outraged and against the tapping are nonmilitary.

It is kind of funny, that oath is taken seriously, and by your spouting, what happened to you!!!

We all know why this gentlemen is no longer in the military, dishonorable discharge for failing to up hold the values of the oath. :p


Are you talking about me?

I was never in the military.

All here can see the type of honor and pride they have for this country and the constitution.

Posted by moneywar


The government didn't storm Verizon's headquarters with machine guns arresting anyone who got in their way and hack into their systems to take everyone's call records and internet history...

They said, "Hey Verizon, can we have the information on these people, its kind of important we think they might be jerks."

And Verizon replied, "Yes, you may take OUR data."

Verizon owns this data, you use their phone lines, their internet connections, and they track that usage. If they want to give that information away, they can... its not the greatest business idea, but it is not a violation of your constitutional rights... sorry... find another crusade...

You're just making a political stupid stand which should go against the very grain of what you continue to post of your service

I don't know where you're getting this... I was not in the military...

And again, this is not a political issue... sorry its not. Verizon made a decision about what to do with its data. You're beef is with the company, not the government... all the government did was ask for it. Verizon provided it... call them.

If you're pulled over and an officer asks if he can search your vehicle, you can say no, at which point he has to go get a warrant to be able to search your car. If Verizon said no, and they took it anyway it would be a Constitutional violation, but Verizon said yes and handed over their property...

Sorry, but you're wrong.

I don't know where you're getting this... I was not in the military...

Wow!!!

I did get it out of him.

Like I said, that oath does mean something to those who take it.

No wonder he could careless, it shows his honor.

Rob, you are the ass hole and your very stand here is nothing but ignorance and unknowing stupidity.

And just for you information WOBBIE, when you sign the contract with Verizon, you sign a privacy statement but don't let the stuff up you ass for too long, it hurts.

And just for you information WOBBIE, when you sign the contract with Verizon, you sign a privacy statement but don't let the stuff up you ass for too long, it hurts.

Posted by moneywar


That still doesn't make it a Constitutional violation, dickface, it makes it a breach of contract...

And since Verizon willingly turned the information over to the Feds I'm guessing you're reading too much into it...

Sorry but you're wrong, this has nothing to do with the government... they didn't need a warrant because Verizon handed the information over willingly.

I don't know where you're getting this... I was not in the military...

Wow!!!

I did get it out of him.


What are you talking about? I've never claimed to have served in the military. Not once... Why is it so surprising that I would correct your posts claiming I was a soldier?

NEW YORK (CNN) -- BellSouth and AT&T were added to a class-action lawsuit against Verizon Communications that alleges the companies illegally participated in a National Security Agency domestic surveillance program.

The complaint, filed in Manhattan District Court, is asking that the companies pay $200 billion in fines to their 200 million subscribers.

The Companies are not asking congress for protection because they know they can win.


Posted by moneywar


If they lose its their own fault for willingly handing over the data to the feds. But still this has nothing to do with the constitution.

If they lose its their own fault for willingly handing over the data to the feds. But still this has nothing to do with the constitution.

Oh! OK! Yeah! Sure!.....Yubetcha!!!