On December 18th, 2007 at 1:47 pm, Salt said:
KaosKlerik said:

My idea was to find any gaps in my own arguments. A handful of people had inteligent responses, but the majority suffer from severe BDS. You can’t use logic to argue against someone only using emotion.
KaosKlerik, I was intrigued by your post on Kos and applaud your efforts… Had a lot of thoughts regarding their responses but didn’t wish to take this thread too off-topic.

Thanks.

My actual point was that we shouldn’t be afraid to go into the belly of the beast and occasionally respond over there. Always politely!

The regular nuts over there won’t be swayed, but polite reason might find root in the mind of some of the more moderate readers.

For instance, I’d be willing to bet not one person over there has brought up that it’s civil immunity, not criminal. It would prevent the trial lawyers from suing them and syphoning off millions of dollars, mostly for the trial lawyers.

KaosKlerik said:

I did it. What is Conservatism?

My idea was to find any gaps in my own arguments. A handful of people had inteligent responses, but the majority suffer from severe BDS. You can’t use logic to argue against someone only using emotion.

KaosKlerik, I was intrigued by your post on Kos and applaud your efforts… Had a lot of thoughts regarding their responses but didn’t wish to take this thread too off-topic.

The FISA overhaul bill doesn’t provide amnesty for the telecoms. It provides immunity from civil suits arising from the telecoms role in cooperating with the government in the protection of our nation.

Cooperation which was
illegal. Amnesty, immunity — whatever you want to call it. The bottom line is that they’re being given protection from repercussions related to their illegal activities. It’s a rewarding of lawlessness.

It would be a beautiful thing if the trial lawyers were to bring their resources to bear on illegals, but don’t hold your breath waiting. The illegals’ pocket aren’t that deep.

They could sue Mexico, for encouraging illegal migration. And if Congress sought immunity for the Mexican government for their illegal migration promotion activities, the Right would be (rightly so) crying foul.

On December 17th, 2007 at 3:56 pm, On-my-soap-box said:
Almost worth signing up at KOS just to get in the mix and have some fun.

NAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.

I did it. What is Conservatism?

My idea was to find any gaps in my own arguments. A handful of people had inteligent responses, but the majority suffer from severe BDS. You can’t use logic to argue against someone only using emotion.

The NYT reports that telecoms won a small victory today in the Senate regarding the FISA reform bill:
WASHINGTON — Telecommunications companies won a skirmish in the Senate on Monday as a bill to protect them from lawsuits for cooperating with the Bu…

On December 18th, 2007 at 12:42 am, Mark Jaquith said:

If amnesty is bad for migrants who break the law, why isn’t amnesty bad for telecom companies who break the law?

Just so you understand…

The FISA overhaul bill doesn’t provide amnesty for the telecoms. It provides immunity from civil suits arising from the telecoms role in cooperating with the government in the protection of our nation.

It would be a beautiful thing if the trial lawyers were to bring their resources to bear on illegals, but don’t hold your breath waiting. The illegals’ pocket aren’t that deep.

/ sarc tag

First, today the Senate having voted for cloture on the new FISA bill, is debating – among other facets of the bill, immunity for telecoms.
“The Senate voted today to begin debate on a rewrite of the controversial Foreign Intelligence Surveillanc…

They had all year and now they figure they can change it all by next month.