Theos-Talk Archives (July 2004 Message tt00181)

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Bart Lidofsky <bartl@s...> wrote:
> Yanked. Not burned to the ground.

What can I say? Don't mess with Janet Reno.

> And the FBI does 
> not yank children in child abuse cases, unless called in by local 
I think the FBI got involved because the feds were not willing to 
back down because someone resisted arrest. If they set a precedent 
that everybody who resists arrest could commit crimes and then laugh 
at the law everybody would be a crook and every white house 
administration would be as bad as the one we have now.

> A hacker broke into our systems 
> (which is what got me put in charge of security in the first place

Clever way to get a job, Bart.

> I went "undercover" into the hacker boards

You are not that undercover. The FBI's carnivore system monitors 
people who use hacker sites. So they have your (IP) number.

So when you were surfing hacker sites did you ever find out why the 
hell anyone would want to waste time being a hacker? (I am of course 
referring to malicious hackers and not defensive hackers who study 
security issues to protect companies.)

> Had the precedent stuck, I could 
> have gotten convicted, because I had the means and ability to break 
into 
> computer systems

You need to stop breaking into computers, Bart. In any evemt, if I 
wanted to catch a hacker I would be more likely to look at people who 
have the means and ability as suspects than people who can't figure 
out where the power switch is. I would do the same thing you did, in 
other words. So you would reasonably be on the list of suspects but 
I doubt you would be convicted unless they could prove you did it. 
OJ Simpson never gets convicted no matter what he does. Neither does 
Dennis Koslowski. Just tell your lawyer to have The Holdout Granny 
from the DK trial sit on your jury. You could confess in open court 
and she would vote for acquittal.

> The U.S. government has a nasty habit of, when they want to create 
a 
> law which they are reasonably certain will not pass the courts, 
they use 
> the principle first against an unpopular group, get their 
precedents, 
> and then use it against the population as a whole.

Religious groups do the same. The long phony campaign against bad 
taste (in the form of pornography) is really a strategy for doing 
away with the first amendment itself by attacking a group nobody 
would dare to defend. That would not bother me were it not for the 
fact that past targets of religious motivated censors have included 
such dens of literary iniquity as HEIDI and TROUT FISHING IN AMERICA, 
among others. They are, as you know, interested in banning Harry 
Potter and make no secret of it. I don't use porn or read any of the 
books aforementioned but prefer that bad taste in general remain 
legal, otherwise I would have no taste at all. Or if I did have any 
taste I would incriminate myself, ipso facto.

> For example, the IRS 
> got their precedent to estimate tip income on waitstaff and cab 
drivers 
> (and putting the burden of proof on the taxpayer that they did NOT 
> receive that level of tip income) by setting a precedent on 
prostitutes 
> and drug dealers, first.

Restaurant managers do the same thing, demanding that waitresses pay 
for the privilege of having a low pay job or get fired. This is also 
true of managers who supervise bottom feeders in other areas.

George Bush says the rich (namely himself and his cronies) will not 
be taxed while at the same time increasing the size of government 30% 
and doing nothing to increase revenues, then saying through that 
drunken haze hs is always in that this is "conservatism." I prefer 
the Dick Armey model: eliminate taxes on the rich and continue 
subsidizing them by all means but avoid deficits by soaking the 
poor. Especially we need to raise taxes on network managers. Those 
guys have the money we need without being in the tax abated upper 
class and they are just awful anyway. Just plain awful. Soak 'em.

> A) There was no evidence of illegal ownership of weapons, and the
> federal government made sure that all evidence, one way or the 
other, 
> was destroyed. All that they had evidence was that, if they had 
wanted 
> illegal weapons, they COULD have them. To put it into simple terms, 
by 
> those standards, anybody who owns a shotgun and a hacksaw can be 
thrown 
> into jail.

I do not own weapons of any kind at all and see stockpiling weapons 
which have no other purpose except killing me as constituting a prima 
facie case for intent to use. Timothy McVeigh theoretically had the 
right to hire a truck and fill it with fertilizer, but I think one 
could argue he had a criminal intent for a motive. However, the 
question I asked was:

> > Are you 
> > saying it was the State of Tecas which was after these kooks? 
I know the Texas Rangers used Waco for a hangout, but thought it was 
the federales who were pushing this thing.

> B) The raid on Waco was in February, 1993. George Bush was elected 
> governor of Texas in November, 1994.

Spoken like a true Republican.

Bush now implies via his mouthpiece Tom Ridge that we may have him as 
President ad vitam because if there were an election terrorists might 
do something nasty, so get used to him and that foul mouth v.p. of 
his, Halliburton Dick. This is identical to the strategy used by 
Hitler, who both assumed and then retained power by entirely legal 
means. So it looks as if we may have a man on horseback here, as 
many of us suspected we did from the time he hijacked the 2000 
election.