Monday, December 19, 2011

Justice Department Avoids Decision On Warrantless Cell Phone Tracking » Blog of Rights: Official Blog of the American Civil Liberties Union

Justice Department Avoids Decision On Warrantless Cell Phone Tracking » Blog of Rights: Official Blog of the American Civil Liberties Union

Whether the government needs a warrant will depend on which judge is on duty. This is not how the justice system is supposed to work.

The Justice Department persists in its strategy of not appealing cell tracking losses even though lower court judges have practically begged for the government to do so. Way back in 2005, a judge expressed “the full expectation and hope that the government will seek appropriate review by higher courts so that authoritative guidance will be given the magistrate judges who are called upon to rule on these applications on a daily basis.” Other judges have issued similar calls more recently, but to no avail. (The sole time the government did appeal a loss, the results were decidedly mixed.)

The American people deserve better. The government tracks cell phones all the time and all over the country, and whether it can do so without a warrant is a crucial Fourth Amendment question.

56 comments:

Anonymous said...

Bill s.1867 needs more attention.

TF said...

For sure.

http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/behind-closed-doors-congress-trying-force-indefinite-detention-bill-americans

Sen. Rand Paul Defends American Citizens Against Indefinite Detainment

John said...

Most criminals are a lot smarter than doing thier business over the phone. This is real scary to me and I'm glad the ACLU is looking
into this matter.

All americans should be vigilant
whether they are left or right in thier politics on the issue of free speech and privacy.

Anonymous said...

http://www.securitynewsdaily.com/10-ways-government-watches-you-1103/6/

John said...

If there is a conservative out and about can you explain something to me?.

Why do you guys hate sex?. You want to control reproductive rights of women and its always a losing issue for you guys. What gives?.

I guess you guys can't talk about the economy or the fact that 3.5 million jobs have been created in the private sector and the fact that unemployment is still high at 8.3% but things seem to getting better. What gives?.

Anonymous said...

Better post a few sources.

TF said...

I'm not one but I think that most conservatives don't want to control women's rights to reproduce.
I think we can disagree about when a life is a life without resorting to manipulative language. Let's try to be honest here.

Anonymous said...

Fucking has consequences, that's nature.

John said...

Well TF I really wish a few conservatives would grow a pair and ask why is the republican party's taking this tactic when there are more important things to talk about other than a woman's VJJAY?. Funny do they really have a point on anything it seems now?. Call me crazy but it would seem to me it might be useful to talk about the economy and what they think they can do about making it better. (I forgot tax the 99% and some how the 1% will trickle it down to us with the tax breaks they get. Yea hows that working?)

Don't get mad at me for using manipulative language. I'm just asking a question of our conservative friends. But I guess they have to get thier talking point to have a take.

TF said...

My bad John, it looked like you were talking about abortion but I guess maybe you were referring to contraception.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLR_T74_OBI

The eButton’s reporting extends even further than food and exercise: It can determine the amount of time wearers spend watching TV or sitting in front of a computer screen and how much time they spend outdoors. It tracks where food is bought, how meals are prepared, which restaurants are visited, and what items are ordered. The device analyzes how long the wearer spends eating, what foods and beverages are consumed, and how the wearer interacts with family or friends at the dining table.

Anonymous said...

Still waiting for his sources. A great place to start.

1. Source how it is you say conservatives hate sex.

2. Source the 3.5 million jobs created in the private sector.

Still have yet to see anything of worth, just vain babbles.

John said...

TF that is my Bad. I wasn't make myself clear when I was talking about the latest Repo phony outrage on contraception,reproductive freedom for women.

Let's see for the last 25 to 28 months there has been positive job growth in the private sector. It has been estimated that 3 to 3.5 million jobs have been created. (according to the last job numbers and Labor stats from the last two
quarters)
Now I don't think conservatives hate sex. I just like to know why they decided to use that talking point which really pumped up the outrage of women across the country. Have any points on that?
Anonymous?.

I don't do babbling or talking out of my backside. I always come with facts.

Anonymous said...

Hey Bigdog?

TF said...

Bigdog, I would like to play some sort of an online game with you sometime like cards or scrabble or something. Would you like to?

Anonymous said...

http://www.freeimagehosting.net/zz6g7

Anonymous said...

Still a 1.7 million "net job loss" since Obama took office. You actually need 5.2 million more jobs CREATED in the prvate sector to show a positive GAIN of 3.5 million. Thats "what gives" for the still high UEMPR of 8.3 percent. Im happy we are showing positive gains but it still isnt shovel ready recovery.

Anonymous said...

LDB said: I don't do babbling or talking out of my backside. I always come with facts.


LDB said:
"If there is a conservative out and about can you explain something to me?.

"Why do you guys hate sex?"

When pressed on the issue.

Then he sayed : "Now I don't think conservatives hate sex."

Then why the rhetorical question?

You obviously thought that way. Oh yes, i see now, the exiting Babbles dont exist. So i call BS.

Remembering the LDB said: "I don't do babbling or talking out of my backside. I always come with facts."

BS!!!!!!

John said...

I was being funny in my statement
on saying that conservatives hate sex. I was kidding!!! Get a grip
will yah "scrappy dumb"! This is another phony outrage that people like you deal in because you don't have a point unless it comes from Fox News or talk radio.

Now I think that the right has issues with women reproductive rights and the workplace. They seem to want to rollback gains that women has made in the past 30 to 40 years.

I mean when Mitt Rommney couldn't ansewr a question from a reporter about the Lilly Ledbetter Act because I don't think he knows what it is then if I was a female I would be concerned and pissed.

Now the unemployment number which is at 8.2% according to the last job numbers. Yes it's still high and the President has said it is still high. But we have had a net gain of 3 to 3.7 million private sector jobs in the last 24 to 28 months. (These are facts!!)

Anonymous said...

BTW im not outraged. THE accusation LDBs love to infere to detract from thier own misleading ...ummmm...jokes.

I called you on your BS and 3 posts later now you are joking?? Thats your explanation for your....BULLSHIT JOHN!!!

Secondly:
Your question about how conservatives hate sex was not intended to be a joke. You didnt say it was a joke and you didnt qualify it as a joke. Oh thats right you are the joke. Should have known.

Your job growth guess-timate has a gap of 700 thousand jobs (accuracy??). The most accurate statement still shows a net loss since Obama took office and there is not any shovel ready recovery. Hence "what gives" for the high UEMPR.

Real facts.

Anonymous said...

LDBs???....*shakes head*

Continued

BTW please explain how i need or get talking points from FOX news.I have handed your LDB ass to you many times over and needed ZERO help from Fox news in doing so. Simple facts serve me well. Might want to try them on.

Your continuing mantra about such a thing(talking points blathering) is not only boring, but extremely disingenious. Oh its like your hate sex comment, you are joking right??... *rolls eyes*

You see John. I dont need to banter about with you, like you seemingly love to do upon streamlining your ever changing narratives, to whatever fits your mood for that day.

LDB is so apropo its truelly sad. Oh and im done with you.

NEXT LDB!!!

John said...

BD you are truly a MORON!!!.

WTF are you angry about? I posted
my comments on conservatives hating
on sex about a month ago. Your now
responding to it and to be frank I moved on. Still...

You haven't really answered my question about why conservatives hate sex and women?. To go after womens reproductive freedom and not talking about the economy is not a good thing. The President has
a big lead in the polls by the female vote and it seems that the
Repo's can't get out of a womens
reproductive issues,equal pay etc.
WHY is that ???







I get my labor numbers from the Bureau of Labor Stats. You keep to be making statements of negative job losses under Obama. (Talking point) There was negative job losses the first 2 to 4 months of the President's term. A lot of that was stats from the last administration and it started turning when the stimulus bill passed. The job losses got smaller
each month until we started getting
net job gains in the private sector.

John said...

Now BD you haven't called me on anything. You are a majority of one it seems you need to be in conflict with someone. It takes two to tangle so I'm gonna move on.
Later!!!.

Anonymous said...

One last response to Highlight Johns LDBagory.

So let me get this straight FACTS are talking points from fox news, if i present them?(show me this evidence) But your so called facts are not talking points??? WOW talk about trying to stack the deck.....i.e. framing the debate. BTW you failed and you are right, you are done (coooked) here. You have admitted to your ignorance, unwittingly of course...LMMFAO!!!

You say im angry, im faking outrage. This is your poor attempt at obfuscation. This has always been a LDB tactic. Yet no evidence to back it up just pure conjecture. Again cooked like a xmas ham.

The FACT i posted 7 days after your ignorant post of conservatives hating sex and some sorta 3 to 3.7 job gain. Noticing you have no answer for the 700 thousand difference in numbers. The post has continued for a month, i never waited a month to respond. Ignorance is bliss isnt it. ROFLMAO!!!

You are right you are done (deep fried) here as well. Per usual you have failed in proving my outrage,anger,conservatives hating sex and a job gain that still bares high unemployment rate. Therefore proving a net job loss is still in effect.

GRAND FINALLY!!! no more basting my lil LDB friend. You have been fully cooked, with no reach around. LMAO!!

John said...

Let me try to make this a little clear because this blog seems to have a BIG RETARD posting on it.

At the very beginning of the first term of the current POTUS there was a job loss. When policies
like the stimulus package which also included tax cuts zero in to the middle class the job loss began to reverse and headed the other way. We were and somewhat still dealing with numbers from the previous administration. (Notice folks that BD won't talk about the job gains in the private sector? The unemployment rate reached I think almost 10 to 10.5% but has dropped down to around 8.3 to 8.2%. It's still to high and the current POTUS has said so.)

Anonymous said...

Whats retarded is that I am responding to one, of many, malavitas of retardation. Your ignorance speaks volumes and i will once again show you, your lack in reading skills.

You said and i quote:"(Notice folks that BD won't talk about the job gains in the private sector?"


"I'm happy we are showing positive gains but it still isnt shovel ready recovery."

Friday, April 6, 2012 12:40:00 PM CDT

Hmmmmmmm....selective reading?? You didn't ask me to expound on it neither.

LDBs love stepping in it.LMMFAO!!

John said...

Sometimes I get tired of repeating myself. Yes the first 4 to 8 months of the Obama administration there was job losses. When the stimulus went into action the job losses started to reverse and since the last job numbers there has been a net job gain of 3.5 to 3.7 million in the last 30 months. Also the stimulus package had tax cuts that was zeroed in to middle class wage earners.(This is something that the conservatives don't like talking about but it's true.)

I'm done !!!!

Anonymous said...

"I'm done !!!!"

INDEED!!!

Notice how you changed the numbers from 3.0 to 3.5. Somehow magically closing the 700 thousand gap you first quoted to 200 thousand. Was this change made by you or was this corrected at the US job site you, so called, were quoting from. I already know the answer lets see if your Liberal ass is brave enough to find out.

Oh and today's news about unemployment claims and so on are not favorable for your argument and your ever changing numbers you call facts.

You are truly an LDB and i am happy to remind you of it daily and that's a fact.

Anonymous said...

"Also the stimulus package had tax cuts that was zeroed in to middle class wage earners. (This is something that the conservatives don't like talking about but it's true.)"

Never been asked to talk about it. So your claim is erroneous at best.

If you are asking me about it? I think its fine, not anything huge mind you but, a nice political gesture. The extension of the Bush tax cuts were i nice political gesture.

TAX FOUNDATION
December 13, 2010

http://taxfoundation.org/publications/show/26899.html

Best article Ive seen on the tax cuts; the comparison baselines and current law are informative. I defer to them for their easy read and expertise.

John said...

The Tax Foundation has ties to conservative groups and the Koch Brothers.

The bureau of labor stats is the federal goverment.

You and I and I'm sure a lot of people that blog here are working-class. We work hard for the money that we make. Somehow you really buy into the trickle-down nonsense that is part of the narritave by the rightwing. It doesn't work!!!! .

Obama should have never exstended the Bush Tax cuts which added to the our debt because the middle class,working poor will pay for it down the road.

Anonymous said...

More ignorance??

This is why LDB's are so fucking lame.

Instead of disagreeing and pointing out errors of said article (You cant). You dismiss it because of opposite affiliations to your party-line? Did you even read it? (NOPE)

John said...

It appears that me and BD are the only one's that are debating on this blog. So sad...

Sorry about not getting back but I tend to do a lot more important things like not watching Fox and listening to conservative talk radio to get my talking points.

I think it is only fair to point out that The Tax Foundation is a D.C. think tank that is fronted by groups like Heritage and people like the Koch Bros. It has ties to other major conservative orgs. I have never had a problem with my ideas being taken on by anyone. I welcome it in fact because as a free thinker I am always learning and trying to be better.

If you go to war you have to raise taxes to pay for that war. Funny but "W" didn't do that and our current POTUS put the cost of the war on the budget and he gets attacked by conservatives for running up the debt.

The middle class tax cut that Bush gave wasn't really paid for because of the war on terror. The No-Child Left Behind was a unfunded mandate that the state's have to flip the bill. Nothing that "W" did was paid for and we are dealing with the consequences today. (Amazing Democrats are labeled tax and spend but if you look a lot closer the Repo's seem to like to spend and pass it down for future generations to deal with).

P.S. I read that article and maybe you need to read again because a middle class tax cut should work good with a "BUDGET SURPLUS."

Anonymous said...

I welcome debate also. But you meandering off on some tangent that has nothing to do with the, as they put it, a NON-PARTISAN think tank founded in 1937. Again try and discredit the article, not the think tank. Prove the article misleading first.

I'm sorry, but a free thinker would allow the others side of view. This allows us to determine a reasonable thought on the subject matter. I believe trying to discredit one source without having anything to show for your so called talking points being wrong. I mean. How is the law on the books is to be discredited? When the fact Obama and a congress voted to extend Bush's tax cuts. If it wrecked the economy? Then how is it they then extended said cuts?

The reality is. You haven't proven anything. My source is real and i don't need to re-read it. Do you have anything to rebut of said source.

I agree they are affiliated with conservative action, lobbying and support, but you have done nothing to prove that article misleading or lacking of prudent information.

Anonymous said...

Research on Koch brothers and Tax Foundation shows.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Koch_Family_Foundations

Koch brothers help fund. From 1998 to 2010 according to source watch.


2009) Tax Foundation: $62,369 for "Educational Programs"



Contributions of the Claude R. Lambe Foundation directed by Koch brothers.

2003)-2005)Tax Foundation: $50,000 for "General Operating Support"

2006)Tax Foundation: $100,000 for "General Operating Support"

2007) Tax Foundation: $125,000 for "General Operating Support"

2008)Tax Foundation: $50,000 for "Educational Programs"

2009)Tax Foundation: $50,000 for "Educational Programs"

2010)Tax Foundation: $20,000 for "Educational Programs"

The source i provided shows many groups being supported and a main one is the CATO Institute.

Bottom line is these groups have many ties that bind and they all continue to support a variety of organizations, usually libertarian or conservative think tanks, they also fund allot of arts and science organizations. Their main battle of science seemingly is all about disproving global warming. I in no way see anything wrong with this.

I'll be waiting to see if you can rebut the info i provided.

BTW your side does the same thing.

Anonymous said...

Well Bigdog. Assuming its you. Im sure John will wilt under the pressure of proving you wrong or should i say your info wrong.

Nice round last week. I never knew you could play golf so well.

Flip

Whatever said...

games r lames

peace

John said...

I'm sorry but if I seem like I wilted from BD's written onslaught
on my rebute of his source is because well I don't give a damn!!.

I did refute his info because you can't give a tax cut when you operate under the budget deficits that we are dealing with. I thought the current POTUS was wrong for expanding the Bush tax cuts.

The thing about think-tanks they are funded by individuals or groups that have a political agenda. The Tax Foundation have massive ties to the Koch Bros. and Heritage Foundation which has a stake in lower taxes for it's friends. It was fair for me to call out his sources and give scrutiny to the article. Nuff said!!!.

Anonymous said...

Dont worry flip. He dont give a damn. LMAO!!! That happens when you are not willing to communicate within the realms of reality.

Still no rebutal on the information provided, by said source. So im assuming its accurate and if so, it just gave John a severe headache...LMAO!!!

The source does more for LIBERTARIANS then for Repubs John. Dont get it twisted. I even posted all that the Tax Foundation recieved by way of the Koch bro's. Look at CATO's funds recieved.

Once again. Im showing your ignorance and 'dont give a damn' attitude the door; by means of my agenda. So what if you have a political agenda. YOu have one. I have one. They have one. However it is my pleasure to head off, intervene if need be, only to see you sling more of your LDB bullshit on this forum. I put your shit into check and mate everytime.

YOu come and and post and by your attitude and means of your fox news tirates. We all can easily see you are a LDB a spinalous LDB to boot.

Now to further my agenda and with your ignorance of another subject matter. You said:


"The middle class tax cut that Bush gave wasn't really paid for because of the war on terror."

First of all tax cuts dont pay for anything, they dont pay for themselves neither. Im in favor of tax cuts.

"Nothing that "W" did was paid for and we are dealing with the consequences today."

Now im going to direct you to the Evil Ones blog and you give that seven minute add from Obama a watchin. The reason for economic problems was due to the banking and loan industry. That clip mentioned nothing about Bush msshandling tax cuts. Again Obama extending them for a reason, you decide.

NOw im done slapping this bitch!!

Anonymous said...

WOW Bigdog. Maybe we should hit the links soon. Let some of that agression out on them little white balls.

Sorry John but i dont have a dog in this fight. Well other than Bigdog being a good guy and a fun, talented golfer. My guy is Ron Paul. Obama not so much. I mean you seemingly are crying about this not being paid for etc...(im confused)

My main confusion with your stance is who is going to pay for Obama care. It will never be paid for. The expense may be borrowed and passed onto future generations. Is that what you want? Isnt that what you were concerned about with Bush's tax cuts. Seems to me you are pissing down the legs of the future by excepting Obama care.

Flip

John said...

WOW!!!! You guys are really drinking the Koolaid.

Let me make this clear because it appears that some of us don't read to well. I didn't think that Obama exstending the Bush tax cuts was smart. Maybe I live in a alternative universe but I always thought that you give tax cuts when you have a budget surplus?.

For example JFK gave a tax cut when the goverment had a budget surplus under IKE that was zeroed at middle class folks.

Yes the financial issues we have is because of the banking,wall street and the fact that the industries was deregulated by the repo's and Bill Clinton. Also because of unfunded mandates and putting the war on terror on the credit card and not showing the cost on the budget.. (That's W).

As far as the healthcare reform act. It wasn't perfect and I'm not a fan of it. I think we could have done a medicare for all option which would have lowered cost in the long run. (very similar to what Tommy Douglass in Canada did with thier medicare act..) Maybe if we would have gotten out of Iraq and Afganistan we might be able to pay for healthcare?.

The only bitch on this blog is the one that used the word first!!

Anonymous said...

We all understand LDBs are bitches. NAH-NANEE BOOBOO!!

HAHAHA he gives us another talk around. Circle jerk even. Still has not presented any misleading info from the source provided. Once again prove my source as misleading or shut the fuck up BITCH!!!

YOU are the one drinking the koolaid. You assert the same dribble Obama tried: "we had a one-year deficit of over $1 trillion and projected deficits of $8 trillion over the next decade. Most of this was the result of not paying for two wars, two tax cuts, and an expensive prescription drug program."

First, the wars, tax cuts and the prescription drug program were implemented in the early 2000s, yet by 2007 the deficit stood at only $161 billion. How could these stable policies have suddenly caused trillion-dollar deficits beginning in 2009? (HINT!! SPENDING IS OUT OF CONTROL!!!)

Recent CBO data indicate a 10-year baseline deficit closer to $13 trillion if Washington maintains today's tax-and-spend policies—whereby discretionary spending grows with the economy, war spending winds down, ObamaCare is implemented, and Congress extends all the Bush tax cuts, the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) patch, and the Medicare "doc fix" (i.e., no reimbursement cuts).

Under this realistic baseline, the 10-year cost of extending the Bush tax cuts ($3.2 trillion), the Medicare drug entitlement ($1 trillion), and Iraq and Afghanistan spending ($515 billion) add up to $4.7 trillion. That's approximately one-third of the $13 trillion in baseline deficits—far from the majority the president claims.

Spending—which has averaged 20.3% of GDP over the past 50 years—won't remain as stable. Using the budget baseline deficit of $13 trillion for the next decade as described above, CBO figures show spending surging to a peacetime record 26.5% of GDP by 2020 and also rising steeply thereafter.

Source not needed because John doesnt give a damn.

Anonymous said...

Oh and get this BITCH!!!

After some deep research and whatnot. I found that the first of three of Bushs tax cuts, it was given when there was a 1.5% surplus of national income. The EGTRA of june 7 2001 was made before 9-11-2001. Notice the first tax cut was given before we were at war with Afy and Iraq. Also noting there was a surplus. So the first one, John agrees with.

The main issue is you can cut taxes amid increased expenses and a recession; brought on by the Banking industry BTW. Yet the current POTUS continues to spend even more amid extending these so called 'wrecking the economy tax cuts.' You know the shit you are trying to shovel.

Are you saying Obama is purposely trying to wreck the economy even more?

Yep folks, talk about painting yourself into a corner. Oh and

!!!CHECKMATE!!!

Flip cant wait until you are freed up to play again. Had a great time.

Anonymous said...

Ummmmmm. Typo "can cut taxes amid increased..."

can should be cant.

DOH!!!!

John said...

I sometimes wonder is it worth it to respond to BD?. Being called names like a "liberal douche bag and a bitch" is a little bit not mature.

So Bd you admit that there was a budget surplus when Bill Clinton left office?. (This is always a main talking point that the repo's throw out a lot on talk radio)

Also it's funny that you claimed Obama has spent wildly because according to "Marketwatch" a conservative website of the WSJ. And Forbes magazine the budget under President Obama has grown a lot slower. I think 1.5% if I'm not mistaken.

They source the OMB and CBO. THE FEDERAL GOV.

Have a nice day!!!!

John said...

What I meant about the Clinton surplus is that CTR claims that there wasn't a surplus under Clinton.

Anonymous said...

john i told you and EG, on air several years ago, i voted for Clinton twice. I know your Liberal bitch ass dont remember well enough. I call you names because it fits. YOu get presented with facts and questions you dont want to deal with so you 'Bitch up' alot. Like your boy EG except he doesnt post rebutals that make him look uninformed or calling into question his one sided half truths.

Spent wildly? how much is health care going to cost us and the future?? No shovel ready jobs! how many billions spent (700+)? Bail outs for green energy sector with epic fail results? example.

johns avoiding like he always does. "bitch up"

you say bushs tax cuts destroyed the economy. 7 minute video EG provided proves who was at fault. oh get this! it wasnt bushs tax cuts. Secondly Obama extends said tax cuts so i asked according to you john.

"Are you saying Obama is purposely trying to wreck the economy even more?"

(by extending bush tax cuts)

well??????

John said...

Well look who won't refute my sources.. God BD you are one really delusional SOB!!. Look at my post and I explained to you about the negative job losses at the beginning of Obama's term.

The only thing you can do is call me names because you like the ideology you represent don't deal in reality. You ad-hominem attacks
are weak like you logic.

Anonymous said...

According to you, not a Gov. source, that Bush's tax cuts hurt the economy. I told you to watch the video on EG's blog and in that video Obama's ad says the banking and loan industry was the one responsible. Hmmmmm... a source from your friends blog that refutes your claim by means of an Obama ad.

That's reality.

Back to the question.

"Are you saying Obama is purposely trying to wreck the economy even more?"

(by extending bush tax cuts)

Turn Bitch mode off and answer the question directly.

Anonymous said...

See folks hes a Bitch!! Wont answer,wont watch his cronies 7 minute video, source debunked,cries like a girl about ad-hominem attacks. Either MAN-UP!!! or continue being a BITCH. Its that simple LDB-B.

John said...

I tend to get a little confuse when I deal with people who don't deal well in facts.. I watch the seven minute video from Obama/Biden 2012 campaign. Okay? It went over what happend before Obama got in office and dealt with what he did to turn things around.

I think I mention in previous post that our mess we are in has a lot of fathers on both sides of the political spectrum. So I guess I'm wondering what the issue is with BDumb??. Don't put the banking failure on the demo's alone. The repo's deregulated the industry with help from some democratic lawmakers. And it was put on steriods when "W" got control. I have made that point many of times that this issue is shared equally. Only a complete fool would try to say it's all the democrats fault but of course this is BDUMB that I'm dealing with.

Anonymous said...

Still wont give an answer to my question.

Didn't blame the Dems. You are jumping to conclusions i never voiced. Typical tho, but dealing with reality would be new to you.

Now that we have made some progress and you are not blaming Bush's tax cuts so loosely. I'm glad to a point we had this conversation.

Anonymous said...

Complete and total ownage. Nice one BD.


Who cares!??!

John said...

WTF....

Your rants have been nothing but blaming Obama,Democrats and anyone that disagree with your ass!!!.

Anonymous said...

The FACTS!!! disagree with YOUR BITCHASS!!

Anonymous said...

john and BD. You guys need to scrap! NO more keyboard insults. Im sure the board would love to see something to settle this. JELLO WRESTLING maybe. Just kidding.

John said...

Sorry but this blog is the toy dept. of politics. I really don't take nothing that BD says serious anyway so fighting him would be somewhat useless. I deal with more big issues in my life than dealing with a stupid ass moron.

Erica said...

It's the learning of melodies which would help you stay encouraged in relation to all your piano tuition, and you need a system which gets one learning before you know it. It also doesn't hurt to be able to improvise if you are playing a piece by memory but have forgotten a part and in order to keep the piece going you need to improvise a bit just to get the next part that you do know. All set? Let's begin. WOOGIE: Minimized finger action calls for the fingers to be constantly on the keys, ready to play.