<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0">
	<channel>
		<title>gdp's Comments</title>
		<language>en-us</language>
		<link>https://www.intensedebate.com/users/737730</link>
		<description>Comments by TemperBay</description>
<item>
<title>Breitbart.com : CIA investigates whether laws broken helping NYPD</title>
<link>http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9PO0GDO2&amp;show_article=1#IDComment193145392</link>
<description>Great!  The CIA investigates itself.   </description>
<pubDate>Wed, 14 Sep 2011 02:57:46 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9PO0GDO2&amp;show_article=1#IDComment193145392</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Breitbart.com : Passenger: Was cuffed, searched over \&#039;appearance\&#039;</title>
<link>http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9PO01HG0&show_article=1#IDComment193144020</link>
<description>What a pathetic bunch of cowards America has become. </description>
<pubDate>Wed, 14 Sep 2011 02:52:34 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9PO01HG0&show_article=1#IDComment193144020</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Photography is Not a Crime : Indiana police threaten to confiscate man&#039;s camera</title>
<link>http://carlosmiller.com/2009/12/26/indiana-police-threaten-to-confiscate-mans-camera/#IDComment49239399</link>
<description>DustJunky acted properly.  It is also correct that the police may need (by warrant or subpoena) what he videotaped, as evidence for either a criminal case against the driver or civil court case brought against them.   Make copies (for friends and news media), document ownership of the camera used, and contact a lawyer.  Everyone needs to thank DustJunky for standing to protect our rights. </description>
<pubDate>Sun, 27 Dec 2009 17:33:54 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://carlosmiller.com/2009/12/26/indiana-police-threaten-to-confiscate-mans-camera/#IDComment49239399</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Breitbart.com : Va. man convicted of in-home indecent exposure</title>
<link>http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9CLS4500#IDComment47990620</link>
<description>If we generally accept that a man looking into a private home at a naked woman is a &amp;#039;peeping-tom&amp;#039; and the woman a victim - why is the man not the victim here? </description>
<pubDate>Sat, 19 Dec 2009 17:21:56 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9CLS4500#IDComment47990620</guid>
</item>	</channel>
</rss>