NationStates Jolt Archive

Looks like 43 Democrats voted for the extension of the Patriot Act. There is hope for us yet.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,163219,00.html

Looks like 43 Democrats voted for the extension of the Patriot Act. There is hope for us yet.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,163219,00.html

Oh yes all my hopes were realized in this wonderful infringement on my privacy!

Oh and nice giving a link to fox news of all sources to confirm your bias.

There is hope for us yet.

hope?

Gods, the last thing we need is for it to be continued.

Great. I can still hope for a federal agent to come knocking at my door if I take out a library book on explosives or guerilla warfare.

Patriot Act extension a done deal.Shouldn't that be something more like:
Patriot Act extension a dumb deal.
?

Celtlund, I hope you were being sarcastic. Hope just died.

Man. We get gay marriage, you guys get more patriot act. Condolences, eh.

Shouldn't that be something more like:
Patriot Act extension a dumb deal.
?
Ooh! I like it! :D

I personally have not felt any positive effect from the creation of the Patriot Act. I only see potential for its abuse.

I do not laud the reinstatement of the Patriot Act, and will not miss it when it is eventually liquidated.

Man. We get gay marriage, you guys get more patriot act. Condolences, eh.

Im afraid if we go much more conservative i might just have to move up there.

Im afraid if we go much more conservative i might just have to move up there.Ya know, for a while I was thinking along those lines. Then I thought, why don't we just reach up and kind of pull the border down a bit? 40 degrees? Do I hear 35?

hmm sounds good, let it encompass maryland and dc, it can stop before virginia though

Im afraid if we go much more conservative i might just have to move up there.

Come on up, with Hockey starting up again it'll be a fun Winter!

43 Democrats, eh? Just one more above the ultimate answer to life's ultimate question.

Now if it were 42... I'd definately have a ball with this. :)

Oh yes all my hopes were realized in this wonderful infringement on my privacy!

Oh and nice giving a link to fox news of all sources to confirm your bias.

My link to FOX in no way shows bias. If you prefer another source, try one of these if you prefer:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/21/patriot.act/index.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8663402/

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-patriot22jul22,1,6450461.story?coll=la-headlines-nation&ctrack=1&cset=true

My link to FOX in no way shows bias. If you prefer another source, try one of these if you prefer:

i don't think the implication was that the fox article was lying, but rather that people who use fox as a source tend to be cheerleaders for getting rid of significant constitutional rights, and human rights more generally.

Why do you all fear the Patriot Act? How has it affected you from the time it was put in place until now? No generalizations please. How has it specifically affected you and your life?

It hasn't affected my life in any way. I don't do things any differently that I did before. I haven't had the Feds come bust down my door at 3 AM.

Thanks for the other links though they werent necesary i just dont like fox because of things like "the nation's main anti-terrorism tool"

Its resulted in what 14 or 4 (its one of those, i cant remember) convictions actually related to terrrorism?

[insert small note of sarcasm] Go Patriot Act! Woohoo! Extension! Yes!

Why do you all fear the Patriot Act? How has it affected you from the time it was put in place until now? No generalizations please. How has it specifically affected you and your life?

It hasn't affected my life in any way. I don't do things any differently that I did before. I haven't had the Feds come bust down my door at 3 AM.

How has it positively affected you?
I dislike it for its aparent ineffectiveness and its potential to absolutely demolish the right to privacy.

Just use the Pete Townsend defence when you get caught with "Jihad For Dummies". Say it was for private research purposes.

Are you Libs ever gonna follow up on the "I'mma go to Canada" bs? How many Supreme Court Justices after Roberts would it take? I need to start a betting pool.

At least there were several provisions put in for a review of certain powers within a set timeline. That the damn Act was allowed to continue indefinately in any portion is just asking for abuse.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

i don't think the implication was that the fox article was lying, but rather that people who use fox as a source tend to be cheerleaders for getting rid of significant constitutional rights, and human rights more generally.

Ok, next time I'll use a more un-biased news source. :D:

i don't think the implication was that the fox article was lying, but rather that people who use fox as a source tend to be cheerleaders for getting rid of significant constitutional rights, and human rights more generally.

Says a Communist. :)

Says a Communist. :)

indeed, says a communist. an anarchist communist.

How has it positively affected you?
I dislike it for its aparent ineffectiveness and its potential to absolutely demolish the right to privacy.

We won't know about any positive results of the Act for years to come. Our law enforcement agencies are not about to tell us how they obtain intelligence information that may have prevented an attack. They are not about to reveal to the terrorists how they operate any more than the terrorists will reveal how they operate.

I guess the short answer to your question is, "I don't know." I can only presume it has had a positive affect as so far we haven't been attacked again since 911. Only history will some day answer that question.

I've answered your question, so now answer mine, "Specifically how has it affected you?"

indeed, says a communist. an anarchist communist.

Now there's a contradiction. I'm also a freedom-loving fascist; nice to meet you. :rolleyes:

indeed, says a communist. an anarchist communist.

Wow, and the irony never stops.

I hasnt much like you i havnt felt any real affects of it, the difference is we see different outcomes in the future

Now there's a contradiction. I'm also a freedom-loving fascist; nice to meet you. :rolleyes:

this isn't the proper thread to discuss your ignorance of political theories and movements. maybe some other time. "the anarchist thread" is in the archives if you're interested.

Now there's a contradiction. I'm also a freedom-loving fascist; nice to meet you. :rolleyes:

Dont be ignorant, communism isnt fascist, its an economic system, the maoist/marxist societies of the 2oth century may have been fascist, but that doesnt define communism as fascist.

There's a simple answer to the problem demorcrats... REBEL! OVERTHROW THE TYRANNICAL LEADERSHIP!!!!

Seriously. The PATRIOT ACT, is bad. You realise when you give up your civil freedoms, you have already given up the thing your president claims the terrorists hate so much. So something Bush is saying is BS.

Ok folks, if you are against the extension of the Patriot Act, I’m still waiting for an answer to post #18.

Im afraid if we go much more conservative i might just have to move up there.

If you go much more conservative, you'll all be goose-stepping whenever you walk to the corner store.

Move, by all means - move, before your right to move is taken away.

The real "Land of the Free", i.e., the "True North Strong and Free" will welcome all people of conscience and democratic principle with open arms.

Just try brushing up on your French, s'il-vous-plait.

Dont be ignorant, communism isnt fascist, its an economic system, the maoist/marxist societies of the 2oth century may have been fascist, but that doesnt define communism as fascist.

Did I say it was fascist? No, I did not. Moreover, your quickness to use ad hominem is unnecessary and unappreciated. I made a comparison between two separate oxymorons: "anarchist-communist" and "freedom-loving fascist." No where did I state that communism is fascism.

this isn't the proper thread to discuss your ignorance of political theories and movements. maybe some other time. "the anarchist thread" is in the archives if you're interested.

See above.

There's a simple answer to the problem demorcrats... REBEL! OVERTHROW THE TYRANNICAL LEADERSHIP!!!!

Oh, yes, there's a reasonable response.

If you go much more conservative, you'll all be goose-stepping whenever you walk to the corner store.

Funny, seeing as National Socialism finds itself on the Left of the political spectrum.

Yes yes, you're very edgy and unique Free Soviets. I'm sure some day your Dad will notice you for you.

The only differences between Fascism and Communism is that Fascism is based on an economic system that doesn't collapse and that when Communists commit mass-murder they do it "for the proletariat".

To everyone saying "OMG ESSENTIAL LIBERTIES CIVIL RIGHTS BEN FRANKLIN"...spare me. I don't view being able to get books and information on how to make fertilizer into bombs and how to use primers on high explosives while having nobody know about it as a combined essential liberty.

You want to get that stuff, fine. You just get watched when you do. That level of freedom is a privilege, not a right.

Funny, seeing as National Socialism finds itself on the Left of the political spectrum.

If you want to argue with someone about....please go some place else and quit trying to hijack this thread. Thank you very much.

By comparing a freedom loving fascist and an communist anarchist my imediate asumption was that you were comparing communism and fascism.

If you werent than my apologies but if you were than I stick by my arguement fo its absurdity, and no it wasnt the right thread for For me OR you to discuss it.

Yes yes, you're very edgy and unique Free Soviets. I'm sure some day your Dad will notice you for you.

Same to you. Please stick to the subject and quit this petty carping. Thank you.

By comparing a freedom loving fascist and an communist anarchist my imediate asumption was that you were comparing communism and fascism.

If you werent than my apologies but if you were than I stick by my arguement fo its absurdity, and no it wasnt the right thread for For me OR you to discuss it.

Done deal. Apology accepted. Celtlund, I apologize for the momentary hijack. *tips hat, walks away*

.. and no it wasnt the right thread for For me OR you to discuss it.

Amen. Thank you.

i don't think the implication was that the fox article was lying, but rather that people who use fox as a source tend to be cheerleaders for getting rid of significant constitutional rights, and human rights more generally.


that statement shows no bias. what hooey.

you get to use the same investigation techniques against terrorists that you do against pornographers and that is a infringement on rights?

Sounds like big lie propaganda by the left to me. Government's that don't protect their citizens from crime are useless. Those that protect criminals at the expense of the innocent are murderous.

Why do you all fear the Patriot Act? How has it affected you from the time it was put in place until now? No generalizations please. How has it specifically affected you and your life?

hard to tell, isn't it? that whole removal of judicial oversight, lack of transparent reporting, and injunctions against revealing whether many of its provisions have been employed thing works quite nicely. however, we do know that in conjunction with the pa and other laws increasing the powers granted to the police state, there has been a dramatic increase in the level of surveillance on domestic political groups that disagree with the status quo. i mean we've got fbi counterterrorism units collecting data on the aclu at this point.

and while it wasn't directly stated, it also wasn't denied that patriot act provisions were used in the case that sent an anarchist acquaintance of mine to prison for a year.

The only differences between Fascism and Communism is that Fascism is based on an economic system that doesn't collapse and that when Communists commit mass-murder they do it "for the proletariat".
Flat-out wrong. Spoken like someone who wouldn't know a fascist dictatorship 'til their country becomes one. And even then...?
You want to get that stuff, fine. You just get watched when you do. That level of freedom is a privilege, not a right.
Again, completely wrong. Limit freedom to that extent, and you've already crossed the line into the perversion of Liberty.

You're a fascist. By your own admission.

I have nothing else to say to one who would, today, willingly enable or endorse the same beasts that plagued us (the world) in the 20th century. You should be ashamed to be an American.

I don't view being able to get books and information on how to make fertilizer into bombs and how to use primers on high explosives while having nobody know about it as a combined essential liberty.

You want to get that stuff, fine. You just get watched when you do. That level of freedom is a privilege, not a right.

first things first. if you want to discuss anarchism, both your lack of knowledge of it and your use of silly stereotypes, we can do that. just not in this thread. now on to the above.

the mere idea of the state monitoring people's reading habits to make sure they aren't commiting thoughtcrimes doesn't frighten you? not even a little bit?

indeed, says a communist. an anarchist communist.Now there's a contradiction. I'm also a freedom-loving fascist; nice to meet you. :rolleyes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communism

But you're too busy listening to Rush Limbaugh to research, aren't you?

Conservatives are great when they get riled up. "THE LEFT! THE LETF!!!111 WAHH GOD H8S FAGS AND LIB-DEM FAGGOTS!!!!!1111@@@@2 tHEY H8 GOD AND OUR COUNTRY!1 ARAB ISLAMOFASCISTS 2!!!!!"

that statement shows no bias. what hooey.

you get to use the same investigation techniques against terrorists that you do against pornographers and that is a infringement on rights?

Sounds like big lie propaganda by the left to me. Government's that don't protect their citizens from crime are useless. Those that protect criminals at the expense of the innocent are murderous.
Except the PATRIOT ACT introduces new levels of infringments on our Civil Rights, such as random background checks on library books we've checked out. Arrest without warrant etc... But that's only half of it. We will never see the benefits from all these anti-terror measures at all. Big Brother will tell us he's making us safer, FOX News will second that notion and convince people Bush is doing the right thing, but in reality, it's just the implementation of the PNAC agenda.

and while it wasn't directly stated, it also wasn't denied that patriot act provisions were used in the case that sent an anarchist acquaintance of mine to prison for a year.

So what you are saying is it has not had a direct affect on you or your life.

So what you are saying is it has not had a direct affect on you or your life.
I think what he's saying is it has more potential to cause harm than do good.

Name one instance where the PATRIOT ACT singlehandedly stopped a terrorist attack.

and it's "effect" not "affect," btw.

Except the PATRIOT ACT introduces new levels of infringments on our Civil Rights, such as random background checks on library books we've checked out. Arrest without warrant etc... But that's only half of it.

How has this directly affected you over the time it has been in force? Have you had your house searched? Have you changed the types of library books you have checked out. Have you been arrested without a warrant? (By the way, police have always been able to arrest without a warrant.)

Flat-out wrong. Spoken like someone who wouldn't know a fascist dictatorship 'til their country becomes one. And even then...?

Again, completely wrong. Limit freedom to that extent, and you've already crossed the line into the perversion of Liberty.

You're a fascist. By your own admission.

I have nothing else to say to one who would, today, willingly enable or endorse the same beasts that plagued us (the world) in the 20th century. You should be ashamed to be an American.

The New Left gets so darn cute when they build up a little umbrage. And insane too! Apparently I'm a Fascist (not a communist though, for some reason) because I support a government simply monitoring individuals who represent a thread to the common people.

If I simply jailed or executed them for expressing dissent or simply making an effort to aquire information that's dangerous to the state I guess I'd then I'd be a Communist.

They're a mysterious people, Leftists. Mysterious and Wonderful.

Well, the Patriot Act has yet to be abused, supposedly. There have been no reported instances of the FBI checking library records or anything else equally asinine. However, I don’t feel that it is helping the War on Terror as much as securing the boarders would. Why it seems to take less political balls to circumvent the fourth amendment, than to enforce the law is beyond me.

He was referring to your "freedom is a privelidge not a right" bit i hink, it sounds very much fascist to me.

Well, the Patriot Act has yet to be abused, supposedly. There have been no reported instances of the FBI checking library records or anything else equally asinine. However, I don’t feel that it is helping the War on Terror as much as securing the boarders would. Why it seems to take less political balls to circumvent the fourth amendment, than to enforce the law is beyond me.

So it has not had any affect on you personally but you fear it? Why?

War is Peace
Ignorance is Strength
Slavery is Freedom

Think about this.

It really does apply to the current state of the U.S., if you think about it.

So it has not had any affect on you personally but you fear it? Why?

because it clearly offers immense possibilities for rather scary abuse. and it would all be legal, no less.

if there is one thing that history shows, it is that the state is just about the last entity you should entrust with power, and you should always be very wary when it says it needs even more. especially when it says it needs more power to spy on you for your own good.

first things first. if you want to discuss anarchism, both your lack of knowledge of it and your use of silly stereotypes, we can do that. just not in this thread. now on to the above.

the mere idea of the state monitoring people's reading habits to make sure they aren't commiting thoughtcrimes doesn't frighten you? not even a little bit?

Seriously, no.

Not in the slightest.

They're not policing thought crime, you can think whatever you want. You can even read it, support it, promote discussion of it, or make a T-shirt of it to contribute to our marvelous capitalist system.

If, however, you plan a course of violent or illegal action you can and will be stopped.

If this discussion was based on monitoring domestic groups like Operation Rescue, National Socialist groups, Anti-Federalist Militias, White-Power Hate groups, etc.. I bet you would be the first to urge the Federal Government to monitor and stop these dangerous thugs. I want all violent hate-mongers and terrorist group watched and contained.

War is Peace
Ignorance is Strength
Slavery is Freedom

Think about this.

or better yet read the book

i don't think the implication was that the fox article was lying, but rather that people who use fox as a source tend to be cheerleaders for getting rid of significant constitutional rights, and human rights more generally.

Ok so what constitutional rights do we want to get rid of?

In light of this, I shall be going to the library tomorrow to check out as many books on sedition, Islam, bomb making, chemistry, and anything else I can think of to get.

Any suggestions?

I really want to be the first person who has the gestapo at his door for reading.

Seriously, no.

Not in the slightest.

They're not policing thought crime, you can think whatever you want. You can even read it, support it, promote discussion of it, or make a T-shirt of it to contribute to our marvelous capitalist system.

If, however, you plan a course of violent or illegal action you can and will be stopped.


Or if you happen to check a book out on the subject, then your terrorist ass is behind bars for a year or two.

Any suggestions?

Some suggested titles:
101 Ways to use Industrial Strength Cleaner as a Weapon
Selling Nukes on eBay
Stem Cell Research: Road to the Future
Harry Potter and the Terrorists

He was referring to your "freedom is a privelidge not a right" bit i hink, it sounds very much fascist to me.

I said that in the case of a specific freedom, i.e. the freedom to surreptitiously gather material that could serve the purpose of killing civilians.

I don't think you have the "Freedom" to shout fire in a crowded theater, or commit libel and slander, or incite riots, assassinations, or the like against your fellow citizens.

Seriously, you think that someone should have the "Freedom" to say, "It is the duty of all White Americans to kill five Black people a day"? Is it an essential freedom to be able to know trade secrets, or details of ongoing investigations, or how to build a dirty bomb?

So it has not had any affect on you personally but you fear it? Why?
It hasn’t affected me personally. I’m white and I live out in the middle on nowhere. I just think it offers too much of an opportunity for abuse. Plus, the politicians are just trying to distract you from the fact that they are too afraid of offending Hispanics to recognize that if we stopped terrorists from getting in to the country in the first place, there would be no reason at all for things like the Patriot Act.
if there is one thing that history shows, it is that the state is just about the last entity you should entrust with power, and you should always be very wary when it says it needs even more. especially when it says it needs more power to spy on you for your own good.
I hate it when I agree with a communist. :p

There's a simple answer to the problem demorcrats... REBEL! OVERTHROW THE TYRANNICAL LEADERSHIP!!!!

Now this is nice. What tyrannical leadership are you talking about? I haven't seen a tyrannical leadership in this country yet.

Seriously. The PATRIOT ACT, is bad. You realise when you give up your civil freedoms, you have already given up the thing your president claims the terrorists hate so much. So something Bush is saying is BS.

What civil freedoms have we given up?

Seriously, what is going on in here? Ok we have people that support this "act" and people who "dismiss" it, or want it to be dismissed I should say. Ok we're entitled to our opinions, so yah crackin down on someone on this is like trying to say their religion is $#!T or something. Doesn't change anyones mind..just makes them pissed off...Now..

The Patriot Act, is supposed to protect us from terrorists, but not on an international scale. Its a Domestic act, meaning it only works internally in our country and not anywhere else, because quite frankly, its impossible to track what everone "checks out at a library" or watches in their house. Our country is based off the ideals of a free nation, where we can do whatever we damn well please without having the government getting pissed off about it. The Act is good in some ways, bad in others. To make a point of the library example, this did take place, and sure it didn't effect ME personally, it did indirectly. The Denver Police used what a group of people had checked out from a public library and charged them with "terrorist acts," and were even arrested without any warrants! (Occured in the fall of 02 I believe...)This act has already been abused in this instance. I however, being an Airline employee, support the background checks because if you have nothing to hide then let them waste their time. I get mad that they waste my tax dollars but hey what government doesn't?

Background checks don't hurt you...so they dig up you got a ticket back in 02 for going 45 in a 25 zone or something...ok who cares? The act, if any of you have bothered to read all 180 pages or so, has a lot of BS and good stuff in it. Yes it has high potential to be abused, but think about it. If it was really being abused every day, do you think all 250 million of us or so will allow that to occur on a daily basis? I don't think so. So after reading all of this jibberish, if you want to know if I support or hate it, I ultimately disapprove, and I find it sad that our "paid for" politicians can't see what they pass half the time and what kind of effect it has on us later on. Hey thats a republic for you! Think of it this way, if you really don't like it, run for office and change it yourself instead of complaining about it all the time. Half of those guys (and a few gals) are gettin old anyway and their way of thinking is going out the door. Just chill.

Seriously, you think that someone should have the "Freedom" to say, "It is the duty of all White Americans to kill five Black people a day"? Is it an essential freedom to be able to know trade secrets, or details of ongoing investigations, or how to build a dirty bomb?


Yes and i think everyone else should have the right to call him a chickenshit needle dick, and no not trade secrets or information on ongoing investiations and i never argued the did, and how did this get on free speech? isnt the main concern with the patriot act privacy? or is there a bit not letting us speak either?

Or if you happen to check a book out on the subject, then your terrorist ass is behind bars for a year or two.

Uh, no. It's marked in an FBI file I never get to see.

If they monitored me and saw that I was checking out more books on ancillary topics...and meeting/calling other people who were getting similar books...and making year-long trips to Pakistan with them...and buying truckloads of Fertilizer...and taking lessons on all aspects of flying a plane except, y'know, *landing*...then yeah maybe they'd knock on my door and ask a few questions.

Except the PATRIOT ACT introduces new levels of infringments on our Civil Rights, such as random background checks on library books we've checked out.

OHhh!! They need warrents still to do that! :rolleyes:

Arrest without warrant etc... But that's only half of it.

Wrong again. There will be a warrent but you'll never see it :rolleyes:

We will never see the benefits from all these anti-terror measures at all.

Prove it!

Big Brother will tell us he's making us safer, FOX News will second that notion and convince people Bush is doing the right thing, but in reality, it's just the implementation of the PNAC agenda.

:rolleyes:

It hasn’t affected me personally. I’m white and I live out in the middle on nowhere. I just think it offers too much of an opportunity for abuse. Plus, the politicians are just trying to distract you from the fact that they are too afraid of offending Hispanics to recognize that if we stopped terrorists from getting in to the country in the first place, there would be no reason at all for things like the Patriot Act.

I hate it when I agree with a communist. :p

So what about those foreign terrorists who blew up the Oklahoma Federal Building... those damn Islamic, jihad-loving... I mean... US trained good ol' boys who weren't natularized citizens... they were citizens. How do you stop terrorists that are born in your country? I'm sure the hispanics would love to hear you argue that point more.

In light of this, I shall be going to the library tomorrow to check out as many books on sedition, Islam, bomb making, chemistry, and anything else I can think of to get.

Any suggestions?

I really want to be the first person who has the gestapo at his door for reading.

Checking out books on Islam I can understand, you want to know more about the religion. Sedition and chemistry I can understand if you are studying histor, law, or chemistry. I don't see any legitimate reason for checking out a book on bomb making though. Also, if you checked out books on all those subjects at the same time or in rapid succession, I would question your motives for doing so.

Now, please explain how the PA has had a direct impact on you. So far, no one has done that and I suspect it is because it hasn’t. So, if it has not impacted you since it was first passed, why do you fear its extension?

Yes and i think everyone else should have the right to call him a chickenshit needle dick, and no not trade secrets or information on ongoing investiations and i never argued the did, and how did this get on free speech? isnt the main concern with the patriot act privacy? or is there a bit not letting us speak either?

Here's how:

Say these things were said anonymously and crimes are committed based on this call to action.

Does this anonymous person have the right to privacy or not?

Shouldn't that be something more like:
Patriot Act extension a dumb deal.
?

Zing.

So, if it has not impacted you since it was first passed, why do you fear its extension?
We fear it's extension because if it is allowed to continue it will erode all sense of democracy in this country.

The New Left gets so darn cute when they build up a little umbrage. And insane too! Apparently I'm a Fascist (not a communist though, for some reason) because I support a government simply monitoring individuals who represent a thread to the common people.

If I simply jailed or executed them for expressing dissent or simply making an effort to aquire information that's dangerous to the state I guess I'd then I'd be a Communist.

They're a mysterious people, Leftists. Mysterious and Wonderful.

Your so dumb, communism is a type of economy, not government, and just because the soviet union and china, which claim to be communisms but are corrupt dictatorships, killed millions of people, does not mean that is what communists do. Also, you said that you were a fascist, so thats why your being called one.

About the pat act restricting my freedoms in general? It has not, but its the slippery slope issue where the government wants to spy on you that is the main issue. It make me worry, that by checking out books, which several FBI agents have said that it wacthes people for, that I can be arrested and held, depending what I am arrested for for up to a month. Now what happens when the government goes a little further, and further to take away your rights? Its the slippery slope.

He was referring to your "freedom is a privelidge not a right" bit i hink, it sounds very much fascist to me.

I was referring to that in that fascist's post. I would never mistake a fascist for a communist, btw. And not being an American, my political sensibilities have not been warped and damaged by years of popular, deliberate misinformation and political revisionism.

I cannot abide fascism in any form, especially fascism that masquerades as legitimate policy. Or politician. Or pundit, for that matter.

I will not speak directly to them. They are personae non grata in my eyes.

I was referring to that in that fascist's post. I would never mistake a fascist for a communist, btw. And not being an American, my political sensibilities have not been warped and damaged by years of popular, deliberate misinformation and political revisionism.

No just warped by the Canadian method. You may not have been warped by the US but you have been warped by political ideology of Canada.

No just warped by the Canadian method. You may not have been warped by the US but you have been warped by political ideology of Canada.

Yes, of course. How blind of me. Obviously I'm Canadian, so I'm...what then, Corneliu? What is the end product of the "warpage" of "political ideology of Canada". And while you're at it, enlighten me as to "political ideology" of Canada.

Nice and precise, so we can finally give this the airing it has for so long richly deserved from your quarter. Illuminate me. Illuminate us. Do. Oh please.

Yes, of course. How blind of me. Obviously I'm Canadian, so I'm...what then, Corneliu? What is the end product of the "warpage" of "political ideology of Canada". And while you're at it, enlighten me as to "political ideology" of Canada.

Just like I"m American so enlighten me as to the Political Ideology of the US. Its just phrasing we use. Interesting how a little phrase can get people riled up.

Nice and precise, so we can finally give this the airing it has for so long richly deserved from your quarter. Illuminate me. Illuminate us. Do. Oh please.

That is a sepereate thread!

Ok, seriously people this ideology horse crap is not going to get you anywhere. Yeah we have our own ideas being in the US. What the hell is your problem? You have no better view on anything either, because you are warped by whatever country you reside in as well. Its not like its just the US that does it. Think about it...so before you start dissing a country that has more patriots than anywhere else, I suggest you think before you accuse.

Quote: Celtlund Quote: Celtlund
I guess the short answer to your question is, "I don't know." I can only presume it has had a positive affect as so far we haven't been attacked again since 911. Only history will some day answer that question.


How do u know that there haveb even been attempts since 9/11? Huh? HUH???

I mean, security is one thing, but sacrificing personnal freedoms in the "land of the free" (scarf) is quite the irony. I mean, security is the opposite of freedom! I mean, next thing u know there'll be anti-terrorist "purges" in Manhatten and Seatle(nothing is impossible, people.)! :mp5:

The Government wants to fool you, and in doing so, they have proved to be excellent marksmen. :sniper:

One of the most fucked up things about the Act is that PATRIOT actually stands for soemthing.

Regarding the books:

"Advocates argued that such powers already exist in criminal investigations so they should be expressly continued for terrorism investigations. They also cited safeguards in the bill, such as a requirement that a judge approve the records search.

One amendment, passed by a 402-26 vote, requires the FBI director to personally approve any request for library or bookstore records."

The Patriot Act has not affected me, or my actions, in any way. I don't expect it will.

I do have misgivings about giving this much power to my government - nothing wrong with some scepticism, history has shown us that it's healthy.

I would feel more comfortable if the provisions were of shorter duration than 10 years for most, and 4 years for some (including the book issue). Renewing them every year or so, as needed, would make me more comfortable.

I recognize that we need have some practical consideration toward empowering the government to thwart terrorism, and that adjustments need to be made for that purpose. Many people who would see the Patriot Act banned would be the first to criticize the administration for failing to protect us.

There's a reasonable compromise that we need to achieve - and national security is a serious subject that requires more than a yes or no answer.

So what about those foreign terrorists who blew up the Oklahoma Federal Building... those damn Islamic, jihad-loving... I mean... US trained good ol' boys who weren't natularized citizens... they were citizens. How do you stop terrorists that are born in your country? I'm sure the hispanics would love to hear you argue that point more.
There will always be crime, but one way to limit it is to limit foreign criminals, and those with suspicious backgrounds, from coming into the country. I’m all for any none convicted criminal not carrying a contagious disease who isn’t from the Middle East coming into this country. We just need to monitor the boarders to ensure that those people get here safely, and that we keep out those that would do us harm

Looks like 43 Democrats voted for the extension of the Patriot Act. There is hope for us yet.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,163219,00.html

Sounds more like all hope is gone to me.

If every government expansion power during wartime were really part of a slippery slope of decreasing liberty, we would have been on the course to tyranny after John Adams got the Alien and Sedition Act passed...
Seeing as how we still have two parties, I can honestly say that the PATRIOT Act does not frighten me.

I do not laud the reinstatement of the Patriot Act, and will not miss it when it is eventually liquidated.

It will never be liquidated. That's what this travesty of a vote was all about. We're stuck with it forever. Brace yourselves, there's probably worse to come now.

GIVE ME MY COUNTRY BACK DAMNIT!

There will always be crime, but one way to limit it is to limit foreign criminals, and those with suspicious backgrounds, from coming into the country. I’m all for any none convicted criminal not carrying a contagious disease who isn’t from the Middle East coming into this country. We just need to monitor the boarders to ensure that those people get here safely, and that we keep out those that would do us harm

Woh woh woh. The Oklahoma City bombings were not just crime, asshole! THOSE WERE TERRORIST ATTACKS BY AMERICAN--I REPEAT--AMERICAN TERRORISTS!!!!!! Sure, the predominate ethnic group that composes the terrorist demographic are those from the middle east. However, McVeigh had a suspicious background that wasn't closely monitored and look what happened. So don't think the borders are always problem. We've got terrorists here all ready.

It will never be liquidated. That's what this travesty of a vote was all about. We're stuck with it forever. Brace yourselves, there's probably worse to come now.

GIVE ME MY COUNTRY BACK DAMNIT!

And what Country are you from?

If from the states (And I know you are from your statement) when did we lose our country? We never lost our country so how can something be given back if we haven't lost it?

If every government expansion power during wartime were really part of a slippery slope of decreasing liberty, we would have been on the course to tyranny after John Adams got the Alien and Sedition Act passed...
Seeing as how we still have two parties, I can honestly say that the PATRIOT Act does not frighten me.

Have you noticed in this thread that not one person who is frightened by the Patriot Act has been personally affected by it? Makes me wonder if they are parinoid.

Your so dumb, communism is a type of economy, not government, and just because the soviet union and china, which claim to be communisms but are corrupt dictatorships, killed millions of people, does not mean that is what communists do. Also, you said that you were a fascist, so thats why your being called one.

About the pat act restricting my freedoms in general? It has not, but its the slippery slope issue where the government wants to spy on you that is the main issue. It make me worry, that by checking out books, which several FBI agents have said that it wacthes people for, that I can be arrested and held, depending what I am arrested for for up to a month. Now what happens when the government goes a little further, and further to take away your rights? Its the slippery slope.

Dude, listen, he meant Communism has the government more involved in people's personal lives. I mean come on, seizing people's private property for the good of the collective? Have you heard of this stupid new rule called Emminent Domain? It was passed by stupid super liberal justices that allows the government to take your house, demolish it, and put up a shopping mall, or some other buildings that will, "improve" the nieghborhood. What good is it when you bulldoze the entire block? Isn't that what the soviets did back in the day? Sieze private property and give it to private developers so they can slap on a mini mall? BULLS**T!! And to whoever said that America is becoming more conservative must have been living under a damn rock for the past four decades! Wake up, it's sinkin to the left, and we have to fight it.

Checking out books on Islam I can understand, you want to know more about the religion. Sedition and chemistry I can understand if you are studying histor, law, or chemistry. I don't see any legitimate reason for checking out a book on bomb making though.

Research for my novel/short story/movie script/whatever.

I don't think you have the "Freedom" to shout fire in a crowded theater, or commit libel and slander, or incite riots, assassinations, or the like against your fellow citizens.

You know what is funny about your slander and libel charges? The Republicans and their supporters *cough*ENRON*cough* have a much longer and fuller history of doing those sorts of things. Also one of the main reasons that the Patriot Act is bad is that there is a chance of another "Red Scare".

Have you noticed in this thread that not one person who is frightened by the Patriot Act has been personally affected by it? Makes me wonder if they are parinoid.
lol! the irony! the irony! we're paranoid? What about the people worried about the tens of thousands of trained killers waiting to attack us and slit our throats in our sleep because they hate our freedom? What about the people who give up freedoms so they can have a drop of a sense of security from a terrorist attack? lol haha thank you! I really needed a laugh before I leave! :D

I'd get out before my passport expired.

Seriously.

Get out and try to blend in some place. Else.

Woh woh woh. The Oklahoma City bombings were not just crime, asshole! THOSE WERE TERRORIST ATTACKS BY AMERICAN--I REPEAT--AMERICAN TERRORISTS!!!!!! Sure, the predominate ethnic group that composes the terrorist demographic are those from the middle east. However, McVeigh had a suspicious background that wasn't closely monitored and look what happened. So don't think the borders are always problem. We've got terrorists here all ready.
What is terrorism, but crime with unique motivation and a high death toll? Anyway, I never said that foreigners were the only problem. Are you saying, though, that securing our boarders would have no effect on terrorism? Just because some are domestic doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t make sure that we know who is in the country.

Quote: Celtlund Quote: Celtlund
I guess the short answer to your question is, "I don't know." I can only presume it has had a positive affect as so far we haven't been attacked again since 911. Only history will some day answer that question.


How do u know that there haveb even been attempts since 9/11? Huh? HUH???

I mean, security is one thing, but sacrificing personnal freedoms in the "land of the free" (scarf) is quite the irony. I mean, security is the opposite of freedom! I mean, next thing u know there'll be anti-terrorist "purges" in Manhatten and Seatle(nothing is impossible, people.)! :mp5:

The Government wants to fool you, and in doing so, they have proved to be excellent marksmen. :sniper:

How about stopping that guy who was planning to detonate a dirty bomb in Chicago, Padilla whats his name? Do you really think that we are going point out every single successful anti terror operation against the terrorists so they know whats going on? Please. What about the father and son in California who were arrested because they both came from a terror trainging camp and were both trained to go and blow up hospitals and shopping malls? Read the news, don't just make assumptions that we never stopped an attack because we didnt shoot and kill the terrorist before they blew something up and then put it up all over the news.

Research for my novel/short story/movie script/whatever.

OK, I can understand that. You have a legit reason so nothing to fear.

OK, I can understand that. You have a legit reason so nothing to fear.

And then a shopping mall blows up from said "research" interesting.

What is terrorism, but crime with unique motivation and a high death toll? Anyway, I never said that foreigners were the only problem. Are you saying, though, that securing our boarders would have no effect on terrorism? Just because some are domestic doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t make sure that we know who is in the country.

of course it would help in slowing down terrorism if we plug up the holes in our borders. but instead of beefing up security at the airports and making us strip down to our underwhere, how about locking up the US-Mexico border? Bring back the Minutemen who helped stop the illeagal immigration at that one spot. They weren't vigilanties, as some have called them, just fed up peple who hate seeing illeagels jump across the fence and run throught their backyards, while hearing on the TV that our border are more secure from any threats of intruders and terrorists. Plug the holes everywhere in our borders.

How has this directly affected you over the time it has been in force? Have you had your house searched? Have you changed the types of library books you have checked out.

One thing about the Patriot Act (and thus searches and such) is that... They can and do these checks on people without their knowledge. I no longer feel secure that any email, phone call, letter, or library book I check out is "personal". They would never tell me that they have done any of these things unless they need to bring me in for something they find suspicious. And even then they might not say that they have searched though my things, just arrest me.

The Patriot Act does not make me feel safe, it makes me feel like I have Big Brother watching me. And while I have yet to do anything 'suspicious' that doesn't change the fact that his eye could be on me at any time. That does not make me feel comfortable.

Research for my novel/short story/movie script/whatever.

Didn't the people who gave the 9/11 terrorists
airplane flying lessons and licences think that
they are just doing that for legit purposes
as well?

lol! the irony! the irony! we're paranoid? What about the people worried about the tens of thousands of trained killers waiting to attack us and slit our throats in our sleep because they hate our freedom? What about the people who give up freedoms so they can have a drop of a sense of security from a terrorist attack? lol haha thank you! I really needed a laugh before I leave! :D

I did not say you were paranoid I said I wondered if you are. You see the Patriot Act has not had any negative impact on you or your life, yet you fear it. If I'm not mistaken, paranoia is an unreasonable and or unfounded fear of something.

Yes, some people are worried about the terrorists, but they have some justification for that worry. There is no justification for fear or worry about the PA.

One thing about the Patriot Act (and thus searches and such) is that... They can and do these checks on people without their knowledge. I no longer feel secure that any email, phone call, letter, or library book I check out is "personal". They would never tell me that they have done any of these things unless they need to bring me in for something they find suspicious. And even then they might not say that they have searched though my things, just arrest me.

The Patriot Act does not make me feel safe, it makes me feel like I have Big Brother watching me. And while I have yet to do anything 'suspicious' that doesn't change the fact that his eye could be on me at any time. That does not make me feel comfortable.

hey, just feel like you are on some really big reality show, like Big Brother!!
I mean come on, people love reality shows and they love having millions of people worldwide watch their every move on camera. Just pretend that you can't see any cameras and try not to make an ass out of yourself. I mean its just the government, not millions of people watching you. What's worse? Who's with me?? lol!!! :)

And then a shopping mall blows up from said "research" interesting.

I could take your statement one of two ways - either as a joke, in which case it's just not a particularly funny joke - or, as an actual attempt to justify the suppression of information, which is never a joke.

Prohibiting information can become addictive - look at that wingnut lawyer preparing to become a billionaire by hectoring and harassing the video-game industry. He doesn't know when to quit.

After you ban some books, there's every reason for someone in charge of banning books, or people who have a vested interest in the banning of certain books to continue to find other books to ban. Other information to withhold. And a slowly-growing mountain of ignorance to promote and exploit in the name of an expansive Security State.

Now there's a term that could resonate with you Yanks: God knows you seem to think 'Police States' are bad dreams or subplots in foreign films or something, how about thinking about the expression "Security State" for a second or two?

It implies that State Security supersedes all else, even (and especially) indiidual or group freedoms. Are you getting it yet? Am I getting through? Your nation is turning into a prison camp around you.

Get out while you're still legally entitled to do so. Your freedoms are superseded by State Security.

How about stopping that guy who was planning to detonate a dirty bomb in Chicago, Padilla whats his name? Do you really think that we are going point out every single successful anti terror operation against the terrorists so they know whats going on? Please. What about the father and son in California who were arrested because they both came from a terror trainging camp and were both trained to go and blow up hospitals and shopping malls? Read the news, don't just make assumptions that we never stopped an attack because we didnt shoot and kill the terrorist before they blew something up and then put it up all over the news.

First of all, dirty bombs don't work. The U.S. and china both considered using them to spread radioactive material a long distance in populated cities. But the material was so inaffective that it didn't even cause radiation poisoning(or anything else).

And if these alledged attacks weren't on the news, how do u know about them? And why did u tell me 2 watch (i watch CBC all the time anyways) :confused:

And the fact that the government won't tell the world about foiled terrorist operations so the terrorists won't know is absurd. I think they'd know that they'd failed if nothing happened!

Also, do u know that the Patriot act actually stopped those terrorists? If it was stopped by something pre-dating the Pat. Act, then it should not be added to it's successes.

I could take your statement one of two ways - either as a joke, in which case it's just not a particularly funny joke - or, as an actual attempt to justify the suppression of information, which is never a joke.

Prohibiting information can become addictive - look at that wingnut lawyer preparing to become a billionaire by hectoring and harassing the video-game industry. He doesn't know when to quit.

After you ban some books, there's every reason for someone in charge of banning books, or people who have a vested interest in the banning of certain books to continue to find other books to ban. Other information to withhold. And a slowly-growing mountain of ignorance to promote and exploit in the name of an expansive Security State.

Now there's a term that could resonate with you Yanks: God knows you seem to think 'Police States' are bad dreams or subplots in foreign films or something, how about thinking about the expression "Security State" for a second or two?

It implies that State Security supersedes all else, even (and especially) indiidual or group freedoms. Are you getting it yet? Am I getting through? Your nation is turning into a prison camp around you.

Get out while you're still legally entitled to do so. Your freedoms are superseded by State Security.

From, your "Yanks" bit I can assume you are from England, if not please forgive me for the mistake, BUT look at how great this freedom is working out in Britain. People have no fear of the government getting into your personel lives so they are free to do whatever the hell want to. Take the last two weeks for example. One massive attack killing 50+ civilians and another copy cat one yesterday that failed because of faulty explosive preperation. Today, another terrorist killed by police while attempting another bombing. Why? Because the government does not allow the police to check on suspected terrorists and bring them in, no extradition treaties, no files on any terror cells because thats invasion of privacy, the mosques and the Mullahs can spew anti West rhetoric and literally turn young Islamic minds into fundamenatilsts and terrorists, who will blow up innocent civilians in the name of Allah, those mosques can't be shut down because that would offend the muslims living there, no wonder Britain is called a safehaven for terrorists, and a hub for others to go out and launch their attacks. There is practically no real Counter_Terrorist force in Britain because that would be against the multicultural bordello that the super libs have created to please everyone there. Come on, they weren't terrorists but bombers? Ahhh yes, the politcal correctness rears its ugly head to defend the murders and terrorists.

From, your "Yanks" bit I can assume you are from England,
No you can't. And anyway, I'm not. So out goes your whole post.

Whoops, assumption.

From, your "Yanks" bit I can assume you are from England
Dobbs is a Canadian that I can’t stand, not a Brit that I can’t stand.

First of all, dirty bombs don't work. The U.S. and china both considered using them to spread radioactive material a long distance in populated cities. But the material was so inaffective that it didn't even cause radiation poisoning(or anything else).

And if these alledged attacks weren't on the news, how do u know about them? And why did u tell me 2 watch (i watch CBC all the time anyways) :confused:

And the fact that the government won't tell the world about foiled terrorist operations so the terrorists won't know is absurd. I think they'd know that they'd failed if nothing happened!

Also, do u know that the Patriot act actually stopped those terrorists? If it was stopped by something pre-dating the Pat. Act, then it should not be added to it's successes.

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/dirty-bombs.html
look here. They do work, apparently you have no idea how they work. You blow up radioactive material with regular explosives and you get a lot of fallout that poisons the air, water, and ground. Rember Three Mile Island, or Chernobyl? Different situations but same effects. There are different types and levels of radioactivity that can be used to kill. Why do you think the dentist hides behind a wall of lead when you are getting an xray? RADIATION you do not need much to get fatally dosed or exposed.
The father/son in california? stopped because of checking on where they went, phone taps, I'm not sure what else, cause it was a while ago.
Everyday, the police stop crime ranging from minor offences to capturing murders, and other. EVERY STORY does not make it to the news because if it did, we'd be swamped with these stories. The reason why the don't always say the stopped an attack, is so that we don't have mass panic that we just missed getting blown up or something. DUH!!

I like the fact you pointed to a government source as your facts. That could be used to confirm a bias....

Also, dirty bomb= FEAR!
when uneducated people in these topics hear about
something radioactive being blown up
or in the area, they think to Hiroshima, or
Chernobyl. They panic and freak out,
and cause mass hysteria.
Its not to cause a real nuclear catastrophy,
just to cause mass fear. Again,
look to london this week.

Dobbs is a Canadian that I can’t stand, not a Brit that I can’t stand.

Well, you're one of a teeming mass of Americans who feel that way. I reciprocate. It's only fair, after all.

I like the fact you pointed to a government source as your facts. That could be used to confirm a bias....

i suppose if I got the info from www.crazybobinfopalace.com
it would be more accurate than something from a legit
government source.

LOOK OUT...... BEHIND YOU!!!!
ITS THE FEDERALES!!! RUN!!!!!!!
The government is out to get you, and they are listening
to your brain waves as we think!!
put some tin foil on your head!!!!!

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/dirty-bombs.html
look here. They do work, apparently you have no idea how they work. You blow up radioactive material with regular explosives and you get a lot of fallout that poisons the air, water, and ground. Rember Three Mile Island, or Chernobyl? Different situations but same effects. There are different types and levels of radioactivity that can be used to kill. Why do you think the dentist hides behind a wall of lead when you are getting an xray? RADIATION you do not need much to get fatally dosed or exposed.
The father/son in california? stopped because of checking on where they went, phone taps, I'm not sure what else, cause it was a while ago.
Everyday, the police stop crime ranging from minor offences to capturing murders, and other. EVERY STORY does not make it to the news because if it did, we'd be swamped with these stories.

No. Apprently YOU don't know how they work. A dirty bomb DOES work by blowing up radioactive material with conventional explosives, but it is a very small amount compared to what YOU compared it 2: Chernobyl, which was the explosion of a NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, an explosion which went off with the force of a few hyroshimas's, and spread silos full of nuclear waste! A dirty bomb uses small amounts of radioactive material over a large distance(were talking 3 or 5 miles in all directions).With these small fragments spread all over the place, the radio active fallout becomes too weak to cause harm(sorta like letting a room full of smoke out into the open air;it disipates and becomes less concentrated). I mean, the radioactive fallout from the sun's rays poses a greater health risk(especially with those god-damned holes in the ozone layer)!

Oh, and that site is a government site. I happen to trust The Discovery Channel and Space(the channel) more than the government of the United States(who happen to need support for the "War on Terror", and who have in past decades proved that dirty bombs are unaffective).

I'd worry more about the conventional explosives more than the radioactive waste.

You Said:
The reason why the don't always say the stopped an attack, is so that we don't have mass panic that we just missed getting blown up or something. DUH!!

I thought you said it was because we didn't the terrrists to know?

Wow... the people on both sides of this issue really need some perspective.

From the left, I'm hearing all of these slippery slope arguments about how civil liberties are being taken away, the USA will become fascist, etc. This is not what is happening, and it is not what is going to happen. Americans still enjoy massive amounts of freedom. Just take a look at places like North Korea and China and you'll realize just how many freedoms you have, and how far from a fascist or police state the United States is. Personally, I could not possibly care less if the US government is monitoring my e-mails, my phone calls or the books I take out at the library, and I don't even care if they monitor what websites I go to, and what stuff I download. I have absolutely nothing to hide from them, and the person that is looking at this information is not passing judgement over me for visiting porn sites, he doesn't care that I read fantasy novels for entertainment, and he isn't interested in my girlfriend's pet names for me. The government can have all the information it wants on me, and I don't care because I am not a criminal or a terrorist and I have nothing to hide, and I have every bit as much freedom to do what I want within the limits of the law when they do monitor me as I do when they don't. Period.

From the right, on the other hand, I'm hearing all of this ridiculous fearmongering, and it is my belief that while the patriot act doesn't infringe on any of my rights, or affect me negatively in any way, the US spends WAY too much time and money on "security." This money should be put into things that matter like oh, I don't know, EDUCATION, Health care, Social Programs and local law enforcement. How many people in the last 20 years have died because of terrorism? Now, how many people have died just in the last year due to non-terrorist criminal activity (muggings, robbings, etc?) How many people have died because of drugs? How many people have died because of inadequate health care? How many people have died because of drunk drivers? I'm sure every single one of those numbers from just the last year is orders of magnitude larger than the number for terrorism, and each dollar spent in any of those areas will save more lives than the same dollar spend "fighting terrorism." The same can be said about the bloody military. How much of that $300 billion is bloody necessary? Do you really need to be spending that kind of money on missiles that do loop-de-loops and airplanes that can fit into windows when the public education system is such a mess and could hugely benefit from even just a tenth of that, when there aren't anywhere near enough beds in hospitals to treat everybody, and someone can be financially ruined from having to pay for that treatment if they do get it, when the vast majority of unemployed people have been so for a year or more, and when 35 million people live below the poverty line? And now you want to slap on all of this anti-terrorism money on top of that, taking even more money away from those programs, and plunging your government even further into a debt that will have to be repaid by future generations? Yes, you may save the lives of a few people with that anti-terrorism money, but at the cost of so many more other lives that could easily be saved by money placed elsewhere and better spent.

So, overall, yes the patriot act is a bad thing, but not because it infringes on my privacy (god forbid :rolleyes: ) but because it allows even more money to be wasted on fruitless pursuits.

Get out while you're still legally entitled to do so. Your freedoms are superseded by State Security.

I want to know what freedoms have been superseded. None that I can see.

A few corrections and a rebuttal:
From the left, I'm hearing all of these slippery slope arguments about how civil liberties are being taken away, the USA will become fascist, etc. This is not what is happening, and it is not what is going to happen. Americans still enjoy massive amounts of freedom. Just take a look at places like North Korea and China and you'll realize just how many freedoms you have, and how far from a fascist or police state the United States is. Personally, I could not possibly care less if the US government is monitoring my e-mails, my phone calls or the books I take out at the library, and I don't even care if they monitor what websites I go to, and what stuff I download. I have absolutely nothing to hide from them, and the person that is looking at this information is not passing judgement over me for visiting porn sites, he doesn't care that I read fantasy novels for entertainment, and he isn't interested in my girlfriend's pet names for me. The government can have all the information it wants on me, and I don't care because I am not a criminal or a terrorist and I have nothing to hide, and I have every bit as much freedom to do what I want within the limits of the law when they do monitor me as I do when they don't. Period.
Nobody has a right to know about mine or anyone else’s private life. Besides, what you are suggesting would be a huge waist of money.
The same can be said about the bloody military. How much of that $300 billion is bloody necessary? Do you really need to be spending that kind of money on missiles that do loop-de-loops and airplanes that can fit into windows when the public education system is such a mess and could hugely benefit from even just a tenth of that,
The US Federal government isn’t supposed to have anything to do with education.
and when the average family lives below the poverty line?
What are you on about? I assure you that the average family is above the poverty line.

A few corrections and a rebuttal:

Nobody has a right to know about mine or anyone else’s private life.
How does some nameless person who doesn't know you, whom you have never seen and will never see you glanced over the list of books you borrowed last week and then moved on to the next person without even caring about your name? That's even worse than a guy who doesn't approach a girl in a bar/club/supermarket/wherever because he's afraid she'll reject him and everyone will laugh at him and he'll be embarrased. The truth is nobody else will care and he'll never see any of them again and even if he does, they will neither remember the incident nore care about it in the slightest. The same goes with the government employee reading your files: Even if he does eventually meet you he won't remember your specific file and he won't care about what was in it. This fear of the government invading your privacy is completely irrational.

Besides, what you are suggesting would be a huge waist of money.
Read the second part of my post, and learn how to spell waste.


What are you on about? I assure you that the average family is above the poverty line.
You're correct, and I don't know why I said that. I'll fix it.

How does some nameless person who doesn't know you, whom you have never seen and will never see you glanced over the list of books you borrowed last week and then moved on to the next person without even caring about your name? That's even worse than a guy who doesn't approach a girl in a bar/club/supermarket/wherever because he's afraid she'll reject him and everyone will laugh at him and he'll be embarrased. The truth is nobody else will care and he'll never see any of them again and even if he does, they will neither remember the incident nore care about it in the slightest. The same goes with the government employee reading your files: Even if he does eventually meet you he won't remember your specific file and he won't care about what was in it. This fear of the government invading your privacy is completely irrational.
No, it isn’t irrational. I suggest you peruse the Fourth Amendment.
Read the second part of my post,
I did, and the two don’t seem to fit together. You are saying that we waste to much money on security when you just advocated what would be a huge and expensive bureaucracy.
and learn how to spell waste.
NEVER! :D

No, it isn’t irrational. I suggest you peruse the Fourth Amendment.
Done:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Where on there does it mention privacy?
And exactly which freedoms and liberties does this potential invasion of your privacy infringe on? In fact, how does it affect you at all, unless you are a criminal?


I did, and the two don’t seem to fit together. You are saying that we waste to much money on security when you just advocated what would be a huge and expensive bureaucracy.

I am against it because it is a waste of money, but I disagree with the argument that it infringes on civil liberties. I'm sorry if I can't be more clear than that.


NEVER! :D
Umm... you dust did :p

Where on there does it mention privacy?
And exactly which freedoms and liberties does this potential invasion of your privacy infringe on? In fact, how does it affect you at all, unless you are a criminal?
I have the right to feel secure that my stuff isn’t going be constantly monitored. Also, The Supreme Court has upheld again and again, that the Constitution protects privacy. See Roe v. Wade
I am against it because it is a waste of money, but I disagree with the argument that it infringes on civil liberties. I'm sorry if I can't be more clear than that.
Ok I get what you were saying.

But please tell me how your stuff being constantly monitored in any way affects you or your freedoms and liberties? And don't tell me it affects your freedom not to be monitored, because that's nothing but a circular argument.

The government can have all the information it wants on me, and I don't care because I am not a criminal or a terrorist and I have nothing to hide, and I have every bit as much freedom to do what I want within the limits of the law when they do monitor me as I do when they don't. Period.

this sort of naive trust in the benevolence of the state has a real nasty tendancy to not work out so well. do you honestly think that it is all just a crazy coincidence that every fucked up authoritarian ever has instituted as massive a system of domestic spying as they can? the reason scary authoritarian states make sure they have the ability to know everything about people is because it allows them a massive amount of control over society.

never forget that the watchers don't merely make sure the law is obeyed; they also control the contents of the law. once they have the system of domestic surveillance and control in place, you have no recourse when they begin instituting draconian policies (and this is a 'when', not an 'if'. the state always attempts to further limit freedom, and these attempts must be actively fought against. price of freedom is eternal vigilence and all that). you can't organize against it... or rather, you can, but they will know all about it and you won't get very far.

freedom cannot exist long when the state is omnipresent.

this sort of naive trust in the benevolence of the state has a real nasty tendancy to not work out so well. do you honestly think that it is all just a crazy coincidence that every fucked up authoritarian ever has instituted as massive a system of domestic spying as they can? the reason scary authoritarian states make sure they have the ability to know everything about people is because it allows them a massive amount of control over society.

never forget that the watchers don't merely make sure the law is obeyed; they also control the contents of the law. once they have the system of domestic surveillance and control in place, you have no recourse when they begin instituting draconian policies (and this is a 'when', not an 'if'. the state always attempts to further limit freedom, and these attempts must be actively fought against. price of freedom is eternal vigilence and all that). you can't organize against it... or rather, you can, but they will know all about it and you won't get very far.

freedom cannot exist long when the state is omnipresent.

I agree. Well said.

Whenever we give up some of our freedom, the state will always want more; they take it in pieces until we can't resist them anymore and it's all gone.

Hopefully, the Senate will either stop it or force the provisions to earlier review.

But please tell me how your stuff being constantly monitored in any way affects you or your freedoms and liberties? And don't tell me it affects your freedom not to be monitored, because that's nothing but a circular argument.
It isn’t circular. We have the right to privacy. That’s it.

I hate to quote movies in my political observations, but this one is all too apt.

"So, this is how liberty ends. With thunderous applause."

-Amadala Star Wars ep. III

While we have become so focused on being "safe", we have misplaced our formerly rock solid grip on personal freedoms.

It's not about how much this individual act has affected your life. Rather, it's about the fact that the government now has the ability to look at the parts of your life that you hold most sacred. And, they don't really need to give a solid reason for it either.

I know that I've done things in my past that, if given to a group of cops and lawyers, could be spun into something horrible and insidious, nearly all of us have.

Personally, I would rather live without that little spectre hanging over my shoulder. I don't want people in the government to have the ability to know what I read, write, talk about, think, or say. Why is it their business?

How long will it be until they find out something about you?

...

again, you guys talk about your freedoms being limited. How does somebody knowing a few things about you limit your freedoms in any way? Is there anything you can't do now that you could before?

this sort of naive trust in the benevolence of the state has a real nasty tendancy to not work out so well. do you honestly think that it is all just a crazy coincidence that every fucked up authoritarian ever has instituted as massive a system of domestic spying as they can? the reason scary authoritarian states make sure they have the ability to know everything about people is because it allows them a massive amount of control over society.

Oh for Christ's sake, what are you, a bloody conspiracy theorist? Take a look at China and North Korea: those are fascist states. Their people have very few freedoms and liberties. You do have freedoms, none of them are taken away because some civil servant read a few things about you in a file and discarded it, and to say that the US is going to turn into one of those countries because of this small loss of privacy is the most absurd slippery slope argument I've ever heard.

again, you guys talk about your freedoms being limited. How does somebody knowing a few things about you limit your freedoms in any way? Is there anything you can't do now that you could before?

Yeah, now I can be randomly arrested, my background searched for no reason. I'm rolling around in freedoms! All for what? What do we see for this usurption of freedoms? All the conservatives talk about how a big government is bad, but now the government is prying into our private lives and they're just inviting them in.

Remember children, Freedom is Slavery!

again, you guys talk about your freedoms being limited. How does somebody knowing a few things about you limit your freedoms in any way? Is there anything you can't do now that you could before?

...

Oh for Christ's sake, what are you, a bloody conspiracy theorist? Take a look at China and North Korea: those are fascist states. Their people have very few freedoms and liberties. You do have freedoms, none of them are taken away because some civil servant read a few things about you in a file and discarded it, and to say that the US is going to turn into one of those countries because of this small loss of privacy is the most absurd slippery slope argument I've ever heard.

Well, then why don't you go and hand over your bank statment to the FBI. How about your most recent list of library books (considering, of course that you actually read). How about a list of your relatives, friends, acquaintances, business partners/clients, etc. etc. etc.

Feel safer?

I hate to quote movies in my political observations, but this one is all too apt.

"So, this is how liberty ends. With thunderous applause."

-Amadala Star Wars ep. III

While we have become so focused on being "safe", we have misplaced our formerly rock solid grip on personal freedoms.

Someone care to tell me where our liberties came to end? As far as I know, we still have all of our liberties. So where did we lose them when in fact, we didn't?

It's not about how much this individual act has affected your life. Rather, it's about the fact that the government now has the ability to look at the parts of your life that you hold most sacred. And, they don't really need to give a solid reason for it either.

They still need warrents so....

I know that I've done things in my past that, if given to a group of cops and lawyers, could be spun into something horrible and insidious, nearly all of us have.

Now this is true but you know? I have nothing to fear.

Personally, I would rather live without that little spectre hanging over my shoulder. I don't want people in the government to have the ability to know what I read, write, talk about, think, or say. Why is it their business?

Its their business only if they have a warrent. Do you understand that?

Yeah, now I can be randomly arrested, my background searched for no reason. I'm rolling around in freedoms! All for what? What do we see for this usurption of freedoms? All the conservatives talk about how a big government is bad, but now the government is prying into our private lives and they're just inviting them in.
Conservatives long ago abandoned the idea of small government. It seem that only libertarians still subscribe to that now, without being socialist pig-dogs anyway.

They still need warrents so....
Not really. They need a warrant, but it's much easier to obtain than conventional warrants.
Under the new law [USA PATRIOT Act] , the government can obtain secret warrants by showing that a significant purpose of the search has to do with intelligence-gathering, as opposed to a criminal investigation.


Now this is true but you know? I have nothing to fear.
well lucky you...if only we all were Corneliu :rolleyes:


Its their business only if they have a warrent. Do you understand that? And it's really easy to get a warrant. Do you understand that?

Conservatives long ago abandoned the idea of small government. It seem that only libertarians still subscribe to that now, without being socialist pig-dogs anyway.
lol, that's not what I've been hearing, but okay.

Now... who was it that said... "Those who would give up essential liberty for a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."...

Well, then why don't you go and hand over your bank statment to the FBI. How about your most recent list of library books (considering, of course that you actually read). How about a list of your relatives, friends, acquaintances, business partners/clients, etc. etc. etc.

Feel safer?

I wouldn't have a problem with doing any of that stuff whatsoever. I have nothing to hide. The only people who should be concerned about this are those who do have something to hide.

And no, I don't feel safer for doing it, as I've said (if you would actually read my posts.) I'm just saying that saying that it infringes on your freedoms and liberties is absurd and that no, the US isn't going to turn into a fascist state.

Now... who was it that said... "Those who would give up essential liberty for a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."...

Mr B. Franklin I believe.

Now... who was it that said... "Those who would give up essential liberty for a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."...

Ben Franklin but I"m still waiting to here what liberty we've givin' up.

Here's the answer: NONE!

Ben Franklin but I"m still waiting to here what liberty we've givin' up.

Here's the answer: NONE!This definition is adopted in the USA PATRIOT Act. Critics claim the Act is unnecessary and enables U.S. law enforcement to infringe upon free-speech, freedom of the press, human rights, and right to privacy. It is most controversial among critics for its section 216, which allows judges to grant government investigators ex parte orders to look into personal phone and internet records on the basis of being "relevant for an on going investigation", rather than probable cause as outlined in the fourth amendment.
None you say? Perhaps for me since I'm not american. Like I said this morning... it's unbelievable to most Europeans how Americans particularly the conservatives, swallow so much government BS and call it strawberry shortcake and beg for more. It seems most of you are utterly incapable of stopping at least once and questioning your government.

Hi Corny...

The mere implication that the government has overt powers to do that sort of thing is enough.

How long will it be until a warrent would become irrelevant because "terrorists can infiltrate organizations, and warn their cohorts before any kind of warrent were served"?

Ridiculous, you might say. But, things like it have happened before, more than once.

But, more than that, it's a fundamental change in the way our forefathers intended that we live.

None you say? Perhaps for me since I'm not american. Like I said this morning... it's unbelievable to most Europeans how Americans particularly the conservatives, swallow so much government BS and call it strawberry shortcake and beg for more. It seems most of you are utterly incapable of stopping at least once and questioning your government.

Well you have a slight problem. Wikipedia isn't always right and they aren't right here.

My freedom of speech hasn't been infringed upon and it hasn't infringed on anyone else's freedom of speech. The Press is still free as ever. It is obvious to those of us that really do follow the news channels. Human Rights? Haven't been violated unless of course you don't like prisons and consider throwing someone into jail a violation of human rights. As for right to privacy, we still have that too.

I don't know about you but I haven't seen any cases where this has been infringed upon.

The only way they can do that is with a warrant. In order to achieve such a warrant, they still need to prove their case to a judge to grant them such a warrant. And for your information, "relevent for an on going investigation" is considered probable cause.

Well you have a slight problem. Wikipedia isn't always right and they aren't right here.

My freedom of speech hasn't been infringed upon and it hasn't infringed on anyone else's freedom of speech. The Press is still free as ever. It is obvious to those of us that really do follow the news channels. Human Rights? Haven't been violated unless of course you don't like prisons and consider throwing someone into jail a violation of human rights. As for right to privacy, we still have that too.

So is that why Karl Rove and his neocon friends are trying to force PBS and NPR to become more GOP friendly? What a free press!

Name one instance where the USA PATRIOT Act foiled a terrorist plan.

Hi Corny...

The mere implication that the government has overt powers to do that sort of thing is enough.

They still need warrants buddy. No warrant, no case. The two people they picked up in california? They had warrants to investigate them. The Patriot Act worked in this case.

How long will it be until a warrent would become irrelevant because "terrorists can infiltrate organizations, and warn their cohorts before any kind of warrent were served"?

It won't get that far. People aren't stupid as people on here try to claim. Alot of us do follow what our congressmen/women and senators vote on. Hell, I get voting updates weekly in my email box. Warrants will never become irrelevant because the people won't tolerate that.

Ridiculous, you might say. But, things like it have happened before, more than once.

Ahh my friend, the US is different than those nations. We have checks and balances that have worked and continues to work.

So is that why Karl Rove and his neocon friends are trying to force PBS and NPR to become more GOP friendly? What a free press!

And why do you want Fox News to fail? Yea free press indeed. The thing is, I don't care about NPR or PBS. Frankly, its a waste of tax payers dollars but that is my opinion on the issue. They can spout whatever they want. Now put the shoe on the other foot. I bet you that if they were more conservative, the left would try to force them to become more liberal. Its how politics is played my friend.

Name one instance where the USA PATRIOT Act foiled a terrorist plan.

Jose Padilla, the father-son duo that have just recently been arrested. These are 2 of the public cases. We don't know how many have been foiled under the Patriot Act.

They still need warrants buddy. No warrant, no case. The two people they picked up in california? They had warrants to investigate them. The Patriot Act worked in this case.
Don't you understand that the warrants under the PATRIOT Act are much easier to obtain because you just have to say that it is a threat to homeland security, and anything can be a threat to homeland security?

Don't you understand that the warrants under the PATRIOT Act are much easier to obtain because you just have to say that it is a threat to homeland security, and anything can be a threat to homeland security?

Don't you understand that Judges need more than its a threat to homeland security? Everyone has to follow the law my friend, even the DHS!

Don't you understand that Judges need more than its a threat to homeland security? Everyone has to follow the law my friend, even the DHS!
Not in this paranoid post 9/11 era. That's why the Administration can get away with so much crap because it all has "Homeland Security" written on it.

FISA [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] created a distinction between criminal and intelligence/counterintelligence investigations in terms of the standards the government must meet to obtain warrants for electronic surveillance. In a criminal investigation, law enforcement must show probable cause to obtain a surveillance warrant. However, to obtain a FISA warrant, it needs to prove only that there is reasonable suspicion that the target of the surveillance is "a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power" -- a standard much easier to meet.
...
Signed by President Bush on Oct. 26, 2001, the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act, or USA Patriot Act, changed how the federal government gathers intelligence. One of the most significant changes allows Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants to be issued if "a significant" purpose for obtaining the warrant is intelligence gathering. This lowers the threshold set by FISA in 1978 that stipulated such warrants be issued only if "the" purpose was gathering intelligence.


And a bit more:
The Patriot Act also gives more authority to law enforcement to direct intelligence gathering. Law enforcement agencies can now obtain roving wiretaps, which allow intelligence agencies to follow an individual from device to device, instead of obtaining a warrant for each phone, computer, pager, etc., as in the past. Broader powers were also given to use "sneak and peek" search warrants in federal criminal cases, including misdemeanors. Such warrants authorize law enforcement officers to enter and search private premises without the owner's permission or knowledge.


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/sleeper/tools/tools.html

Looks like 43 Democrats voted for the extension of the Patriot Act. There is hope for us yet.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,163219,00.html

Hmm...yes, the Patriot Act is the bane of our society, but I thought it was hilarious that you had the gall to post a link from the EXTREMELY reliable source as Fox News.

The patriot act is a good start, I hope it goes alot further.

Well you have a slight problem. Wikipedia isn't always right and they aren't right here.

My freedom of speech hasn't been infringed upon and it hasn't infringed on anyone else's freedom of speech. The Press is still free as ever. It is obvious to those of us that really do follow the news channels. Human Rights? Haven't been violated unless of course you don't like prisons and consider throwing someone into jail a violation of human rights. As for right to privacy, we still have that too.

I don't know about you but I haven't seen any cases where this has been infringed upon.

The only way they can do that is with a warrant. In order to achieve such a warrant, they still need to prove their case to a judge to grant them such a warrant. And for your information, "relevent for an on going investigation" is considered probable cause.

Don't like Wikipedia? Why should we believe you over them? You can check out the ACLU for the same results, and they are certainly trustworthy. YOU may not have seen any cases where these infringements have happened, but that doesn't mean it hasn't happened, you just don't know. Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence. These new warrants can be achieved without a judge, last I heard. And, "relevent for an ongoing investigation" is far from probable cause. Anything could be relevent. Just depends how you connect it.

Great. I can still hope for a federal agent to come knocking at my door if I take out a library book on explosives or guerilla warfare.

Ah! They target people for that stuff?! Shit, I'm screwed...

The patriot act pisses me off, with that, this extension, and that supreme court ruling... Argh! Anger!

Don't like Wikipedia? Why should we believe you over them?

Never said that but I know someone in one my classes used Wikipedia for a paper and the info he used turned out to be false. When I use Wiki, I make sure I verify what they are saying through other sources.

You can check out the ACLU for the same results, and they are certainly trustworthy.

I would but I don't trust the ACLU. They have violated MY Civil Liberties one to many times for me to believe anything they say. Besides, anyone can make stuff up and its not that hard either.

YOU may not have seen any cases where these infringements have happened, but that doesn't mean it hasn't happened, you just don't know.

You just killed your arguement here. I've been following every news piece I can find regarding the Patriot Act and so far, nada. No infringement. Go figure :rolleyes:

Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence.

Now this is plain funny.

These new warrants can be achieved without a judge, last I heard.

Now there's misinformation right there. Last I heard, you still need a warrant to do everything that is listed in the Patriot Act. BTW: The patriot act modified laws that are already on the books so there really is nothing new in the Patriot act for those that bother to actually read the US Code!

And, "relevent for an ongoing investigation" is far from probable cause.

Not necessarily.

Anything could be relevent. Just depends how you connect it.

Now there I can't disagree with you! However, so far my civil liberties have been violated by this act. I haven't lost an once of freedom due to this act and everyone else here who is an American haven't lost any freedoms due to this act either.

I would but I don't trust the ACLU. They have violated MY Civil Liberties one to many times for me to believe anything they say.

?

I would but I don't trust the ACLU. They have violated MY Civil Liberties one to many times for me to believe anything they say. Besides, anyone can make stuff up and its not that hard either.


What in the hell are you talking about here???

What they violated your right to burn crosses on peoples lawns? The violated your right to employ migrant workers for $.10 an hour? Tell me. I really gotta hear this one. Gather 'round and hear the intolerance children!

The Patriot Act is the best reason why former CIA directors or their son's should never... become presidents.

I wouldn't have a problem with doing any of that stuff whatsoever. I have nothing to hide. The only people who should be concerned about this are those who do have something to hide.

By which logic I assume you would allow the police to search your home with out a warrant?

Never said that but I know someone in one my classes used Wikipedia for a paper and the info he used turned out to be false. When I use Wiki, I make sure I verify what they are saying through other sources.



I would but I don't trust the ACLU. They have violated MY Civil Liberties one to many times for me to believe anything they say.


How exactly has the ACLU violated ANYONES Civil Libertys?

Ok folks, if you are against the extension of the Patriot Act, I’m still waiting for an answer to post #18.

Conservative that opposes here... Okay, it hasn't affected me personally-but neither did Slavery, or the Japanese-American Internments of WWII. In fact, the Drug War hasn't impacted my life either.

But...

The Patriot Act is rife with the potential for serious abuses. It's virtually a grant of a state of Imperium to the Executive Branch. Suspension of Habeas Corpus, the ability to imprison without charges or a hearing, Warrantless Search and Seizure, "Blank" warrants, etc. may seem fine until you realize that if it doesn't expire, the next president, whether GOP or Democrat, could use it as a means to suppress his or her political opposition at home, merely by branding (without evidence) that opposition as "Terrorist" or "Terrorist Supporters".

From a gun-rights perspective, the so-called 'Patriot Act' could be employed by a leftist Executive (President) to do what Brady only hinted at- don't forget that we have already at least one state using "Terrorism" fears to ban the sale of what amounts to expensive target-rifles.

It's hard to stick to your principles when presented with an 'easy' solution to an immediate problem. This is why Patriot I passed, it's also why Brady passed-and why the previous administration was so hot to go after domestics in the 1990's (Militias, anyone?). Patriot Act is bad law.

Hmm...yes, the Patriot Act is the bane of our society, but I thought it was hilarious that you had the gall to post a link from the EXTREMELY reliable source as Fox News.

If you had bothered to read a little further I posted links to several other sites as well.

What in the hell are you talking about here???

Its obvious to those of us who actually follow the news.

What they violated your right to burn crosses on peoples lawns?

This is a class A insult. I would never burn a cross. Why? Because it is a symbol of my religion.

The violated your right to employ migrant workers for $.10 an hour?

I'm not a business owner so..... As for migrant workers, if their illegal, they need to be tossed right out of our country. This however, is a different thread.

Tell me. I really gotta hear this one. Gather 'round and hear the intolerance children!

As I said, its pretty obvious to those of us who actually follow the news.

Its obvious to those of us who actually follow the news.



This is a class A insult. I would never burn a cross. Why? Because it is a symbol of my religion.



I'm not a business owner so..... As for migrant workers, if their illegal, they need to be tossed right out of our country. This however, is a different thread.



As I said, its pretty obvious to those of us who actually follow the news.

I do follow the news, put up or shut up.

So explain for an ignorant foreigner not lucky enough to be born in Middle Kingdom Corneliu.

Great. So now the infrigment of my privacy has been extended. This blows.

Its obvious to those of us who actually follow the news.
*snips*
As I said, its pretty obvious to those of us who actually follow the news.

So you say, repeatedly. Seeing as it's so obvious :rolleyes: to you, who actually follows :rolleyes: the news, it would be ever so kind of you to deign condescend to the level of we :rolleyes: the great unwashed masses, and illuminate us as to your inestimable wealth of knowledge :rolleyes: on the subject.

Please do.

:rolleyes:

We are now up to 12 pages and 168 posts and still no one who is against the Patriot Act has answered any of the questions I asked in Post #18.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=433555&page=2&pp=15

I can only presume none of them have been affected by it in any way yet they have an irrational fear of it. I find that truly amazing. All they can answer is it could do this or might do that, which is pure speculation. The reality of the situation is that without the Patriot Act it will be much more difficult to find and stop terrorists and people will die because of that. I find that to be more important than what might or could be.

Someone in an earlier post said it very well; "As long as we have a two party system I will not fear the Patriot Act."

I do follow the news, put up or shut up.

How about oh say..... displaying the nativity, Prayer in public places, Prayers at graduation, prayers at highschool sporting events, displaying the ten commandments, allowing the koran to be read in classes and not the bible. Saying that creationism can't be taught alongside evolution (if you teach one, you must teach the other)! Tearing down a cross from a national park that was put up to honor those that died in World War I. Taking a little cross of a seal of a town in California (something that the PEOPLE voted for).

I could go on and on but suffice to say that the ACLU is not a protector of Civil Liberties as people make them out to believe.

Great. So now the infrigment of my privacy has been extended. This blows.

Your privacy hasn't been infringed upon Turkishquirrel.

How about oh say..... displaying the nativity,

Show me where the ACLU has prevented you from displaying a nativity. I know that they have prevented the nativity from being displayed on public property using my tax dollars but you yourself can display the nativity on your own property, using your own money. The same goes for your church they just can't put it on public grounds.

Prayer in public places, Prayers at graduation, prayers at highschool sporting events

Forcing others to pray or listen to YOU pray you mean. No one has prevented anyone who wishes to do so from bowing their head and saying a silent prayer whenever they wish. Besides, you can't realy be speaking out IN FAVOR of public prayer can you?

"Beware of practicing your piety before men in order to be seen by them; for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven. Thus, when you give alms, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by men. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your alms may be in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you. And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by men. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you." (Matthew 6:1-6 RSV)

Learn you own damn religion will you?

displaying the ten commandments,

Again we're back to you forgeting the part about this only effecting the display of the ten comandments on public property payed for with my tax dollars. Or do you realy think that "thou shall have no god before me" being displayed on a court house is anything other than a government endorsement of Christianity which is expressly forbiden by the first amendment.

allowing the koran to be read in classes and not the bible.

Not familiar with this ruling, please provide documentation so that I may research and discover why. This is so far the only argument where you come anywhere near having a legitimate point.

Saying that creationism can't be taught alongside evolution (if you teach one, you must teach the other)!

Yes, let's teach the children about a religion that they may not follow rather than a legitimate scientific theory.

Tearing down a cross from a national park that was put up to honor those that died in World War I. Taking a little cross of a seal of a town in California (something that the PEOPLE voted for).

Removing religious symbolgy from public places where it did not belong. And how may I ask were our Jewish soldiers who died in WWI honored with a CROSS?

Up Eris!

How about oh say..... displaying the nativity, Prayer in public places, Prayers at graduation, prayers at highschool sporting events, displaying the ten commandments, allowing the koran to be read in classes and not the bible. Saying that creationism can't be taught alongside evolution (if you teach one, you must teach the other)! Tearing down a cross from a national park that was put up to honor those that died in World War I. Taking a little cross of a seal of a town in California (something that the PEOPLE voted for).

I could go on and on but suffice to say that the ACLU is not a protector of Civil Liberties as people make them out to believe.

Ok, first, teaching creationism in public schools is wrong because it represents a religious view, which technically violates religious freedom laws(maybe even one of your constitutional laws?). And people don't have to read the bible in class, reading the koran is OK (though showing religious texts in school is, i believe, wrong, because it is technically impressing a religious view on ppl who may not necissarily believe it). Tearing down crosses over War Memorials for CHRISTIAN soldiers is horrible! And if the people voted to put a cross on their town seal, people should not tear it down (though i am sure there were religious reasons for doing so). Also, desplaying the ten commandments in public places is, well, if it is a religious place like a church or catholic school, and as long if it isn't somewhere like a science lab, government building or court, then i guess that it's ok.

I'm not going to comment on ACLU because, well....
Me no know who they r. :D
By the way, could you give me the definition of nativity? Does it have anything to do with native spiritual beliefs(just wondering)?

Conservatives long ago abandoned the idea of small government. It seem that only libertarians still subscribe to that now, without being socialist pig-dogs anyway.

Indeed. Modern day neo(pseudo)-conservatives have completely abandoned the conservatism movement. In fact, the history of conservatism is full of "self-betrayals" (in the words of Philip Gold). Any true conservative would not stand for the Patriot Act, and I suggest those who denegrate "conservatism" based on the passing of this act, become more acquainted with the vast differences between neo-conservatism and the conservatism the U.S. Founding Fathers ascribed to.

Removing religious symbolgy from public places where it did not belong. And how may I ask were our Jewish soldiers who died in WWI honored with a CROSS?
hehehe. Reminds me of Boondock Saints. "I believe the word you're looking for is symbolism." hehehe
but seriously. You're protesting a shape. If all religious symbols should be removed from public places, what about the mission shown in the LA seal? http://lacounty.info/seal.htm It's the building in the middle-right. If a cross is too religious, what about the first Catholic mission?
What about the California state seal? http://www.netstate.com/states/symb/seals/ca_seal.htm
It pictures the Roman goddess of Wisdom, Minerva. A goddess?? Oh no, that sounds religious! That relgious icon must be immediately erased from public view.

Your privacy hasn't been infringed upon Turkishquirrel.
Corny, you'd think after Forseral's first Patriot Act post that you would have discerned the difference by now what infringements have and haven't occurred. Should there be some exhumations or would you retract your statement?
*tap tap*

So is that why Karl Rove and his neocon friends are trying to force PBS and NPR to become more GOP friendly? What a free press!

Name one instance where the USA PATRIOT Act foiled a terrorist plan.
Hear, hear!! *clangs his krieg*

For those interested, as i'd posted above, a poster named
Forseral
posted a thread entitled
"Patriot Act ..."
where several astute posters/players here pointed out what kinds of liberties had been circumvented with the Patriot Act, with specific cases and names and such. It very easily comes up on the Search This Forum option.
The Cat-Tribe, CanuckHeaven and a few others had some excellent posts, if memory serves.
If nothing else, i'll pick & post stuff i saved on a backup somewhere if people want to keep with the farcicle attitude that the Patriot Act isn't a threat and an invasion ... at some point here shortly if some of the other more brevious folk don't beat me to it.

Don't you understand that the warrants under the PATRIOT Act are much easier to obtain because you just have to say that it is a threat to homeland security, and anything can be a threat to homeland security?
Thought this might be pertinent ....

*ahem*

FBI Monitored Web Sites for 2004 Protests
Groups Criticize Agency's Surveillance for Terror Unit

By Michael Dobbs
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, July 18, 2005; Page A03

FBI agents monitored Web sites calling for protests against the 2004 political conventions in New York and Boston on behalf of the bureau's counterterrorism unit, according to FBI documents released under the Freedom of Information Act.
The American Civil Liberties Union pointed to the documents as evidence that the Bush administration has reacted to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States by blurring the distinction between terrorism and political protest. FBI officials defended the involvement of counterterrorism agents in providing security for the Republican and Democratic conventions as an administrative convenience.

The documents were released by the FBI in response to a lawsuit filed by a coalition of civil rights, animal rights and environmental groups that say they have been subjected to scrutiny by task forces set up to combat terrorism. The FBI has denied targeting the groups because of their political views.
"It's increasingly clear that the government is involved in political surveillance of organizations that are involved in nothing more than lawful First Amendment activities," said Anthony Romero, executive director of the ACLU. "It raises very serious questions about whether the FBI is back to its old tricks."
A Sept. 4, 2003, document addressed to the FBI counterterrorism unit described plans by a group calling itself RNC Not Welcome to "disrupt" the 2004 Republican National Convention in New York. It also described Internet postings from an umbrella organization known as United for Peace and Justice, which was coordinating worldwide protests against the convention.
"It's one thing to monitor protests and protest organizers, but quite another thing to refer them to your counterterrorism unit," said Leslie Cagan, national coordinator for United for Peace and Justice.
Another document, addressed to the Joint Terrorism Task Force, which coordinates anti-terrorist activities by the FBI and local police forces, described threats to disrupt the Democratic National Convention in Boston.
Responding to the lawsuit filed in May in U.S. District Court in Washington, the FBI said it had identified 1,173 pages of records relating to the ACLU and 2,383 pages relating to Greenpeace. The content of the records, which were generated since 2001, is not known.
FBI spokesmen declined to discuss the case on the record on the grounds that it is being adjudicated. Speaking on background, an FBI official said that many of the records were routine correspondence. He said the FBI counterterrorism unit received reports on possible threats to the 2004 political conventions because of its role in ensuring security.

I like the fact you pointed to a government source as your facts. That could be used to confirm a bias....
...heh....
interesting post there, new feller.

Now this is nice. What tyrannical leadership are you talking about? I haven't seen a tyrannical leadership in this country yet.

Maybe someone refresh here with Bush's quote about dictatorship ... ya know, the one he finishes with, "..as long as i'm the dictator."
(I have it on my drive but currently using public computer, limited time offer)

*nudge*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communism

But you're too busy listening to Rush Limbaugh to research, aren't you?

Conservatives are great when they get riled up. "THE LEFT! THE LETF!!!111 WAHH GOD H8S FAGS AND LIB-DEM FAGGOTS!!!!!1111@@@@2 tHEY H8 GOD AND OUR COUNTRY!1 ARAB ISLAMOFASCISTS 2!!!!!"
Here's a little illness for you ... Rush Limbaugh and his exclusive contract for play to the armed forces on the ground in Iraq (thanks Clear Channel, methinks) so EVERYONE in the dire predicament that is that experience can revel in the integrity of that unpleasingly-plump libelous vitriolic draft-dodging bile-flinging excuse for an infected ass-cyst and his supposedly 90-percentile accuracy in regards to the goings on of human/political affairs.
The same guy who kneecaps the ACLU at every turn, who now is being DEFENDED by same group against his own proclamation of the "right-wing conspiracy" - conveniently tied to his suspicious drug-use and involvement.

Yay. F*ck that prick. Bad enough the war will scar 'em, they come back having been Clockwork Orange'd by that seditious Bush-fellator.

Ok, first, teaching creationism in public schools is wrong because it represents a religious view, which technically violates religious freedom laws(maybe even one of your constitutional laws?).

Ok, so how does it violate religious freedom laws? ARen't theories taught in school? Creationism is a theory after all. Since it is a theory, it should be taught. Since it isn't taught, then evolution shouldn't be taught either!

And people don't have to read the bible in class, reading the koran is OK (though showing religious texts in school is, i believe, wrong, because it is technically impressing a religious view on ppl who may not necissarily believe it).

So why is reading the Koran ok when it is, in fact a religious book? If your allowed to read the Koran then the Bible should be allowed as well. By allowing one and not the other, you now have what we would call, religious discrimination and that is against the law.

Tearing down crosses over War Memorials for CHRISTIAN soldiers is horrible!

How the HELL do you know that it is for Christian soldiers? It was for ALL THAT DIED!! Look at any war cemetary. What do you find? CROSSES and the Star of David. So how do you know that it was only for Christian soldiers?

And if the people voted to put a cross on their town seal, people should not tear it down (though i am sure there were religious reasons for doing so).

History my friend. It was for the history of their town. So much for history.

Also, desplaying the ten commandments in public places is, well, if it is a religious place like a church or catholic school, and as long if it isn't somewhere like a science lab, government building or court, then i guess that it's ok.

Then maybe the 10 Commandments that are at the Supreme Court of the United States should go too? BTW: They just ruled that as long as the 10 Commandments are on the outside of the capitol building then its legal.

I'm not going to comment on ACLU because, well....
Me no know who they r. :D

The American Civil Liberties Union though I think they need to change their name since what they have done have violated my civil rights and civil liberties.

By the way, could you give me the definition of nativity? Does it have anything to do with native spiritual beliefs(just wondering)?

No. The birth of Jesus Christ is often called the Nativity.

Maybe someone refresh here with Bush's quote about dictatorship ... ya know, the one he finishes with, "..as long as i'm the dictator."
(I have it on my drive but currently using public computer, limited time offer)

*nudge*

I guess humor is lost on you? If Bush is a dictator then why do we still have a legislature with 2 political parties?

I only hope my own country takes up this patriot act as well.
I for one happily volunteer to be a goon, and apply the blowtorch to the soles of the feet of anyone who is against their own government.
sighs, if only.
Damn, why wasnt I born in South America! :(

I would like to refer Corneliu here: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9305750&postcount=171 and get some answers to the points I raised. Especialy the one regarding Christians suporting public prayer even though their lord and savior was clearly AGAINST it.

Funny, seeing as National Socialism finds itself on the Left of the political spectrum.
You invoked Godwin's Law! You lose!

My ridiculous conspiracy alarm just went off.

Who here thinks that the Pentagon perpetrated the terrorist attacks in London in order to create enough support to have the Patriot Act extended?

Don't be shy.

My ridiculous conspiracy alarm just went off.

Who here thinks that the Pentagon perpetrated the terrorist attacks in London in order to create enough support to have the Patriot Act extended?

Don't be shy.

No, it sounds quite likely, but stating as much now leaves me wide open for pillory.

Hello, torches-and-pitchfork crowd. Gosh, is that a wreath made of rope you've built above that big sort of uh... gallows-ish looking thing, there? Wow.

Ok seeya Mr. Pink - !

No, it sounds quite likely, but stating as much now leaves me wide open for pillory.

Hello, torches-and-pitchfork crowd. Gosh, is that a wreath made of rope you've built above that big sort of uh... gallows-ish looking thing, there? Wow.

Ok seeya Mr. Pink - !

Before everyone jumps all over you, why do you think the Pentagon would do this, and how do you think they could pull something off that was this malicious without having their plot leaked?

Before everyone jumps all over you, why do you think the Pentagon would do this, and how do you think they could pull something off that was this malicious without having their plot leaked?

I didn't say anything about the Pentagon, did I?

I'm just assuming this would've been pulled off by some form of black ops - or even a mole within an actual terror cel. It's all just very very conveient - just like Sept.11th, or a few other notable events.

As to why? Well, for example 9/11 provided Bush with exactly what he'd lacked - bi-partisan support, and carte blanche in most if not all regards - so, I'd say it was about power, aquiring and retaining power in one person.

How could they pull it off? What use is my conjecture - what I know about black ops has been gleaned from spy thrillers, not what I'd call necessarily authoritative sources.

Co-opting an existing terror cel is the most elegant solution I can think of. The bombers die in the belief they're carring out their mission (and, really, they are doing just that), people get killed (yay, somebody elses' side!), and the mole gets away, knowing he's helped the terrorists, to a certain extent, and his handlers are happy, now providing the admin the opening it needs to really tighten the noose around America's neck.

Now as to why they'd want to do such a thing, well... I don't know, I think it's Godawful seeing America slide into tyranny, but I honestly don't see Americans waking up to the goings-on before their fall is complete.

I didn't say anything about the Pentagon, did I?

I'm just assuming this would've been pulled off by some form of black ops - or even a mole within an actual terror cel. It's all just very very conveient - just like Sept.11th, or a few other notable events.

As to why? Well, for example 9/11 provided Bush with exactly what he'd lacked - bi-partisan support, and carte blanche in most if not all regards - so, I'd say it was about power, aquiring and retaining power in one person.

How could they pull it off? What use is my conjecture - what I know about black ops has been gleaned from spy thrillers, not what I'd call necessarily authoritative sources.

Co-opting an existing terror cel is the most elegant solution I can think of. The bombers die in the belief they're carring out their mission (and, really, they are doing just that), people get killed (yay, somebody elses' side!), and the mole gets away, knowing he's helped the terrorists, to a certain extent, and his handlers are happy, now providing the admin the opening it needs to really tighten the noose around America's neck.

Now as to why they'd want to do such a thing, well... I don't know, I think it's Godawful seeing America slide into tyranny, but I honestly don't see Americans waking up to the goings-on before their fall is complete.

I mentioned the Pentagon in the conspiracy post, but that is unimportant.

While I agree that the American public is caving to their fears over terrorism and allowing the government far too much of a leash in dealing with terrorism, I would very much like to believe that the government does not have enough members that would be willing to commit to these atrocities.

Ideology is a powerful thing, and I could see it causing people to act this way, but I don't see the people in power of the US government as being that ideologically driven.

I mentioned the Pentagon in the conspiracy post, but that is unimportant.

While I agree that the American public is caving to their fears over terrorism and allowing the government far too much of a leash in dealing with terrorism, I would very much like to believe that the government does not have enough members that would be willing to commit to these atrocities.

Ideology is a powerful thing, and I could see it causing people to act this way, but I don't see the people in power of the US government as being that ideologically driven.
Ideology be damned, it's about acquiring and retaining the ultimate capital - power.

Ideology be damned, it's about acquiring and retaining the ultimate capital - power.

The belief that the US should have (or maybe is divinely mandated to have)unlimited power is an ideology. After all the individuals in power right now would be unlikely to experience the benefits of US world domination.

I mentioned the Pentagon in the conspiracy post, but that is unimportant.

While I agree that the American public is caving to their fears over terrorism and allowing the government far too much of a leash in dealing with terrorism, I would very much like to believe that the government does not have enough members that would be willing to commit to these atrocities.

Ideology is a powerful thing, and I could see it causing people to act this way, but I don't see the people in power of the US government as being that ideologically driven.


Please, America has given up freedoms before to "protect" against other thins before meaning Communism and Joe Mccarthy's bullshit "list"

Please, America has given up freedoms before to "protect" against other thins before meaning Communism and Joe Mccarthy's bullshit "list"

Please! The US hasn't given up any freedoms whatsoever.

Please! The US hasn't given up any freedoms whatsoever.
Why do you keep up that Bullsh*t when enough people have already called you on it? As Phil Anselmo would say, do you "serve too many f*cking masters"?

I guess humor is lost on you? If Bush is a dictator then why do we still have a legislature with 2 political parties?
Humour lost on me? Read up on me a little more, you know i've 'least made you smirk a time or two. *grits teeth*
Of course we have a legislature with 2 "political parties" ... one needs to be the scapegoat for the other. Publicly. It greases the wheels - or as some funny but revolting post put it, in terms of what "Santorum" was a nickname for (HINT: greasy residue after a certain act of non-procreative sexual interaction)

EDIT: Bush had actually publicly stated what i'm talking about, and you know it. Don't be so coy. :fluffle:

Why do you keep up that Bullsh*t when enough people have already called you on it? As Phil Anselmo would say, do you "serve too many f*cking masters"?

I still have all of my freedoms that I was born with and then acquired when I hit the proper age to have said rights. So tell me what rights have I lost?

I still have all of my freedoms that I was born with and then acquired when I hit the proper age to have said rights. So tell me what rights have I lost?
First off, do you represent the US, as you allude to in your statement, or do you mean yourself, being two different entities?


Hope you're not on track for a typical Republican switcheroo tactic, surely you're too refined for that.

First off, do you represent the US, as you allude to in your statement, or do you mean yourself, being two different entities?

Nope. I've talked to several people (of both parties) and they have said the samething. What freedoms have we lost?

Hope you're not on track for a typical Republican switcheroo tactic, surely you're too refined for that.

The only one who did that trick was the Democrats in New Jersey.

(Didn't read thread, too busy, so apologies if this covers old ground)

"Another successful amendment sets a 20-year jail term for an attack against a rail or mass-transit vehicle; a 30-year sentence if the vehicle carries nuclear material; and life imprisonment -- with the possibility of the death penalty -- if anyone is killed in such an attack."

I can just see the headline now:

"In other news, two terrorists set off a 5 megaton nuclear device on a Las Vegas bound tour bus yesterday. The blast leveled a 15 mile radius around the bus, wounding several dozen people but thankfully, no one was killed. The suspects were arrested minutes later and will likely face a 30 year jail term. The suspects cite the increasing price of dairy products as their motive for the bombing. Dairygold could not be reached for comment."

Nope. I've talked to several people (of both parties) and they have said the samething. What freedoms have we lost?



The only one who did that trick was the Democrats in New Jersey.
That above post is pathetic. I gave you too much credit for your "refinement".

So, w/out further ado ...

*ahem*

Here are just a handful of provisions of the Patriot Act that violate my and your civil liberties:

Section 206:
Permits "roving wiretaps," which allow the government to tap all phones or computers a suspect might use -- including those at local Internet cafe.

Section 213:
Changes standards for search warrants to allow "sneak and peek" searches. Instead of serving a warrant, a federal agent can now snoop first and let you
know later -- much later.

Section 214:
By claiming relevance to a terrorism investigation, the government can track your incoming and outgoing calls without a warrant or probable cause.

Section 215:
Without demonstrating probable cause, the FBI can obtain a subpoena to search your personal records held by a library, bookstore, church, bank, video store, etc. The subpoena cannot be challenged in court. It includes a "gag order" to keep you from being notified it was served.

Section 216:
Allows Internet wiretaps to be used in any criminal investigation. Authorities are supposed to be limited to collecting address information not "content." But, web addresses obviously provide a direct path to the content.

Section 218:
Expands an exception to the Fourth Amendment to allow secret U.S. courts to authorize secret seraches if the government alleges a foreign-intelligence rationale. Under this provision, any evidence discovered can now be used in court.

Section 220:
Curtails judicial oversight of wiretaps.

Section 505:
Similar to 215, but no judge is required. Anyone from the Attorney General to an FBI filed office can demand records from a library, bookstor, church, bank, video store, etc., simply by issuing a "national security letter." The agent has only to satisfy himself that the information might be "relevant" to an ongoing terror investigation.

Section 802:
Defines the new crime of "domestic terrorism" as illegal acts "dangerous to human life" that "appear to be intended" to influence governemnt policy by "intimidation or coercion." The vague warning has activists ranging from environmentalists to anti-abortionists concerned about their civil disobedience being reclassified as terror.

Section 806:
Allows the Justice Department -- without a hearing -- to seize the assets of alleged domestic terrorists and their supporters.


Note: all made PERMANENT except for 215. 10 years left on that.

How about the fact that the government can decide to label ANYONE as a terrorist, thus enabling the government to break the 4th amendment, the 5th amendment, the 6th amendment, the 10th amendment, not to mention the 1st amendment.

-
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/21/attack/main564189.shtml

-
Two national ACLU representatives – Director of Legislative Communications Phil Gutis and National Field Organizer Matthew T. Bowles - were in Billings last week with Scott Crichton, the head of the ACLU in Montana. They were on their way to the annual meeting in Helena but stopped by to make their case against portions of the USA Patriot Act.

They have found surprising allies. The Montana Senate voted 40-10 on Feb. 21 to adopt a resolution that directs state officials not to keep or share intelligence information, even information authorized under the Patriot Act, if that action would violate “constitutionally guaranteed civil rights or civil liberties.”

The resolution also admonishes state agencies not to use state resources to enforce federal immigration matters, and it asks public libraries to post notices warning patrons that records of the books they borrow could be seized by federal agents.

I found this part of the article of particular interest:

While conservatives typically back strong measures against terrorism, they are also concerned about possible abuses of the Patriot Act. Those include provisions that allow federal agents to search houses and seize certain records without any warrant or notice. Other provisions bar those required to turn over the records from discussing the matter.

One consequence is that it becomes hard to know whether or not the act is being abused. When the ACLU sued the feds over gag order provisions, it had to negotiate with the government even to get permission to talk about the case. That sort of thing makes conservatives sensitive to the argument that this isn’t a law they want on the books should their opponents take power.
-


"The proposed addendum to the Patriot Act...would enlarge many of the controversial provisions in the first Patriot Act. It would give the government authority to wiretap an individual and collect a person's DNA without court orders, detain people in secret and revoke citizenship, among other powers." <http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A64173-2003Apr20&notFound=true>

Compare with the Fourth Amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
-

According to a news program broadcasted on national radio in the summer of 2004, a large number (over 200) of suspected terrorists were rounded up after 9/11 and detained for up to 6 months without a trial or even knowing their offense. One remained in prison for 2 years without ever knowing why he was there, before being released, while others (immigrants from Middle Eastern countries) were deported to their former places of residence. Compare with:

The Fifth Amendment: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

The Sixth Amendment: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."

The Seventh Amendment: "In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."

What does this have to do with the Patriot Act? The Patriot Act, which was being drafted at that time, made this violation of 3 constitutional amendments legal.


---------
So where were you now? Stay on topic, please.

Oh and nice giving a link to fox news of all sources to confirm your bias.
And you would have linked to NBC? All news is biased. It's the media that takes our freedom away, they have free roam to tape us in our everyday lives. And they have too, they've exposed all kinds of people who would like to be kept in their private lives. Yep, if I were trying to give all Americans freedom I'd start with the media.

I think i've also posted how the administration decided to determine protesters of the RNC in New York were within the parameters of possible domestic terrorism. Care to link that up, or am i sufficient in mentioning it in this thread of statements?

The media doesn't tell you what to think though, no, it does that sometimes but most of the time it's telling you what to think about . Right now we are all talking about this issue while there's something more important going on that is conveniently overlooked. All big news stories are distractions from the truth.

Tick, tock.

Brevity isn't the case, it would appear. Well, you're sure to dig something up, hoorah, and i'll have gotten offline by then (easy way to tell if i'm offline) but if something good does come up, feel free to post or TG me.
I'll return unless mod(s) don't wish it or people i've posted material from in the past get miffed enough to alter my interaction on this forum.

Tah

Please! The US hasn't given up any freedoms whatsoever.Really? Then explain this...

"Section 505 ruled unconstitutional

On September 29, 2004, U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero struck down Section 505—which allowed the government to issue "National Security Letters" to obtain sensitive customer records from Internet Service Providers and other businesses without judicial oversight—was in violation of the First and Fourth Amendment. The court also found the broad gag provision in the law to be an "unconstitutional prior restraint" on free speech."

I think i've also posted how the administration decided to determine protesters of the RNC in New York were within the parameters of possible domestic terrorism. Care to link that up, or am i sufficient in mentioning it in this thread of statements?

Did you know that the Republican party had the same thing at the DNC?

Really? Then explain this...

"Section 505 ruled unconstitutional

On September 29, 2004, U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero struck down Section 505—which allowed the government to issue "National Security Letters" to obtain sensitive customer records from Internet Service Providers and other businesses without judicial oversight—was in violation of the First and Fourth Amendment. The court also found the broad gag provision in the law to be an "unconstitutional prior restraint" on free speech."


A judge's opinion. That is what it is! An Opinion. The Government has been monitoring websites long before the Patriot Act came into existence Canada6.

Corneliu will never believe his rights are being eroded. Even when they are. I don't see the point in attempting to persuade him on this score any more. I suppose in every society that is sliding inevitably and invariably towards despotic tyranny, there will always be at least one who actually pulls the wool over their own eyes.

Stop trying to pull it over anyone elses' eyes, and I'll stop haranguing you.

>_<

That is not how I wanted to wake up this morning, but thanks for the heads up.

-Asylum Nova

Corneliu will never believe his rights are being eroded. Even when they are.

Sorry but I haven't seen any erosion of my rights. I still have every right I was born with and achieved with proper age. So no, no one's rights are being eroded.

I don't see the point in attempting to persuade him on this score any more. I suppose in every society that is sliding inevitably and invariably towards despotic tyranny, there will always be at least one who actually pulls the wool over their own eyes.

Nice. So far, no tyranny here and if Tyranny does start to happen, be advised that I would take up arms against said tyranny.

Stop trying to pull it over anyone elses' eyes, and I'll stop haranguing you.

Stop telling me what I should be doing and focus on reality.

I would like to refer Corneliu here: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9305750&postcount=171 and get some answers to the points I raised. Especialy the one regarding Christians suporting public prayer even though their lord and savior was clearly AGAINST it.


Hm, Corneliu is ignoring the points I made in the post linked to above. Does that mean you admit the ACLU has not violated your rights?

Sorry but I haven't seen any erosion of my rights. I still have every right I was born with and achieved with proper age. So no, no one's rights are being eroded.

Another admission that contrary to an earlier post the ACLU has not violated your rights.

Did you know that the Republican party had the same thing at the DNC?
Did you know i noticed you completely ignored my post dealing with the subject, and obviously, the part where i implored you to stay on topic?

?

While you're at it, maybe you'll bother posting some links. Not that i disbelieve you or anything, what with your substantative stance on this matter.

Sorry but I haven't seen any erosion of my rights. I still have every right I was born with and achieved with proper age. So no, no one's rights are being eroded.



Nice. So far, no tyranny here and if Tyranny does start to happen, be advised that I would take up arms against said tyranny.



Stop telling me what I should be doing and focus on reality.
Unbelievable. *sighs*

You not seeing things VERY apparently doesn't obscure their reality.

Unless you have significant substance to the contrary regarding this/these issues.

...or maybe you're taking the arguing tactics of Urantia II here ....??

Hm, Corneliu is ignoring the points I made in the post linked to above. Does that mean you admit the ACLU has not violated your rights?The ACLU violating rights is an oxymoron.

The ACLU violating rights is an oxymoron.

Yet he claims that their law suits have led to him no longer having the right to display a nativity (on which I called bullshit), that they restict his right to pray in public (on which not only did I call bullshit, I also dug up a biblical quote that says he SHOULDN'T pray in public), and several other fantasys of the ACLU denying him his rights.