NationStates Jolt Archive

I was flipping through channels when I saw on Fox News that the Patriot act has been approved by the senate to be extended for six months. Its not on the internet as of this second so I dont have a source, I also dont care if you dont believe me so dont say that you dont. Why? Why did they extend the Patriot act:headbang:

It's breaking news on CNN.com just now.

Yep ... breaking news on cnn.com ...

*sigh*

Stupid fuckers. I say a vote of no confidence is in order.

It's breaking news on CNN.com just now.

Well that's now, way back when it wasnt on the internet.

It's breaking news on CNN.com just now.

Well that's now, way back when it wasnt on the internet.

Guess they gotta keep it up until the mid-term elections. It's much harder to disenfranchise voters if you can't invade their privacy.

I'll be very interested in seeing the vote split.

yay!

yay!
If you dont want your rights....you could just give them to me instead of throwing them away...

6 month extension? What a load of crap!

It should be made permanent law!

Everyone needs to quit bitching about their so called "civil rights" being infringed. It's a load of crap, and you all know it.

I think the right to be protected against asshole terrorists trumps them.

If you dont want your rights....you could just give them to me instead of throwing them away...

So how many of your friends have been taken away in the middle of the night? Or did some gentlemen show up from the FBI to check up on you? Also, how many of your freedoms have been taken away so far by this Patriot Act?

So how many of your friends have been taken away in the middle of the night? Or did some gentlemen show up from the FBI to check up on you? Also, how many of your freedoms have been taken away so far by this Patriot Act?
It doesn't matter what has happened, the fact is if the government wanted to, they could.

last I checked my rights havent been infringed by this Patriot Act and I have nothing to hide anyway from the gov. Unless you are a terrorist, or know people who are, or are harboring terrorists yourself, you should have nothing to fear!

It doesn't matter what has happened, the fact is if the government wanted to, they could.
And there is the threat of another terrorist attack on our soil as well.
And they could do it too. So we shouldnt make it harder for them to succeed?

last I checked my rights havent been infringed by this Patriot Act and I have nothing to hide anyway from the gov. Unless you are a terrorist, or know people who are, or are harboring terrorists yourself, you should have nothing to fear!

Yours haven't, sure. But, the point is there are people whose rights have been infringed upon by this act. It is frankly disgusting and Bush is really becoming more and more of a dictator. I'm moving to Bonaire (that last mark is sarcastic, for those who think im being a 'liberal pansy')

They renewed it? Damn.

Now I have another six months of listening to hippies whine and complain. Not that they don't do that anyway, but this way I can blame President Bush.

Oh no the terrorists are coming, run away, run away

You know, I'd just like to say good luck to all the people living in the United States. Because now, the United States is no longer the welcoming place for the tired, poor and huddled masses- it has slowly and softly drifted away into a quiet proto-police-state: the hardest thing is to get back your rights after you have given them up... as is it now being seen. :(

I really do hope you all don't end up in some base Orwellian nightmare- fearful of criticising the administrations of the future for fear of being seized or spied upon, or for fear of being reported by your neighbours for not being patriotic enough.

Its a sad day for the United States of America indeed.

I am in full agreement with the Patriot Act. I trust that George Bush and his administration will not cross the boundries of protecting America to invading our privacy at his leisure. The whole thing with people not liking Bush is because they don't have faith in the system that has been working for over 200 years. I think that if it has been around that long and is spreading to other countries, I think there might be something right about it. You don't have to like Bush I just think that you should protest your beliefs in a more respectful manner. He did win the Presidency fair and square. The majority of the people of voted for him in the recent election and well the 2000 election is screwed up. If he really was doing something bad he wouldn't be in office now would he. I believe that George Bush is doing what is good for America in the long run rather than be popular now and risk losing America to the rag-head Terrorists.

I am in full agreement with the Patriot Act. I trust that George Bush and his administration will not cross the boundries of protecting America to invading our privacy at his leisure. The whole thing with people not liking Bush is because they don't have faith in the system that has been working for over 200 years. I think that if it has been around that long and is spreading to other countries, I think there might be something right about it. You don't have to like Bush I just think that you should protest your beliefs in a more respectful manner. He did win the Presidency fair and square. The majority of the people of voted for him in the recent election and well the 2000 election is screwed up. If he really was doing something bad he wouldn't be in office now would he. I believe that George Bush is doing what is good for America in the long run rather than be popular now and risk losing America to the rag-head Terrorists.

I do have faith in the system. That's why I object to Bush changing the system at the expense of our privacy.

You know, I'd just like to say good luck to all the people living in the United States. Because now, the United States is no longer the welcoming place for the tired, poor and huddled masses- it has slowly and softly drifted away into a quiet proto-police-state: the hardest thing is to get back your rights after you have given them up... as is it now being seen. :(

I really do hope you all don't end up in some base Orwellian nightmare- fearful of criticising the administrations of the future for fear of being seized or spied upon, or for fear of being reported by your neighbours for not being patriotic enough.

Its a sad day for the United States of America indeed.
There are well over 300,000 guns in the hands of citizens in America.

We aren't that worried about it. ;)

I was flipping through channels when I saw on Fox News that the Patriot act has been approved by the senate to be extended for six months. Its not on the internet as of this second so I dont have a source, I also dont care if you dont believe me so dont say that you dont. Why? Why did they extend the Patriot act:headbang:

that would probably be because 90% of the patriot act is actually quite sensible and nessesary. The only concern is towards power and discression to montor citizens.

Benjamin Franklin: "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security"

There are well over 300,000 guns in the hands of citizens in America.
That's what worries me too :eek:

Benjamin Franklin: "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security"
You can stop with the meaningless 200 year old quotes.

Things have changed just a little bit.

Besides, you act like Ben Franklin was a frakin god.

Besides, didn't he own slaves (http://www.suntimes.com/output/books/sho-sunday-waldstreiche.html)?

Personally, I'm shocked that the big burly-men cowboy Bush supporters are so frightened of terrorists. Aren't they the ones who always say it's foolish to depend on the government to help them?

I'm ashamed of you lily-livered Bushbots. Grow a spine. My privacy is as much a safeguard against the government as the 2nd amendment is.

careful what you say about this, THEY could be listening...


:( --------:mp5:


You can stop with the meaningless 200 year old quotes.

Things have changed just a little bit.

Besides, you act like Ben Franklin was a frakin god.

Besides, didn't he own slaves?

Yup, 2

He was still a great philosopher, and treated them well (for slaves)



Just remember, Big Brother IS watching you.

I do have faith in the system. That's why I object to Bush changing the system at the expense of our privacy.

Well said.

The Constitution is not a weakness. It is a strength.

Liberty is not a weakness. It is a strength.

You can stop with the meaningless 200 year old quotes.

Things have changed just a little bit.

Besides, you act like Ben Franklin was a frakin god.

Besides, didn't he own slaves?

And the Constitution is only a goddamned piece of paper!

Why are you such a scared girly-Man in Black? Are the scary terrorists hiding under your bed? Will your mommy the government save you?

There are well over 300,000 guns in the hands of citizens in America.

We aren't that worried about it. ;)


So, you love the 2nd Amendment, but the rest are optional?

And the Constitution is only a goddamned piece of paper!

Why are you such a scared girly-Man in Black? Are the scary terrorists hiding under your bed? Will your mommy the government save you?
Man, the 3rd grade insults really strengthen your position. Now I see the light of day!

I really wanna protect your rights now! :rolleyes:

So, you love the 2nd Amendment, but the rest are optional?
Great way to generalize in order to strengthen your weak arguments.
I'm proud of you!

Give it a few months, you'll be tying your shoes! :D

Yep ... breaking news on cnn.com ...

*sigh*

Stupid fuckers. I say a vote of no confidence is in order.
Agreed. One of the dumbest decisions Congress has made. *rolls eyes*

Yours haven't, sure. But, the point is there are people whose rights have been infringed upon by this act. It is frankly disgusting and Bush is really becoming more and more of a dictator. I'm moving to Bonaire (that last mark is sarcastic, for those who think im being a 'liberal pansy')

Who's? NAME ONE INCIDENT OF A U.S. CITIZEN BEING HARASSED OR THEIR CIVIL LIBERTIES BEING ABRIDGED IN THE LAST 4 YEARS OF THE PATRIOT ACT!
There have been NO alligations whatsoever. State courts, activist judges, and state law enforcement on the local level have been much more opressive of civil liberties (e.g. taking private property for local revenue enhancment, the abolition of Christmas, local prosecutors with open ended fishing expeditions with grand juries, the denial of any other theory of creation other than Darwinism, etc,etc, etc....)

:D Yep ... breaking news on cnn.com ...

*sigh*

Stupid fuckers. I say a vote of no confidence is in order.
We had one in 04. Apparently, it didn't work out the way you'd hoped.

It should be made permanent law!
Who says democracy doesn't need to be defended against its own complacent citizenry?

Who's? NAME ONE INCIDENT OF A U.S. CITIZEN BEING HARASSED OR THEIR CIVIL LIBERTIES BEING ABRIDGED IN THE LAST 4 YEARS OF THE PATRIOT ACT!
There have been NO alligations whatsoever.

Bullshit. There have been scores of lawsuits. I'll find some links.

EDIT: Here's what I found in the last few minutes alone:
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/patriot/20260prs20050901.html
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/18715prs20041202.html
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/18721prs20041202.html
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/spying/23124prs20051220.html
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/spying/23091prs20051216.html
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/spying/22884prs20051208.html

State courts, activist judges, and state law enforcement on the local level have been much more opressive of civil liberties (e.g. taking private property for local revenue enhancment, the abolition of Christmas, local prosecutors with open ended fishing expeditions with grand juries, the denial of any other theory of creation other than Darwinism, etc,etc, etc....)

LOL. That is the only response this deserves.

Man, the 3rd grade insults really strengthen your position. Now I see the light of day!

I really wanna protect your rights now! :rolleyes:

Well, stop acting like a frightened 3rd grader and I'll upgrade my insults. I guess you need to grow a thicker skin in addition to a spine.

I'm not afraid of terrorists. If they actually scared me, then their job is done. The terrorists have obviously already terrorized you, since you're willing to give up privacy and due process in order to be safe from them.

Well, stop acting like a frightened 3rd grader and I'll upgrade my insults. I guess you need to grow a thicker skin in addition to a spine.

I'm not afraid of terrorists. If they actually scared me, then their job is done. The terrorists have obviously already terrorized you, since you're willing to give up privacy and due process in order to be safe from them.
That is such a ridiculous argument. I want to protect myself from terrorists, so I'm a scaredy cat, but your scared the FBI will hear you having phone sex with your girlfriend, and your a manly man?

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Who's? NAME ONE INCIDENT OF A U.S. CITIZEN BEING HARASSED OR THEIR CIVIL LIBERTIES BEING ABRIDGED IN THE LAST 4 YEARS OF THE PATRIOT ACT!
There have been NO alligations whatsoever. State courts, activist judges, and state law enforcement on the local level have been much more opressive of civil liberties (e.g. taking private property for local revenue enhancment, the abolition of Christmas, local prosecutors with open ended fishing expeditions with grand juries, the denial of any other theory of creation other than Darwinism, etc,etc, etc....)

Are you even on this planet?
Seriously?


FBI admits to wiretapping wrong numbers

Updated: 7:35 p.m. ET Sept. 30, 2005
WASHINGTON - The FBI says it sometimes gets the wrong number when it intercepts conversations in terrorism investigations, an admission critics say underscores a need to revise wiretap provisions in the Patriot Act.


Up to 300 mistaken numbers.

Bullshit. There have been scores of lawsuits. I'll find some links.



LOL. That is the only response this deserves.
what is so funny?
I suppose you have no problem with the government takeing your house away so they can build a mini mall on the land, while you are scared shitless about the FBI listening in on your conversation with a lover!

That is such a ridiculous argument. I want to protect myself from terrorists, so I'm a scaredy cat, but your scared the FBI will hear you having phone sex with your girlfriend, and your a manly man?

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Yup, because the American government is a lot more powerful and nearly omnipresent compared to the terrorists. The government is always here. It was here before the terrorists and will be here after this particular group of Islamist Fanatics are gone. Powers given to the government are hard to take away again.

Oh no the terrorists are coming, run away, run away

I say lock and load.

Who's? NAME ONE INCIDENT OF A U.S. CITIZEN BEING HARASSED OR THEIR CIVIL LIBERTIES BEING ABRIDGED IN THE LAST 4 YEARS OF THE PATRIOT ACT!

I'll give you two:

1] I was forced to open my mail in front of the police because I received a package from Egypt.

2] I was harrassed by police because I was praying in public, something that never happens to Christians.

Now, you name one incident of the Patriot Act doing some good.

Are you even on this planet?
Seriously?



Up to 300 mistaken numbers.

Wow 300 mistaken numbers?
Thats..... woah, we should be so scared right now!! People make mistakes. So what? Did they get arrested? Heck I can listen to cell phones on my walkie talkie, and most of what I hear is nothing. So what? If I found out the FBI was listening in to me, I would say fine. I got nothing to hide. Heck I would like to talk to them right now.
BTW
Just out of curiosity, what makes you so sure they arent reading what we write, right now? OH NO! They are evesdropping on our forums!
Grow up.

what is so funny?
I suppose you have no problem with the government takeing your house away so they can build a mini mall on the land, while you are scared shitless about the FBI listening in on your conversation with a lover!

Again with the strawmen. Have you no valid arguments?

So, you love the 2nd Amendment, but the rest are optional?
With all due respect, I'm tired of both extremes cherry picking the document to death.

But anyways, it's situations like this that expose the unAmerican, freedom-hating, throne-sniffing authoritarians amongst us.
Now we now how to pick them out here on NS, should they pull a 180 later and try to wave the flag in public and claim to love their liberty.
You don't, and never did.

Again with the strawmen. Have you no valid arguments?

So everything I just wrote down earlier didnt happen?
What "Emminent Domain" is not a valid argument?
Activist judges dont exist?
Well, dont come crying to me when they take your house away so they can build a casino on it, or a mini mall, because that is a much bigger concern to me than someone listening into my phone calls!

Wow 300 mistaken numbers?
Thats..... woah, we should be so scared right now!! People make mistakes. So what? Did they get arrested? Heck I can listen to cell phones on my walkie talkie, and most of what I hear is nothing. So what? If I found out the FBI was listening in to me, I would say fine. I got nothing to hide. Heck I would like to talk to them right now.
BTW
Just out of curiosity, what makes you so sure they arent reading what we write, right now? OH NO! They are evesdropping on our forums!
Grow up.

Wow... you've got your priorities way out of whack....

You'd fit in well over in Pyongyang.

Wow... you've got your priorities way out of whack....

You'd fit in well over in Pyongyang.

What the hell are you talking about?

Who's? NAME ONE INCIDENT OF A U.S. CITIZEN BEING HARASSED OR THEIR CIVIL LIBERTIES BEING ABRIDGED IN THE LAST 4 YEARS OF THE PATRIOT ACT!

One American born indian girl, her name escapes me, had her citizenship revoked and was deported to India under the act I believe.

If I found out the FBI was listening in to me, I would say fine. I got nothing to hide.

I have nothing to hide either, yet I have been harrassed as a direct result of the Patriot Act. Not something I read on the news or saw in a movie, but me personally.

But I have nothing to hide and am doing nothing wrong.

I suppose everything's ok so long as it doesn't happen to you, right?

It will never cease to amaze me how precious and how taken for granted is the Right to Privacy. Believe me, son, the second this hits close to home, you'll be all over it like ugly on Janet Reno.

What the hell are you talking about?
Well, in Pyongyang they have a very real threat to their freedom and their way of life. Any day, American bombers could blow up their trains, planes and schools.

There is only one way to deal with that, and that is to allow the Government to supervise a few people, to make sure there are no American spies or something like that.

It's an Axis of Imperialism, I tell you. And they hate us, because they hate Korean sovereignty! But in the end, the glorious leader will triumph, and then all the emergency powers will go away, and all Koreans will live happily ever after!

Any Questions? Good.

So everything I just wrote down earlier didnt happen?
What "Emminent Domain" is not a valid argument?
Activist judges dont exist?
Well, dont come crying to me when they take your house away so they can build a casino on it, or a mini mall, because that is a much bigger concern to me than someone listening into my phone calls!

Meh. The strawman is the idea that I don't oppose abuse of eminent domain.

I do. I love liberty and all of our constitutional rights.

You are willing to sacrifice our constitutional rights on the altar of fear. I am not.

(BTW, I've actually worked on opposing an eminent domain plan successfully.)

Well, this seems like the start of another red scare. Think they'll look back and call it Cheyneyism instead of mcarthurism?

*snip*

I...love...you :D :p :p :D

Bullshit. There have been scores of lawsuits. I'll find some links.

EDIT: Here's what I found in the last few minutes alone:
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/patriot/20260prs20050901.html
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/18715prs20041202.html
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/18721prs20041202.html
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/spying/23124prs20051220.html
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/spying/23091prs20051216.html
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/spying/22884prs20051208.html



LOL. That is the only response this deserves.

yeah because if anyones to be trusted its the ACLU. fuckin wont even let students pray in schools

"Patriot act extended!"

Good. Now we're covered for the next six months at least.

yeah because if anyones to be trusted its the ACLU. fuckin wont even let students pray in schools

Bullshit. As far as I know, there have only been rulings against teacher-led prayer sessions in schools. Care to offer some proof that the ACLU is against students praying on their own time and of their own volition?

yeah because if anyones to be trusted its the ACLU. fuckin wont even let students pray in schools

Well despite the site, the facts are still true.

(And if you want to pray in a school, go to a religious school- everyones happy ;) )

yeah because if anyones to be trusted its the ACLU. fuckin wont even let students pray in schools

Where? Where has the right for a student to pray on his own time been taken away? Got an example?

yeah because if anyones to be trusted its the ACLU. fuckin wont even let students pray in schools

If this is sarcasm I apologize ahead of time.

I am sure if Cat-Tribe wanted to waste some time, he would post one of his 30 site lists of cases in which the ACLU has defended the freedom of worship.

If I were him, I would assume that comment is a true measure of your intelligence and just not bother.

yeah because if anyones to be trusted its the ACLU. fuckin wont even let students pray in schools

No, they won't MAKE students pray in school, or have ORGANIZED praying. Muslems are alowed to do it throughout the day, and if a cristian was praying they couldn't stop you, even in the ultra libral states.

I have nothing to hide either, yet I have been harrassed as a direct result of the Patriot Act. Not something I read on the news or saw in a movie, but me personally.

But I have nothing to hide and am doing nothing wrong.

I suppose everything's ok so long as it doesn't happen to you, right?

It will never cease to amaze me how precious and how taken for granted is the Right to Privacy. Believe me, son, the second this hits close to home, you'll be all over it like ugly on Janet Reno.


okay you having to open your mail in front of cops cause you got a package from Eqypt. I understand how that would piss you off. but see it from the cops point of view. Fanatic muslims are the ones who want to attack this country. this cop doesnt know you. he doesnt know if your a terrorist or not. this isnt a conventional war here... my next door neighbor good be a terrorist... if i ever talked to him maybe id know something... but anyway. unfortunatly for you its muslims... if christian radicals were doing it wed be the target (okay please lets not get into race discussions here) if jews were the ones blowing up stuff theyd be targets of the patriot act.


now as for being harrassed for praying ...thats just wrong. im sorry you had to endure that. though im not muslim, i will openly say Islam is a great religion. people who harass you are even lower then gymoor (KIDDING)

No, they won't MAKE students pray in school, or have ORGANIZED praying. Muslems are alowed to do it throughout the day, and if a cristian was praying they couldn't stop you, even in the ultra libral states.

yeah say i want to organize a prayer meeting, i cant do it... good to know the ACLU is protecting my civil rights from having to hear myself pray... man that would be a night mere

If this is sarcasm I apologize ahead of time.
Vittos! You apologizing for being sarcastic? OMG! :eek:

If this is sarcasm I apologize ahead of time.

I am sure if Cat-Tribe wanted to waste some time, he would post one of his 30 site lists of cases in which the ACLU has defended the freedom of worship.

If I were him, I would assume that comment is a true measure of your intelligence and just not bother.

yes the ACLU has defended right to worship......in church. but make a statement in a public school and suddenly theyre on the other side saying i violated other peoples civil rights by having to make them hear it. im not allowed to have organised prayer meetings... because the ACLU wont let me..

Vittos! You apologizing for being sarcastic? OMG! :eek:

Not a chance, I was only apologizing in the slight chance that he was being sarcastic.

As usual, I need not apologize.

BTW, you never told me what you were recovering from.

Meh. The strawman is the idea that I don't oppose abuse of eminent domain.

I do. I love liberty and all of our constitutional rights.

You are willing to sacrifice our constitutional rights on the altar of fear. I am not.

(BTW, I've actually worked on opposing an eminent domain plan successfully.)

you know the government is allowed to take private property for the use of public works.. its in the constitution....

yes the ACLU has defended right to worship......in church.Appropriate but make a statement in a public school Not Appropriate and suddenly theyre on the other side saying i violated other peoples...

See that? Thats why.

I don't think that its a fair argument to say its okay for the government to have stripped our rights as long as they don't abuse us. Wouldn't it just be easiest to surrender all our rights and count on the people in power to be fair to us? If we can trust the government not to abuse our right to privacy why not trust the government to pick its own sucessors in office? Isn't protection against possible abuse the reason we have been guranteed our rights in the first place?

Not a chance, I was only apologizing in the slight chance that he was being sarcastic.

As usual, I need not apologize.

BTW, you never told me what you were recovering from.
LOL! You, my friend, are a true egoist! :D

I'm recovering from having my frakking prostate removed, along with assorted other ancillary structures. Groan. I thought you knew that. :confused:

you guys have no idea how little it takes for the government to "visit" you. (http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/12-05/12-17-05/a09lo650.htm)

Well, stop acting like a frightened 3rd grader and I'll upgrade my insults. I guess you need to grow a thicker skin in addition to a spine.

I'm not afraid of terrorists. If they actually scared me, then their job is done. The terrorists have obviously already terrorized you, since you're willing to give up privacy and due process in order to be safe from them.


Courage doesnt equal recklessness, im not afraid of terrorists blowing me up, if i die i die for my country cause i decided i wasnt going to hide, but theres no reason why we shouldnt try to thwart their ambitions.

Show me someone on this board who says "How does the Patriot Act affect you?" or "You don't have anything to fear if you're not a terrorist," and I will show you a White Anglo-Saxon Protestant who thanks God he or she is not a dirty brown-skinned Muslim every day.

I'm recovering from having my frakking prostate removed, along with assorted other ancillary structures. Groan. I thought you knew that. :confused:

I didn't know at all, I hope everything is going ok, according to plan.

you guys have no idea how little it takes for the government to "visit" you. (http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/12-05/12-17-05/a09lo650.htm)



ouch,... were living in another Red Scare. Theyre watching the book because the book might be red by possible terrorist sympathisers. did the student get arrested.. NO!! all they did was ask him questions. its not like they gave him a cavity search. come on people. and yeah i know what your thinking this day questions what about tomorrow... the people of America would never let it get out of hand like that. so he had to sit through an hour of questioning we do the same crap to people exhibiting "suspicous behavoir" that relates to a criminal case. if he felt his civil liberties were being threatened, sorry but that wasnt the purpose, the purpose was to ensure that america is safe.

See that? Thats why.


and what is defined as Apropriate and not apropriate

Here, here Gauthier!

Rights are (were) in place to protect those dirty brown-skinned muslims. It was a failure of rights that put the Japanese in interment camps. I bet white america had nothing to hide then either.

Courage doesnt equal recklessness, im not afraid of terrorists blowing me up, if i die i die for my country cause i decided i wasnt going to hide, but theres no reason why we shouldnt try to thwart their ambitions.

Agreed, and part of their ambition is to scare us enough that we deviate from what it means to be an American. They've partially succeeded.

in regards to the government seizing private property for public works, I know that to be true since a good friend of mine had acres of land that had been in his family for generations taken away because they wanted to build a dam on the river that ran in the back of his property (it was mostly undeveloped woodland). The fact of the matter is that it does happen, and since our court system bases everything on precedent, if it happens once they can let it happen again.

Also, to the guy who said that muslims are being persecuted because the terrorists are islamic, and that the same thing would be happening if the terrorists were christian radicals instead (with christians being targeted) that isn't the case at all. The Islamic population of the US represents a minority group in America both in population numbers, and in political/corporate status. As a result, targeting them becomes much easier because there are more Caucasion Christians who aren't part of that target group. The same goes for Jews who, while not necessarily being the majority population wise, control a significant portion of our country through the media, politics, and big business. As a result, no one wants to bother them because they hold the reins of power. Because of this, when instances of terrorism or other negative actions are done by radical Christians or any other group that comes from a majority of the population, the same response does not occur. This is not just the case here on our own domestic soil, but present quite often in our relations with our nations as a whole.

To the guy who got accosted by the Police, while I have never personally had any negative actions occur to me, the fact that I am half lebanese from my father's side has in times past been a touchy matter that has gotten me into arguments with those who fail to realize the full picture. This country has alot of wonderful aspects, but at the same time there are many deeply ingrained idealogies that need to be discarded if America wishes to remain a dominate force in the world.

I didn't know at all, I hope everything is going ok, according to plan.
Yeah, sorta. They seem to have gotten all the cancer, since my PSA fell to zero immediately after the operation, but I've had a bit of a problem with infection or something closely related.

( shrug ) Ain't nutthin' but another battle in the war we're all destined to lose sooner or later. I intend to win as many battles as I can. I have no intention of "going quietly!" Mwahahaha! :D

Show me someone on this board who says "How does the Patriot Act affect you?" or "You don't have anything to fear if you're not a terrorist," and I will show you a White Anglo-Saxon Protestant who thanks God he or she is not a dirty brown-skinned Muslim every day.


RACIAL PROFILING!!!!!!!!!! RACIAL PROFILING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and even though i am a republican WASP. i dont thank god im not a muslim. i have plenty of friends who are conservative islam. its a little annoying when we have to stop the game of soccor were playing for fun so they can pray, but we deal with it. its called tolerance people.

Yeah, sorta. They seem to have gotten all the cancer, since my PSA fell to zero immediately after the operation, but I've had a bit of a problem with infection or something closely related.

( shrug ) Ain't nutthin' but another battle in the war we're all destined to lose sooner or later. I intend to win as many battles as I can. I have no intention of "going quietly!" Mwahahaha! :D

Ill pray for you,... unless you dont want me too.

Six more months!!! Six more months!!! Six more months!!! W00t!

Although I still can't believe it actually passed with all of the "Opposition" to it in the government, oh well, it's still good for another six months. :)

Ill pray for you,... unless you dont want me too.
All prayers, meditations and the like are gratefully accepted. Perhaps someone will hear them and make me ... oh, say ... 53 again! :D

The point is, tarsonis, is that you don't have to worry about government searches because it is small chance that you are suspect, being a republican wasp. There is a good chance the government won't infringe your rights because you don't look like the enemy. But some innocent middle easterner will be subject to suspicion. If he buys a hunting rifle and you by a hunting rifle, which do you think the gov't will take larger notice of? Which of you two do you think the government will wire tap.

Furthermore, I guess you don't mind the gov't listening to you when you have nothing to hide, but I have phone sex and thats none of the gov'ts buisness.

Agreed, and part of their ambition is to scare us enough that we deviate from what it means to be an American. They've partially succeeded.


the truth of the matter is people are blowing this way out of proportion with the "Orwellian nightmere" and "Big Brother Bush". the fact is Bush is trying stop the terrorists before they hit us. i support the patriot act 1. because right to privacy isnt in the constitution. its only protection against searches and seizures. 2. because as ive said in ealier posts and have gotten rather "rude" replies, no grudges though. your damned if you do and your damned if you dont. either he gets hated for listening on phonecalls or is hated for not doing what was neccesary to stop a terrorist attack.

That is such a ridiculous argument. I want to protect myself from terrorists, so I'm a scaredy cat, but your scared the FBI will hear you having phone sex with your girlfriend, and your a manly man?

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I see that VoteEarly has returned. That's just wonderful.

Have you beaten your mother lately?

I'm tired of listening to morons claim the Patriot Act isn't affecting anyone seriously or that it really doesn't infringe on rights or that they have nothing to hide so it doesn't matter. :gundge: That's all bs. It the principle of it. If they can get away with infringing on a few rights you may feel unimportant, what will stop them from taking more? When does it end, when everyone is a slave to the state? You insolent fools make me sad. If you want a despot then go somewhere else, where you can join the millions of people who are stuck under a dictator with no true appreciation of his people. I wonder if you would be so quick to surrender your rights when you have no more to surrender. :mad:

Ill pray for you,... unless you dont want me too.

Ah, it's wonderful how unintentional comedy can creep into even the most sobering of subjects.

...I wasn't aware that you wanted Eut, tarsonis...

I'm going to try and say how I feel about the Patriot Act without flaming or cussing, mostly because I hope it helps to explain how some people are so worried about it.

It's not that I don't want to be secure against terrorism. I can still remember 9/11, and I don't want anything remotely resembling that to happen again. But, I don't think that the Patriot Act is the kind of thing we need for increased security. It allows for closer monitoring of people in the US and this monitoring comes dangerously close to violating the right to privacy. I believe other posters have mentioned specific cases involving the act.

Now, while the Act itself won't affect me, or anyone I know for that matter, I'm worried about precendent. If this stands as a law, it can be used as a stepping stone some time in the future for other acts, however justified, that allow for much more detailed monitoring. A lot of supporters of the Act say that the Bush administration hasn't misused the power, but how do we know that a new administration won't abuse this power. Remember, we change Presidents every four years, so how do we know that somewhere down the road, this won't come back and bite us in the ass.

Another thing I saw in this thread were some posters saying that they felt safe because they could own guns. Seriously, what do you think the chances of any militia army in the US, using commercially available firearms, taking on our own army? The Second Amendment was fine when cannons were the most dangerous things on the battlefield, but now we have Air Force and mechanized divisions that could vaporize anything using just conventional weapons.

This is just my two cents for the night, do with them what you will.

The point is, tarsonis, is that you don't have to worry about government searches because it is small chance that you are suspect, being a republican wasp. There is a good chance the government won't infringe your rights because you don't look like the enemy. But some innocent middle easterner will be subject to suspicion. If he buys a hunting rifle and you by a hunting rifle, which do you think the gov't will take larger notice of? Which of you two do you think the government will wire tap.

Furthermore, I guess you don't mind the gov't listening to you when you have nothing to hide, but I have phone sex and thats none of the gov'ts buisness.

okay youve made the same point ive made only for a different reason. WASPS arent the ones blowing up innocent people. its the fanatic muslims. its a better safe then sorry scenario. i dunno i see where your coming from but ive learned to hold fast when you can and compromise when you have to. here if i have to let the gov listen on my calls so that America as a whole is safer. so be it..

(and yeah when the feds start chanting GO BABY GO while your having sex, yeah thatd be alittle bit of a kill joy)

tarsonis, we have plenty of rights that aren't spelled directly out in the Constitution. Right to privacy has been established by moutains of legal precedent.

Your second point I can relate to, though. People who criticize bush for doing too little and then lambast him for stripping rights away are being inconsistent. Decreased security is a consequence of living in a free country with lots of rights. People need to accept that. If security from foreign powers were our primary concern, a feudal state would serve us best; we do whatever the big man tells us too as long as he protects us from the boogie man. But this country was founded on the principle that we need protection from the boogie man and the big man. Hence our rights that protect us from unrestrained government

the truth of the matter is people are blowing this way out of proportion with the "Orwellian nightmere" and "Big Brother Bush". the fact is Bush is trying stop the terrorists before they hit us. i support the patriot act 1. because right to privacy isnt in the constitution. its only protection against searches and seizures. 2. because as ive said in ealier posts and have gotten rather "rude" replies, no grudges though. your damned if you do and your damned if you dont. either he gets hated for listening on phonecalls or is hated for not doing what was neccesary to stop a terrorist attack.

But when is the cost too great? And how many terrorists are really caught by this system with relation to the disruption it provides to countless persons. It is as Ben Franklin once said, "He who gives up liberties for safety deserves neither."

I'm going to try and say how I feel about the Patriot Act without flaming or cussing, mostly because I hope it helps to explain how some people are so worried about it.

It's not that I don't want to be secure against terrorism. I can still remember 9/11, and I don't want anything remotely resembling that to happen again. But, I don't think that the Patriot Act is the kind of thing we need for increased security. It allows for closer monitoring of people in the US and this monitoring comes dangerously close to violating the right to privacy. I believe other posters have mentioned specific cases involving the act.

Now, while the Act itself won't affect me, or anyone I know for that matter, I'm worried about precendent. If this stands as a law, it can be used as a stepping stone some time in the future for other acts, however justified, that allow for much more detailed monitoring. A lot of supporters of the Act say that the Bush administration hasn't misused the power, but how do we know that a new administration won't abuse this power. Remember, we change Presidents every four years, so how do we know that somewhere down the road, this won't come back and bite us in the ass.

Another thing I saw in this thread were some posters saying that they felt safe because they could own guns. Seriously, what do you think the chances of any militia army in the US, using commercially available firearms, taking on our own army? The Second Amendment was fine when cannons were the most dangerous things on the battlefield, but now we have Air Force and mechanized divisions that could vaporize anything using just conventional weapons.

This is just my two cents for the night, do with them what you will.


i should point out now that my opinion is probably biased because i knew people who died in 9/11 close friends of mine, theres other safegaurds that will stop the government for using this power in any other way than to protect americans, 1 such safe gaurd is checks and balances

tarsonis, we have plenty of rights that aren't spelled directly out in the Constitution. Right to privacy has been established by moutains of legal precedent.

Your second point I can relate to, though. People who criticize bush for doing too little and then lambast him for stripping rights away are being inconsistent. Decreased security is a consequence of living in a free country with lots of rights. People need to accept that. If security from foreign powers were our primary concern, a feudal state would serve us best; we do whatever the big man tells us too as long as he protects us from the boogie man. But this country was founded on the principle that we need protection from the boogie man and the big man. Hence our rights that protect us from unrestrained government

See, this one understands. The "no cost is too great" philosophy is a load of crap.

WASPS arent the ones blowing up innocent people.
Really?

Timothy McVeigh?

Ah, it's wonderful how unintentional comedy can creep into even the most sobering of subjects.

...I wasn't aware that you wanted Eut, tarsonis...
Cheap shot.

But when is the cost too great? And how many terrorists are really caught by this system with relation to the disruption it provides to countless persons. It is as Ben Franklin once said, "He who gives up liberties for safety deserves neither."

Ben Franklin also didnt have to be worried about a walking talking claymore mine going off in the mall hes shopping in. It was a simpler time when all u had to worry about was brittain blockading your harbor. The Quote means that those who will submit theyre freedom of representation and voice just so they dont have to worry about putting food on the table deserves neither.

when is the cost to great? i dont have an answer to that. i thank god that we havent had terrorists found yet, Y because it means that theyre not here yet.

Agreed, and part of their ambition is to scare us enough that we deviate from what it means to be an American. They've partially succeeded.

No, what Islamists want to do is kill all the "devils". Us. Americans. Westerns.

I just want to say, my dad is in 5th Group Special Forces, and is currently serving in Iraq. He is over there now, and he loves his job. He is a team leader.

Just want to thank all the people who support Bush in this never ending war.

i should point out now that my opinion is probably biased because i knew people who died in 9/11 close friends of mine, theres other safegaurds that will stop the government for using this power in any other way than to protect americans, 1 such safe gaurd is checks and balances
You mean, like getting a warrant to tap citizen's phones! Can't argue with that, since that's what the law is there for. Checks and balances, all right.

Really?

Timothy McVeigh?

fine NON PSYCHOTIC WASPS arent the ones blowing people up.

I want to point out, tarsonis, that Bush has sidestepped checks and balances. He created an executive order that allowed the gov't to spy on Americans. This executive order went into effect without the check of judicial review. He claimed it was his executive privilege and authorization of force from 2001 and the patriot act allowed his sidestep. This is what my rights exist for. To protect citizens from the few (thank god) infringements the government attempts.

i should point out now that my opinion is probably biased because i knew people who died in 9/11 close friends of mine, theres other safegaurds that will stop the government for using this power in any other way than to protect americans, 1 such safe gaurd is checks and balances

That destroyed your credibility. First of all, checks and balances could only serve to remove the legislation, which has not been done. Second, shadow organizations can do whatever the hell they want anyway; this act is just insurance for when they get exposed. Third, politicians only know one system of checks and balances, those of their rapidly expanding Swiss bank accounts. :mp5:

the truth of the matter is people are blowing this way out of proportion with the "Orwellian nightmere" and "Big Brother Bush". the fact is Bush is trying stop the terrorists before they hit us. i support the patriot act 1. because right to privacy isnt in the constitution. its only protection against searches and seizures. 2. because as ive said in ealier posts and have gotten rather "rude" replies, no grudges though. your damned if you do and your damned if you dont. either he gets hated for listening on phonecalls or is hated for not doing what was neccesary to stop a terrorist attack.

Over 40,000 deaths a year occur due to motor vehicle accidents. Less than a 10th of that have died due to all terrorist attacks against Americans in the last decade. By all measurements, motor vehicle accidents pose more of a risk to Americans than any terrorist...but you don't see a "War on Motor Vehicles" do you?

The threat from terrorists is and has always been overblown, and you're a coward for being willing to allow the government to poke into your affairs with impunity.

You mean, like getting a warrant to tap citizen's phones! Can't argue with that, since that's what the law is there for. Checks and balances, all right.

but the constitution also has probable cause. which allows you to skip the warrent till after the fact. if behavoir that leads the HSA to believe your working for terrorists, thats probable cause. see they dont just do it cause uve baught 1984 or the RED BOOK or The Comunits manefesto, or you bought a gun or are middle eastern. but take an Islamic conservative whos memorized every quote of the RED BOOK and collects high powered rifles, that doesnt strike you as a little suspicious?

ouch,... were living in another Red Scare. Theyre watching the book because the book might be red by possible terrorist sympathisers. did the student get arrested.. NO!! all they did was ask him questions. its not like they gave him a cavity search. come on people. and yeah i know what your thinking this day questions what about tomorrow... the people of America would never let it get out of hand like that. so he had to sit through an hour of questioning we do the same crap to people exhibiting "suspicous behavoir" that relates to a criminal case. if he felt his civil liberties were being threatened, sorry but that wasnt the purpose, the purpose was to ensure that america is safe.
you misssed the point. the student was checking out a harmless book. The Little Red Book, is a collection of quotations and speech excerpts from Chinese leader Mao Tse-Tung.
tell me, could this book cause proprerty damage. does this inflict on the rights of other people? if not, then how is this remotely related to terrorism? the government should have no right to go check up on you just because the book is related to communism.

If the goverment's interference was to keep america safe, explain to me, how can this be used to do damage?

No, what Islamists want to do is kill all the "devils". Us. Americans. Westerns.

I just want to say, my dad is in 5th Group Special Forces, and is currently serving in Iraq. He is over there now, and he loves his job. He is a team leader.

Just want to thank all the people who support Bush in this never ending war.

I support your father 100%...but to me that means opposing Bush. The greatest threat to our armes forces is sitting in the oval office.

See, this one understands. The "no cost is too great" philosophy is a load of crap.

i dont believe in no cost is too great but i believe in an America that doesnt have to worry about being blown up or ball bearins tearing through you while your christmas shopping

fine NON PSYCHOTIC WASPS arent the ones blowing people up.Nor are non-psychotic Muslims.

but the constitution also has probable cause. which allows you to skip the warrent till after the fact.
And that's the crux of the situation, from my perspective. What makes you think Bush was above getting the warrants after the fact? Doesn't that strike you the least bit odd or suspect? Can you excuse that, given the argument you're making?

I support your father 100%...but to me that means opposing Bush. The greatest threat to our armes forces is sitting in the oval office.

Gymoor probably something i should have said earlier is the only reason i voted for bush is because he was better than the alternative. Kerry cant even make up his mind about giving our soldiers body armor to protect themselves let alone run a country, the democrats need to accept were not leaving and try to make it safer for our soldiers, give them the stuff they need the armor for their humvies the body armor, the face masks, itd be alot less casualties.

AND I SUPPORT ALL SOLDIERS! GO MARINES!!!

Cheap shot.

Not at all Eut. I admitted that it was unintentional comedy. In addition, I'm sure his real sentiment was sincere, as I hope you'll believe that my best wishes for you are sincere too.

None of that detracts from the unintentional comedy of the statement. :D

Nor are non-psychotic Muslims.

but where as the psychotic wasp was one while the psychotic muslims are many and can be anywhere, dont mean to scare people but think about it,

6 month extension? What a load of crap!

It should be made permanent law!

Everyone needs to quit bitching about their so called "civil rights" being infringed. It's a load of crap, and you all know it.

I think the right to be protected against asshole terrorists trumps them.

You are being sarcastic, aren't you?

This is bullshit. Bush is bushit.

you misssed the point. the student was checking out a harmless book.
tell me, could this book cause proprerty damage. does this inflict on the rights of other people? if not, then how is this remotely related to terrorism? the government should have no right to go check up on you just because the book is related to communism.

If the goverment's interference was to keep america safe, explain to me, how can this be used to do damage?


how harmless is the book though..... the book itself yes is harmless (unless i give you a paper cut with it)...but the message it contains... ive read abriged versions of the Red Book intresting read but its some pretty radical stuff like destroy capitalism and other stuff like that now give that to an terrorist trainee, and theyll support it and live by it.

Gymoor probably something i should have said earlier is the only reason i voted for bush is because he was better than the alternative.
Nader 2004. also, for the 2008 elections...
walken 2008

You are being sarcastic, aren't you?

This is bullshit. Bush is bushit.

it should be permanant law but it does need to be altered and restricted.

Closing Statement:

1.The arguement the government can search me because I have nothing to hide is invalid.
a.What you acting legally but not in the governments interest? Can the government wire tap environmental groups who are effectively blockading oil drilling and suchlike? Or search the offices of a newspaper in order to find some criminal offense in order to shut it down before it publishes a critical article? These scenarios are not terribly unlikely to me.
b. The statement can be casually made by WASPs; the government is unlikely to suspect them. Similar thinking for WWII internment camps. If the japanese have nothing to hide, camps should be no problem.

2. The citizenry can be harmed by both the foreign and domestic government. Sure, its easier for Bush to protect us dirty bombs and ball bearings with unrestricted access to our lives. No government can possibly touch us at all if we put our faith in the power of the US government and military, we are mighty. But then, haven't we become what we are fighting? Repressive states with populations with no rights? A citizen needs protection from its own government too.

but take an Islamic conservative whos memorized every quote of the RED BOOK and collects high powered rifles, that doesnt strike you as a little suspicious?The only thing truly suspicious about it is the assertion that an Islamic conservative (to use your mangled terminology) would be interested in memorizing communist ideology. They're much more interested in what the Koran has to say on issues, don't you think? And quite likely to be voting Republican since they frequently own small businesses.

That's the problem with profiling, it operates on invalid stereotypes, and in so doing invariably violates citizens' rights.

Nader 2004. also, for the 2008 elections...
walken 2008

im sorry but LOL... nader...rIGHHHHTTTt

how harmless is the book though..... the book itself yes is harmless (unless i give you a paper cut with it)...but the message it contains... ive read abriged versions of the Red Book intresting read but its some pretty radical stuff like destroy capitalism and other stuff like that now give that to an terrorist trainee, and theyll support it and live by it.

Yeah... if they've the IQ of a pear!

Actually read that book, or the Communist Manifesto, or Mein Kampf... they're laughable really.

WHile replying to others, you skipped my question... Why is that, Tarsy? :p

Not at all Eut. I admitted that it was unintentional comedy. In addition, I'm sure his real sentiment was sincere, as I hope you'll believe that my best wishes for you are sincere too.

None of that detracts from the unintentional comedy of the statement. :D

har har gymoor...
praying for other people is just something us WASPs do, (i dunno if Eut is one but i am) SOUTHERN BAPTIST! hes going through troubled times and i offered to pray for him. u may not believe in God but i do,

Gymoor probably something i should have said earlier is the only reason i voted for bush is because he was better than the alternative. Kerry cant even make up his mind about giving our soldiers body armor to protect themselves let alone run a country, the democrats need to accept were not leaving and try to make it safer for our soldiers, give them the stuff they need the armor for their humvies the body armor, the face masks, itd be alot less casualties.

AND I SUPPORT ALL SOLDIERS! GO MARINES!!!

Tarsonis, you ralize that the bill Kerry voted for was different from the bill Kerry voted against, don't you? In addition, Bush threatened to veto the first war appropriations bill...so the first person playing politics with the soldier's budget was Bush.

Secondly, it was Rumsfeld and Bush who decided that going into Iraq with a smaller and less armoured group of boots was the best course. This, admittedly, worked well in the initial push into Iraq that defeated Iraq's military...but was very poor indeed for pacifying a country where a power vacuum was created. Bush refused to even listen to other conservatives, such as General Shinzeki, about such things. It was Bush's planners that shortchanged the soldiers on body armor and armor for vehicles, not Democrats. It was Bush and Halliburton that oversaw $8 billion earmarked for Iraq reconstruction simply disappear with no records as to where it went.

Bush has also repeatedly pushed for reducing veteran's benefits.

Rumsfeld is on record as saying you go into war with what you have, no with what you want, and that's true...if you're not the one who determines when the war starts. If you have the luxury to start when you want to (as the U.S. did,) then you don't start the war until you have what you need.

You can't tell me that waiting 1 more month (or several months, for that matter,) would have put the U.S. in a worse position, strategically.

WHile replying to others, you skipped my question... Why is that, Tarsy? :p
um i missed it which one?

how harmless is the book though..... the book itself yes is harmless (unless i give you a paper cut with it)...but the message it contains... ive read abriged versions of the Red Book intresting read but its some pretty radical stuff like destroy capitalism and other stuff like that now give that to an terrorist trainee, and theyll support it and live by it.
Freedom of Speech...

not to mention you yourself proved the book is harmless. you read it. you don't want to go out there, hijack a plane and crash it into a building do you? Terrorist trainees probably already made up their minds and wouldn't change their opinion if they read some book like, "why capitalism means safety and happyness"

Tarsonis, you ralize that the bill Kerry voted for was different from the bill Kerry voted against, don't you? In addition, Bush threatened to veto the first war appropriations bill...so the first person playing politics with the soldier's budget was Bush.

Secondly, it was Rumsfeld and Bush who decided that going into Iraq with a smaller and less armoured group of boots was the best course. This, admittedly, worked well in the initial push into Iraq that defeated Iraq's military...but was very poor indeed for pacifying a country where a power vacuum was created. Bush refused to even listen to other conservatives, such as General Shinzeki, about such things. It was Bush's planners that shortchanged the soldiers on body armor and armor for vehicles, not Democrats. It was Bush and Halliburton that oversaw $8 billion earmarked for Iraq reconstruction simply disappear with no records as to where it went.

Bush has also repeatedly pushed for reducing veteran's benefits.

Rumsfeld is on record as saying you go into war with what you have, no with what you want, and that's true...if you're not the one who determines when the war starts. If you have the luxury to start when you want to (as the U.S. did,) then you don't start the war until you have what you need.

You can't tell me that waiting 1 more month (or several months, for that matter,) would have put the U.S. in a worse position, strategically.

yeah we coulda waited but we didnt so no use griping about it. i didnt initially agree to going to war in iraq but now that were theyre good is outwaying the bad.

"theres nothing good about war, but theres good in the reasons you go to war"

har har gymoor...
praying for other people is just something us WASPs do, (i dunno if Eut is one but i am) SOUTHERN BAPTIST! hes going through troubled times and i offered to pray for him. u may not believe in God but i do,

I actually applaud your praying for Eut. I was merely pointing out the you used the word "too" instead of "to" in a very amusing manner. It changed the meaning of your sentence completely.

Freedom of Speech...

not to mention you yourself proved the book is harmless. you read it. you don't want to go out there, hijack a plane and crash it into a building do you? Terrorist trainees probably already made up their minds and wouldn't change their opinion if they read some book like, "why capitalism means safety and happyness"

still it can be linked to terrorism, were just playin it safe

I actually applaud your praying for Eut. I was merely pointing out the you used the word "too" instead of "to" in a very amusing manner. It changed the meaning of your sentence completely.

oh........ i didnt enven notice that......:headbang:

Originally Posted by The sons of tarsonis
but the constitution also has probable cause. which allows you to skip the warrent till after the fact.
And that's the crux of the situation, from my perspective. What makes you think Bush was above getting the warrants after the fact? Doesn't that strike you the least bit odd or suspect? Can you excuse that, given the argument you're making?
That one.

but where as the psychotic wasp was one while the psychotic muslims are many and can be anywhere, dont mean to scare people but think about it,Psychotic WASPs come a dime a dozen. In addition to McVeigh and Nichols, you've got the Army of God idiots who bomb family planning and abortion clinics, the ALF zealots who bomb and vandalize medical research facilities. You've got asshats like Eric Rudolph, who bombed the Atlanta Olympics and Pat Robertson who publicly calls for the assassination of world leaders to name a few off the top of my head. And that's just in the U.S.

The fear and hype built-up about radical Muslims is overblown and panders to the racist xenophobia that runs just under the surface of far too many Americans.

I actually applaud your praying for Eut. I was merely pointing out the you used the word "too" instead of "to" in a very amusing manner. It changed the meaning of your sentence completely.

Gymoor ive noticed your alot more polite without straugn here

That one.

im taking it on faith that president is following the law... maybe expecting a little too much but hey we put him there,,, shouldnt we stand behind him?

CONDALICE 08

still it can be linked to terrorism, were just playin it safe
examples? because I just can't see it.

What the hell is wrong with warrants? The fact that you have to have reasonable proof in order to get one? The patriot act is the worst acts of terrorism our country's ever seen. First it's phones, then your home, what next? Why not just stick 'em all in camps like we did for those damn dirty japs during Pearl harbor. And while were at it why not just bomb Iraq, that'll teach 'em not to have WMD's, it's all to preserve freedom ain't it? Seriously people, how many terrorists have we caught thus far? Either there aren't any to catch or they're much to smart to discuss their plans over the phone for anyone to hear. Oh, and by the way, I love how you pawns have been convinced that just because someone enjoys civil liberties that automatically means they must have something to hide.

im taking it on faith that president is following the law... maybe expecting a little too much but hey we put him there,,, shouldnt we stand behind him?

CONDALICE 08
It's obvious that you're very young. So take it from someone who knows better... Unless you want to be seen as a flake, you'll need to be consistent.
That line of reasoning should stand whether we're talking about a epublican or a Democrat in office. Can you stand by that argument because it's logical, or is it just convenient right now?
Because logic is rare, but golden, but blind "faith" in people with power is dangerous, and unpatriotic. In a Republic, we have a duty to criticize.
Your real friends don't feed you the shit you want to hear. If they really care, they tell you the truth. Same goes for a real patriot.
America has no king, and throne-sniffing is unbecoming of an American who claims to love his country. Live and learn, or you'll be disappointed often by those you put that "faith" in. Make them earn your respect, don't give it up like a slut on prom night. It'll just leave you feeling cheap and used.

still it can be linked to terrorism, were just playin it safe

I've seen terrorists eating ice cream. Maybe the Feds should question everyone who walks into a Baskin Robbins.

(this slippery slope has been brought to you by the color red)

fine NON PSYCHOTIC WASPS arent the ones blowing people up.


And the non-pychotic Muslims aren't either.

So how many of your friends have been taken away in the middle of the night? Or did some gentlemen show up from the FBI to check up on you? Also, how many of your freedoms have been taken away so far by this Patriot Act?
For every post of ignorance on this topic, i simply recommend STRONGLY that you punch up Patriot Act in the forum archives, and educate yourself.

last I checked my rights havent been infringed by this Patriot Act and I have nothing to hide anyway from the gov. Unless you are a terrorist, or know people who are, or are harboring terrorists yourself, you should have nothing to fear!
BULL-SH*T.
Pathetic. I hope you haven't even figured out how to vote yet.

Really?

Timothy McVeigh?


Eric Rudolph?
Ted Kyzinski? (sp?)

And the Constitution is only a goddamned piece of paper!
Other than Doug Thompson's reference on Capitol Hill Blue and the other site that runs it, who can corroborate it?

Who's? NAME ONE INCIDENT OF A U.S. CITIZEN BEING HARASSED OR THEIR CIVIL LIBERTIES BEING ABRIDGED IN THE LAST 4 YEARS OF THE PATRIOT ACT!
There have been NO alligations whatsoever. State courts, activist judges, and state law enforcement on the local level have been much more opressive of civil liberties (e.g. taking private property for local revenue enhancment, the abolition of Christmas, local prosecutors with open ended fishing expeditions with grand juries, the denial of any other theory of creation other than Darwinism, etc,etc, etc....)
You're quite ignorant in this respect. Maybe not many in life, but you are most certanly making yourself out to be the buffoon on this thread.


Interesting that that c*cksucker Bush is taking heat from both sides of the aisle on this issue of executive orders on monitoring DOMESTIC calls WITHOUT warrants. Then his *BEAUTIFUL* lie:

"Any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it
requires--a wiretap requires a court order," Bush said at the time. "Nothing
has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists,
we're talking about getting a court order before we do so."
The lie here is simple. The extensions are quite simply pointed out in number, and as for their nature, as such:

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

Sec. 215:
[I]WITHOUT DEMONSTRATING PROBABLE CAUSE, the FBI can obtain a subpoena to search your personal records held by a library, bookstore, church, bank, video store, et cetera. The subpoena CANNOT be challenged in court. It includes a "gag order" to keep you from being notified it was served.

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

Sec. 505: Similar to 215, but no judge is required. Anyone from the Attorney General (used to be John "Fraidy-Cat" Ashcroft, at conception) to an FBI file office can demand records from a library, bookstore, church, bank, video store, etc., simply by issuing a "national-security letter".
The agent only has to satisfy himself that the information MIGHT be "relevant" to an ongoing terror investigation.

Also, three posters here on this forum have been subject to having their rights suspended in such manners, whether "authorized" or not. I'm sure they'll hit here if they haven't already.

As for that other BS, okay, post it. Any of it. You don't know what Darwin was talking about, but it certainly wasn't abiogenesis.
As for the "War On Christmas", there's a significant number of polls that had results posted to the contrary in the past few days.
As for eminent domain, that is the ONLY near-accurate post of yours here.
And quit attacking the judges, they're the only ones left not revising the country in the neocon fashion.

That is such a ridiculous argument. I want to protect myself from terrorists, so I'm a scaredy cat, but your scared the FBI will hear you having phone sex with your girlfriend, and your a manly man?

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Well, your over-sized letters are more than a convincing argument in your favour, indeed. It'd be a shock if anyone didn't see things the same after your post.
:rolleyes:

Methinks thou doth protesteth too much.

still it can be linked to terrorism, were just playin it safe


Damn my history professor was right. Someday a boogieman will be created and people will gladly hand over rights to the goverment for protection.....

yeah because if anyones to be trusted its the ACLU. fuckin wont even let students pray in schools
Again, the INSISTENCE is for you to educate yourself on your OWN statements. Goddamn disappointing AND embarassing.

All prayers, meditations and the like are gratefully accepted. Perhaps someone will hear them and make me ... oh, say ... 53 again! :D
I'm not very "spiritual" per say, but I'll drink one for ya! That OK? :D

"Patriot act extended!"

Good. Now we're covered for the next six months at least.
OMG how could they PUBLISH that information?!? They're ENDANGERING THE SECURITY OF THE U.S.!!!
We can't give them timetables because they'll just wait them out!! Keep them in the dark!!

I see that VoteEarly has returned. That's just wonderful.

Have you beaten your mother lately?
I'm not vote early.

And as for the beating my mother comment........grow the fuck up.

Bullshit. As far as I know, there have only been rulings against teacher-led prayer sessions in schools. Care to offer some proof that the ACLU is against students praying on their own time and of their own volition?
You'll be waiting a while. Tarsonis is kinda like Jason Mewes, just with a less-than-equitable converstational tact, intellectual prowess, and comprehensability. Or appears as such, due to the first condition.

As a soldier that has done his time in Iraq and several other third world countries over the years I think I have the credentials to comment on this topic.

The PATRIOT Act and the administrations recently revealed domestic spy program act to change the fundamental nature of our country. As an American I should never have to worry that my reading of a book is the basis for the government investigating me. As an American I should not have to worry that some government agency is tapping my computer with out the outside supervision provided by a warrant. America should be an open place of ultimate freedoms. The shining beacon to the world as Bush called it at one point.

The knee jerk reactions after 9/11 are destroying this country in ways most people don't notice. Student visas are harder to get which means that the influx of intelligent students in engineering and the sciences that our country relies upon is going to other countries. American companies rely on foreign workers to be programmers and engineers and scientists because America does not produce enough from its student body. These workers are now staying in their home countries like India and China, or going to Europe to study. We are facing a brain drain that will only get worse.

Rendition, torture, unregulated domestic spying; these are not the ideals of the America I thought I was fighting to defend.

Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes? Who guards the Guardians?

Franklin's comment on freedom and security will never lose its validity. As you trade away your freedoms for security ask yourself what you are protecting. Is a life without freedom worth living? And if you have traded away all your freedoms to the government are you really secure?

No, what Islamists want to do is kill all the "devils". Us. Americans. Westerns.

I just want to say, my dad is in 5th Group Special Forces, and is currently serving in Iraq. He is over there now, and he loves his job. He is a team leader.

Just want to thank all the people who support Bush in this never ending war.
No need to thank us. Thank your dad. He's the one who deserves it!

Over 40,000 deaths a year occur due to motor vehicle accidents. Less than a 10th of that have died due to all terrorist attacks against Americans in the last decade. By all measurements, motor vehicle accidents pose more of a risk to Americans than any terrorist...but you don't see a "War on Motor Vehicles" do you?

The threat from terrorists is and has always been overblown, and you're a coward for being willing to allow the government to poke into your affairs with impunity.
Dude, your personal attacks are getting pretty fucking annoying, and they are destroying any ounce of credibility you may hope to have.

Why don't you go play with your legos if you want to act like a child?

You are being sarcastic, aren't you?

This is bullshit. Bush is bushit.
100% serious. The only bullshit here are the people comparing terrorism to vehicle accidents and using 200 year old quotes from slave owners.

the truth of the matter is people are blowing this way out of proportion with the "Orwellian nightmere" and "Big Brother Bush". the fact is Bush is trying stop the terrorists before they hit us. i support the patriot act 1. because right to privacy isnt in the constitution. its only protection against searches and seizures. 2. because as ive said in ealier posts and have gotten rather "rude" replies, no grudges though. your damned if you do and your damned if you dont. either he gets hated for listening on phonecalls or is hated for not doing what was neccesary to stop a terrorist attack.
For further research ....
One FBI document indicates that agents in Indianapolis planned to conduct
surveillance as part of a ''Vegan Community Project.'' Another document
talks of the Catholic Workers group's ''semi-communistic ideology.''

Doesn't matter what the Patriot Act says apparently. Bush will do whatever he wants regardless of the law.

Check this out:


http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20051221/wl_afp/usattacksintelligencejudgeresign


US judge resigns over Bush's domestic spying authorization: report
WASHINGTON (AFP) - A federrepeal judge on a court that oversees intelligence cases has resigned to protest President George W. Bush's authorization of a domestic spying program, The Washington Post said.

US District Judge James Robertson resigned late Monday from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) on which he served for 11 years and which he belives may have been tainted by Bush's 2002 authorization, two associates familiar with his decision told the daily.

The resignation is the latest fallout of Bush's weekend public admission that he authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) -- the country's super-secret electronic surveillance arm -- to eavesdrop on international telephone calls and electronic mail of US citizens suspected of having links with terrorist organizations including Al-Qaeda.

Bush's statement on the weekend that the secret program did not require FISA court orders -- according to his reading of the Patriot Act passed after the September 11 attacks, has angered civil rights groups and lawmakers, some of whom have called for a congressional investigation.

The New York Times first revealed last week the secret NSA program that officials said has likely involved eavesdropping on thousands of people in the United States. Bush said he expected the Justice Department to investigate the leak of such sensitive information.

On Wednesday, The New York Times quoted US officials as saying that "a very small fraction" of those wiretaps and e-mail intercepts were of communications between people in the United States and were caused by technical glitches.

The revelation is likely to add fuel to the firestorm over the NSA spying program.

Robertson's associates said the judge - one of 11 on the FISA court -- in recent conversations said he was concerned that the information gained from warrantless NSA surveillance could have been used to obtain FISA warrants.

"They just don't know if the product of wiretaps were used for FISA warrants -- to kind of cleanse the information," said one source, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the classified nature of the FISA warrants.

In a separate story, The New York Times Wednesday quoted congressional officials as saying that the White House's oral briefings to lawmakers on the secret NSA spying program may not have fulfilled a legal requirement that such reports be in written form.

Bush, on revealing his secret order to the NSA, said US lawmakers had been briefed regularly of the spying activity.

Congressional officials consulted by the Times said no more than 14 members of Congress have been briefed orally of the program since it began, but that no aides and note-taking were allowed during the meetings.

Consequently, the daily said, the lawmakers who attended the briefings have provided starkly different versions of what they were told at the sessions, which were almost invariably led by Vice President Dick Cheney and NSA director Michael Hayden.

In 2004 and 2005, Bush repeatedly argued that the controversial Patriot Act package of anti-terrorism laws safeguards civil liberties because US authorities still need a warrant to tap telephones in the United States.

"Any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order," he said on April 20, 2004 in Buffalo, New York.

"Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so," he added.

On April 19, 2004, Bush said the Patriot Act enabled law-enforcement officials to use "roving wiretaps," which are not fixed to a particular telephone, against terrorism, as they had been against organized crime.

"You see, what that meant is if you got a wiretap by court order -- and by the way, everything you hear about requires court order, requires there to be permission from a FISA court, for example," he said in Hershey, Pennsylvania.

"A couple of things that are very important for you to understand about the Patriot Act. First of all, any action that takes place by law enforcement requires a court order," he said July 14, 2004 in Fond Du Lac, Wisconsin.

"In other words, the government can't move on wiretaps or roving wiretaps without getting a court order," he said. "What the Patriot Act said is let's give our law enforcement the tools necessary, without abridging the Constitution of the United States, the tools necessary to defend America."

The president has also repeatedly said that the need to seek such warrants means "the judicial branch has a strong oversight role."

"Officers must meet strict standards to use any of these tools. And these standards are fully consistent with the Constitution of the United States," he added in remarks at the Ohio State Highway Patrol Academy.

He made similar comments in Baltimore, Maryland, on July 20 2005.

Vice President Dick Cheney offered similar reassurances at a Patriot Act event in June 2004, saying that "all of the investigative tools" under the law "require the approval of a judge before they can be carried out."

"And similar statutes have been on the book for years, and tested in the courts, and found to be constitutional," he said in Kansas City, Missouri.



Boy would I feel stupid if I ever said that the President was doing the right thing.

The only bullshit here are the people comparing terrorism to vehicle accidents...
A dead person is a dead person, my friend. The only difference is that there is such a hype around Terrorism, while we all learned to live with the risk involved in driving a car.
Think about it.

I'm going to try and say how I feel about the Patriot Act without flaming or cussing, mostly because I hope it helps to explain how some people are so worried about it.

It's not that I don't want to be secure against terrorism. I can still remember 9/11, and I don't want anything remotely resembling that to happen again. But, I don't think that the Patriot Act is the kind of thing we need for increased security. It allows for closer monitoring of people in the US and this monitoring comes dangerously close to violating the right to privacy. I believe other posters have mentioned specific cases involving the act.

Now, while the Act itself won't affect me, or anyone I know for that matter, I'm worried about precendent. If this stands as a law, it can be used as a stepping stone some time in the future for other acts, however justified, that allow for much more detailed monitoring. A lot of supporters of the Act say that the Bush administration hasn't misused the power, but how do we know that a new administration won't abuse this power. Remember, we change Presidents every four years, so how do we know that somewhere down the road, this won't come back and bite us in the ass.

Another thing I saw in this thread were some posters saying that they felt safe because they could own guns. Seriously, what do you think the chances of any militia army in the US, using commercially available firearms, taking on our own army? The Second Amendment was fine when cannons were the most dangerous things on the battlefield, but now we have Air Force and mechanized divisions that could vaporize anything using just conventional weapons.

This is just my two cents for the night, do with them what you will.
Although this is a largely coherent post, what i will do about it is refer you to the prior post i made about the functions of four sections in the act.

Doesn't matter what the Patriot Act says apparently. Bush will do whatever he wants regardless of the law.

Check this out:


http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20051221/wl_afp/usattacksintelligencejudgeresign



Boy would I feel stupid if I ever said that the President was doing the right thing.

Echo, echo .... ;)
Good to stay on top of it!
*bows*

I'm not vote early.

And as for the beating my mother comment........grow the fuck up.

1: Well, obviously.

2: Looks like my work here is done.

A dead person is a dead person, my friend. The only difference is that there is such a hype around Terrorism, while we all learned to live with the risk involved in driving a car.
Think about it.
You don't need terrorism to get to work, or the doctor. You don't need terrorism to transport goods. You don't need terrorism to get you to school, or to the store.


This argument you've come up with just made me laugh harder than I've laughed in quite a while.

Congrats, I can no longer take you seriously! :p

Echo, echo .... ;)
Good to stay on top of it!
*bows*


wait, was this shared already or am I just yellign into the abyss?

And that's the crux of the situation, from my perspective. What makes you think Bush was above getting the warrants after the fact? Doesn't that strike you the least bit odd or suspect? Can you excuse that, given the argument you're making?
The *ONLY* legitimate excuses for not getting the warrants are:
1) He didn't understand what he was supposed to read, he merely iterated what he wanted and signed it. He has similar approaches to the morning news, as well as a disturbing contemplative stumbling block on remedial/elementary reading material such as, oh i dunno, My Pet Goat.

2) He didn't get them signed because that would've cut into his vacation time.

You might think i'm kidding ...

1: Well, obviously.

2: Looks like my work here is done.
So you act like a 5 year old on purpose?
I'm not sure if that's worse than being naturally immature or not. :confused:

So you act like a 5 year old on purpose?
I'm not sure if that's worse than being naturally immature or not. :confused:

Tell me...

...Is it lonely up on that high, high pedestal?

The *ONLY* legitimate excuses for not getting the warrants are:
1) He didn't understand what he was supposed to read, he merely iterated what he wanted and signed it. He has similar approaches to the morning news, as well as a disturbing contemplative stumbling block on remedial/elementary reading material such as, oh i dunno, My Pet Goat.

2) He didn't get them signed because that would've cut into his vacation time.

You might think i'm kidding ...
No, just uninformed and prone to "group think."

wait, was this shared already or am I just yellign into the abyss?
No, i wouldn't have jacked thumb if you were yelling into the abyss.
I had a shorter version of the EXACT phrase section you bolded.
I'm commending you, not deriding you.
*bows*
Moreover, the more people that post it/bring it up, the more focused the fallacious argument against its existence will become. Thus making shorter work of them!

The USA PATRIOT Act got extended? Well, have fun with that you guys down south...

No, just uninformed and prone to "group think."
Oh, how appropriate you garner the nom de guerre.
Your "ravishing" wit leaves me in ... well, advanced stages of indifference.
You could try proving it, Schwachsinnig.

I actually applaud your praying for Eut. I was merely pointing out the you used the word "too" instead of "to" in a very amusing manner. It changed the meaning of your sentence completely.
It's not funny if you have to explain the joke, Gym. ;)
You end up with audiences like ... well, Man in Black.
Got any sock puppets, btw? He's acting like he'll take me on now after he's attacked you. :eek:

Tell me...

...Is it lonely up on that high, high pedestal?
It depends i guess on if the other three legs are occupied as well, doesn't it?

Gymoor ive noticed your alot more polite without straugn here
It's "Straughn", someone's real name. At least get it right if you're inferring something.
To be fair, you've done better at qualifying your posts, give or take a few, and if i may be so bold, he hasn't had to knock you down a notch or two so often. I personally am finding little ON THIS THREAD of yours to protest, at least, that i haven't already.
You might go the extent of inferring i'm his puppet, since that idea amuses me, but he doesn't need me to do *ANYTHING*.
Gymoor rocks.

Oh, how appropriate you garner the nom de guerre.
Your "ravishing" wit leaves me in ... well, advanced stages of indifference.
You could try proving it, Schwachsinnig.
Flaming in foreign languages is still flaming.

It just makes you look immature AND sneaky.

It's "Straughn", someone's real name. At least get it right if you're inferring something.
To be fair, you've done better at qualifying your posts, give or take a few, and if i may be so bold, he hasn't had to knock you down a notch or two so often. I personally am finding little ON THIS THREAD of yours to protest, at least, that i haven't already.
You might go the extent of inferring i'm his puppet, since that idea amuses me, but he doesn't need me to do *ANYTHING*.
Gymoor rocks.
Got a little something on your nose, buddy.

CONDALICE 08
Is this an excerpt of word play? It's cute, catchy. She does make me think somewhat of an invasive, ubiquitous parasite that gets you in humiliating places and makes a pariah of you, somewhat, in the sense that you need to be seperated from the herd, shaved, sanitized, and observed for improvement.
Thanks! That's one of the best posts you've done yet!! :)

If you meant "Condoleeza", well, there's very little funny about that at all. Even the word. :(

Got a little something on your nose, buddy.
Well, looks like you got something on your chin. Care to guess what they are?
A hint ... Peter from Family Guy lost them once, and then put them back on when he discovered where he'd put them.

Flaming in foreign languages is still flaming.

It just makes you look immature AND sneaky.
That's a typo, and i'd thank you not to point it out. You get me hot and flustered.
As for maturity, well, praise from Caesar! ;)

Holy shit Straughn, three posts in a row. Use the edit feature buddy. :)

You too MIB. :p

grow the fuck up.
Yeah, i see where you're going with that whole idea of "maturity" ...

Flaming (....blahblah....)just makes you look immature
and

So you act like a 5 year old on purpose?
I'm not sure if that's worse than being naturally immature or not.

and don't forget how much more persuasive a person can be when they increase their script size, especially if they need you to feel diminutive. Very mature indeed.

Holy shit Straughn, three posts in a row. Use the edit feature buddy. :)

You too MIB. :p
Uhm, i do that a lot. Almost every post i see. Could be because i'm slow witted, but since that's not an answer i want everybody to know, i'll instead say it's because i read from the beginning and post as i encounter. If no one posts in between, that's something else.

As for MIB, well, i don't imagine i even need to post any responses to him at this point, i think he might've gotten back his own drift by now. He's probably considering that rapier, brevious wit right now, picking and choosing.

So, is spam too many or too much?

When it all goes down, everyone who posted off-topic in this thread will be turned into a precious Mao Button and distributed to the poor. I'm aware that technically applies to me as well, now, but I figure I've gotta do my part for the poor somehow.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled bickering.

When it all goes down, everyone who posted off-topic in this thread will be turned into a precious Mao Button and distributed to the poor. I'm aware that technically applies to me as well, now, but I figure I've gotta do my part for the poor somehow.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled bickering.
Dagnabbit, what are you ref'ing there? I've either read it or listened to it, but my mind is full of bickering right now and i can't call it up.

You don't need terrorism to get to work, or the doctor. You don't need terrorism to transport goods. You don't need terrorism to get you to school, or to the store.
If you leave the house, there is a risk that you will die in an accident. That accident may involve a car, a lightning bolt, or a coconut. And yet we leave the house, even though all three of those things have a higher chance of killing us than a Terrorist.

We do not demand an end to roadside fatalities, it would be too impractical (redesigning cars for example).
We do not demand an end to lightning strikes, it would be too impractical (wearing helmets with earthwires?).
We do not demand an end to coconut-related deaths, for that too would be impractical.
And yet, you are willing to do the most impractical, out-of-proportion thing there is, and give up your essential liberties, so that the percentage chance of you getting hurt by a Terrorist is no longer 1 in a billion, but 0.5 in a billion?

Now this would make me laugh...if it wasn't so sad.

If you leave the house, there is a risk that you will die in an accident. That accident may involve a car, a lightning bolt, or a coconut. And yet we leave the house, even though all three of those things have a higher chance of killing us than a Terrorist.

We do not demand an end to roadside fatalities, it would be too impractical (redesigning cars for example).
We do not demand an end to lightning strikes, it would be too impractical (wearing helmets with earthwires?).
We do not demand an end to coconut-related deaths, for that too would be impractical.
And yet, you are willing to do the most impractical, out-of-proportion thing there is, and give up your essential liberties, so that the percentage chance of you getting hurt by a Terrorist is no longer 1 in a billion, but 0.5 in a billion?

Now this would make me laugh...if it wasn't so sad.

BRAVO!
*Bows*
:)

Is this an excerpt of word play? It's cute, catchy. She does make me think somewhat of an invasive, ubiquitous parasite that gets you in humiliating places and makes a pariah of you, somewhat, in the sense that you need to be seperated from the herd, shaved, sanitized, and observed for improvement.
Thanks! That's one of the best posts you've done yet!! :)

If you meant "Condoleeza", well, there's very little funny about that at all. Even the word. :(

(condalice is my neighbor whos out of her mind)
who would u vote for Hilary? the 2008 election though it is a bit early to call is shapping up already to be Condoleesa vs Hillary? and this is the same as last election. im not really behind any candidate, just Condoleesa seems better qualified to me, and plus shes a woman AND she black! its about time,

(on a side note, people would pay a lot more attention to you if you didnt insult everyone who is disagreeing with you in the post. you may think any one who supports bush isnt very intellegent, and your entitled to your own opinion, but you need to lighten up,)

I was flipping through channels when I saw on Fox News that the Patriot act has been approved by the senate to be extended for six months. Its not on the internet as of this second so I dont have a source, I also dont care if you dont believe me so dont say that you dont. Why? Why did they extend the Patriot act:headbang:
The extension allows them to keep it as it is -- that is, temporary -- for another 6 months. Bush wanted to force Congress to either make it permanent as written or else kill it outright, which he would then use to beat the Democrats into a political pulp while screaming about how they want terrorists to eat our babies. By extending it, the Dems now get to make what political hay they can by pushing for rewrites of the parts of the law that really violate civil liberties.

Good news my friends down south, the House of Representative slashed the USA PATRIOT Act extension from 6 months to 1 month. :)

http://us.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/22/patriot.act.ap/index.html

(condalice is my neighbor whos out of her mind)
who would u vote for Hilary? the 2008 election though it is a bit early to call is shapping up already to be Condoleesa vs Hillary? and this is the same as last election. im not really behind any candidate, just Condoleesa seems better qualified to me, and plus shes a woman AND she black! its about time,

(on a side note, people would pay a lot more attention to you if you didnt insult everyone who is disagreeing with you in the post. you may think any one who supports bush isnt very intellegent, and your entitled to your own opinion, but you need to lighten up,)
So you're voting for your neighbor? Cool.
No i'm not interested in either Clinton being in office again. You make far too many suppositions of polarity. A person can *HATE* fundamentalist conservative agendas without HAVING to be the diametric opposite in political philosophy. As i've said, i'm an independent moderate. So don't give me your Kirkegaardian ultimatums about things, it's a show of poor scope and reason.
If it weren't for Condi's own actions then i would be less grating about her as a "candidate" but most certainly she isn't the only one who could run. (Not ONE terror alert ignored but 52 between April and July 2001 - LOOK IT UP.) I'll point out that the administration fans have been propping her in opposition to their viewpoint on Dem equal rights and affirmative actions-type thinking, just so they think they can nail Dems on something they've been much more supportive of for much longer ... for example, it's a fairly common conception that the repubs/admin are WASPs *poke*, et cetera.
On your side note, it's irrelevent how many people pay attention to what i post so i'm not concerned about your ideas on how i should post.
What's relevent is that the people i address specifically address what i post, usually as a response, btw (look me up), but this is just a digital distraction and very little actually gets solved here IRL.
If i make an issue about a person's post, one that i'll get dogged about, it IS because they're either lying or arrogantly misinformed about what they're saying. That's why i most often will qualify my "opinion" with facts, ref's and posts.

All in all, give n'take, proportion.

Good news my friends down south, the House of Representative slashed the USA PATRIOT Act extension from 6 months to 1 month. :)

http://us.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/22/patriot.act.ap/index.html
:) , indeed!

:) , indeed!
Not good news for those opposed to the Patriot Act.

Not good news for those opposed to the Patriot Act.I'm opposed the USA PATRIOT Act, it's good news because Americans (and some Canadians) will only have to suffer (or annoyed) for one month instead of half a year.

I'm just wishing that after one month, the Patriot Act will go bye bye.

Not good news for those opposed to the Patriot Act.
What i'm opposed to is the four Sections i've mentioned earlier -
Sec. 213, 215, 218, and 505.
They pretty clearly embody the nature of the current debate now, as per the ASSAULT on civil liberties and privacy.
I can't say i'm against the others in any degree of significance in comparison to the first ones.
As i understand the article, this just changes the amount of time people have to argue about it before they vote on permanence. Did i miss something?

Good news my friends down south, the House of Representative slashed the USA PATRIOT Act extension from 6 months to 1 month. :)

http://us.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/22/patriot.act.ap/index.html
Ooooohhh, Smackdown! :D :D :D :D :D

I'm opposed the USA PATRIOT Act, it's good news because Americans (and some Canadians) will only have to suffer (or annoyed) for one month instead of half a year.

I'm just wishing that after one month, the Patriot Act will go bye bye.
Unfortunately, it will probably not go bye bye as long as the Republicans control Congress. Everyone knew the PA sunset provisions were coming up now, but it was hoped Iraq would be a less bloody fiasco and they might actually have caught a terrorist by now, so that everyone would gladly make it permanent. That hasn't happened, so the Dems are all fired up to attack it the way they should have done in the first place. And Bush is all fired up to call them friends of bin Ladin who hate freedom, just like he did do in the first place. If this argument comes to a head while Bush's poll numbers are still bouncing up, then he may succeed again, and this time get what he wants -- i.e., to make it permanent -- because we all know what strong spines the Dems have in the face of public attacks. The longer they can delay a vote on the PA, while keeping those sunset provisions in place, the better chance they have of getting a more opportune time to fight about it.

What i'm opposed to is the four Sections i've mentioned earlier -
Sec. 213, 215, 218, and 505.
They pretty clearly embody the nature of the current debate now, as per the ASSAULT on civil liberties and privacy.
I can't say i'm against the others in any degree of significance in comparison to the first ones.
As i understand the article, this just changes the amount of time people have to argue about it before they vote on permanence. Did i miss something?
More time to argue is better than less time in this case because of the bouncy-bouncy poll numbers. At last, polls could make a difference, as politicians still fear being seen as weak on terrorism, and we've already seen that, out of that fear, politicians will make snap decisions on extremely important and dangerous issues -- after all, that's how we got the Patriot Act in the first place. A 6-month extension could have given the Dems time to finesse the spin their way.

when is the next congressional/senate elections?

when is the next congressional/senate elections?
Soon, baby. Demonstrate early and often. :D

when is the next congressional/senate elections?
'06

More time to argue is better than less time in this case because of the bouncy-bouncy poll numbers. At last, polls could make a difference, as politicians still fear being seen as weak on terrorism, and we've already seen that, out of that fear, politicians will make snap decisions on extremely important and dangerous issues -- after all, that's how we got the Patriot Act in the first place. A 6-month extension could have given the Dems time to finesse the spin their way.
I thought about that too, but then i read,
Bush also has the authority to call Congress back into session to prevent the expiration of the existing law before December 31.
and i thought that 6 months might or might not help.
I don't have the utmost faith in the dems versus these f*cking bastards lately. Seriously, they only recently started getting their sh*t together.
Besides, take 6 months of time over Valerie Plame ... what are we waiting on to nail Rove?
As well, i think the information is already there or isn't, and as the end of the 9/11 commission came, Bush has done almost nothing to qualify their concerns either.
When it comes to the authority, dems simply don't have it and not enough people are being nasty enough to take these motherf*ckers out.
I could very happily be proven wrong on this one - this is the first issue i've said could be Bush's Watergate.
Not that he didn't do VAST amounts of other evil and corrupt things.

EDIT: Ah, i forgot to point out that poll numbers of defense issues didn't work out so smoothly for Ted Stevens' ANWR insertion this week.

I thought about that too, but then i read,
Bush also has the authority to call Congress back into session to prevent the expiration of the existing law before December 31.
and i thought that 6 months might or might not help.
I don't have the utmost faith in the dems versus these f*cking bastards lately. Seriously, they only recently started getting their sh*t together.
Besides, take 6 months of time over Valerie Plame ... what are we waiting on to nail Rove?
As well, i think the information is already there or isn't, and as the end of the 9/11 commission came, Bush has done almost nothing to qualify their concerns either.
When it comes to the authority, dems simply don't have it and not enough people are being nasty enough to take these motherf*ckers out.
I could very happily be proven wrong on this one - this is the first issue i've said could be Bush's Watergate.
Not that he didn't do VAST amounts of other evil and corrupt things.

EDIT: Ah, i forgot to point out that poll numbers of defense issues didn't work out so smoothly for Ted Stevens' ANWR insertion this week.


who hooOOO im a f*cking bastard................. dont generalize repubs. blame the far right not the moderat right like me.

6 month extension? What a load of crap!

It should be made permanent law!

Everyone needs to quit bitching about their so called "civil rights" being infringed. It's a load of crap, and you all know it.

I think the right to be protected against asshole terrorists trumps them.
No. terrorism, al-qaeda, and the aircraft hyjacking is a big load of horse feathers. Bush did the 11/9 attacks. He is using the claimed emergency powers to make america an evil tinpot dictatorship. The patriot act should not be renewed or replaced with an equally evil law.

Got a little something on your nose, buddy.

I've noticed how you don't actually post ANY arguments at ALL for the Patriot Act, you just go "omg 200 year old quote stupid rofl" or "that has nothing to do with it".

Care posting some coherent reasons why the Patriot Act is a good thing?

I've noticed how you don't actually post ANY arguments at ALL for the Patriot Act, you just go "omg 200 year old quote stupid rofl" or "that has nothing to do with it".

Care posting some coherent reasons why the Patriot Act is a good thing?

Probably "I'm not a dirty brown Muslim so it won't affect me" in his case.

who hooOOO im a f*cking bastard................. dont generalize repubs. blame the far right not the moderat right like me.
Okay, i'll be fair. I shan't generalize you. I shall instead do as i have, so that when you post something specifically fallacious, i'll be all over you like sparkle on rhinestone. ;)

I've noticed how you don't actually post ANY arguments at ALL for the Patriot Act, you just go "omg 200 year old quote stupid rofl" or "that has nothing to do with it".

Care posting some coherent reasons why the Patriot Act is a good thing?
The guy doesn't have enough time, he's too busy looking up cursewords in foreign dictionaries so he can argue with other people on this thread. ;)

Oh great
I can only hope that this extension is to work out the civil liberties violations. Or else all that fillibustering that occured was a bust :mad:

If you have faith in the government, you think the Patriot Act's a fine idea.

If you don't, you think it's retarded.

That's what I notice.

Unless your a terrorist, your rights aren't being infringed, so shut up about it.

And if you are a terrorist... Shut up about it.

the truth of the matter is people are blowing this way out of proportion with the "Orwellian nightmere" and "Big Brother Bush". the fact is Bush is trying stop the terrorists before they hit us. i support the patriot act 1. because right to privacy isnt in the constitution. its only protection against searches and seizures. 2. because as ive said in ealier posts and have gotten rather "rude" replies, no grudges though. your damned if you do and your damned if you dont. either he gets hated for listening on phonecalls or is hated for not doing what was neccesary to stop a terrorist attack.

Hate to point this out to you, but in the landmark case Katz v. US, the Supreme court ruled that the 4th Amendment protection against search and seizure extends to Anything that a person seeks to preserve as private, even if it is in a space available to the public. By the way, the case itself dealt with a man in a phone booth who was suspected by the FBI of a crime, and listened in on his conversations via electronic eavesdropping. The patriot act is in direct violation of that Supreme Court precedent and also the precedents of other cases up to and including the recent benchmark case Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, the Gitmo Bay case. US citizens have rights, even if they are terrorists.

Even though the 4th Amendment does not construe a general constitutional "Right to Privacy", it does protect any situation where one has a "reasonable expectation of privacy", and I will fight to the death to maintain that ANYONE has a "reasonable expectation of privacy" in his or her own home or on the phone.

The fact that we are eroding the very nature of this country to fight an indistinct war that does not have overwhelming support among the American people is shocking to me. The internment of Japanese Americans in camps during WWII was much more comprehensive than anything the patriot act can pray to accomplish, and didn't do ANYTHING. I can understand why people would have thought that to be a good idea, as America was in a battle that DIRECTLY THREATENED OUR NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY. At most, what the "terrorists" want to accomplish is to make America shrink back inside our little box, so absorbed with external demons that the freedoms and capitalism that make us so distasteful to them shrivel up and wither like a dying tree. If it takes a revolution to ensure that this tree remains strong and healthy for the next 200 years as it has for the past 200, well, the man who wrote our bill of rights (the same thing that you people keep trying to chip away at) said "The tree of liberty grows best when watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

Our government is a government of precedent. Once you do something, you open the door to a much larger wave of ideas claiming the original something as its source, ideas which may not be related to the original something at all, but claim an ideological or purpose-driven link to expand upon it in ways the framers never intended. Once the Patriot Act becomes law, it opens the door for a POSSIBLE (and quite probable at some future time) erosion of 4th Amendment rights, the same rights that prohibit the government from housing troops inside your homes, the same rights that allow you to be safe from Identity theft on your PC's etc.

Stop and think. If you wish temporary safety over long term American interests, support the patriot act. Go ahead. I won't stop you. You're free to say whatever you want. But I am too, and I say it will be a sad day for America when our freedoms are taken so for granted that Americans stand up and tell the government "we have too much. Take some back."

I thought about that too, but then i read,
Bush also has the authority to call Congress back into session to prevent the expiration of the existing law before December 31.
and i thought that 6 months might or might not help.
I don't have the utmost faith in the dems versus these f*cking bastards lately. Seriously, they only recently started getting their sh*t together.
Besides, take 6 months of time over Valerie Plame ... what are we waiting on to nail Rove?
As well, i think the information is already there or isn't, and as the end of the 9/11 commission came, Bush has done almost nothing to qualify their concerns either.
When it comes to the authority, dems simply don't have it and not enough people are being nasty enough to take these motherf*ckers out.
I could very happily be proven wrong on this one - this is the first issue i've said could be Bush's Watergate.
Not that he didn't do VAST amounts of other evil and corrupt things.

EDIT: Ah, i forgot to point out that poll numbers of defense issues didn't work out so smoothly for Ted Stevens' ANWR insertion this week.
For me the problem is that Bush is trying to frame the debate as something bigger than it is. He wants to force Congress to either accept the Patriot Act as it is and make it permanent as is, or else they would have to kill the sunsetting provisions altogether. Now this would not actually kill the Patriot Act entire, but you gotta know, that's what Bush and his cronies will say -- oh look at them Dems, they hate America and want to feed us all to the TERRORISTS(tm) by killing the only thing that's kept you and your helpless babies alive all these years.

The Patriot Act is a disgusting, propangandistic monster. Even its name is revolting. It is nothing but an unnecessary conglomeration of already existing laws with a few major rights violations added on and hidden (poorly) amid the endless blather of its language. The obvious solution is to repeal it. Go back to using the original existing laws, with rewrites to bring them up to speed with current technologies and political realities and to permit interagency cooperation, and try to forget this embarrassing episode ever happened.

But whether the Patriot Act is useful or not is not the point of the fight with Congress. The point is Bush's ability to use this fight to hurt the Democrats politically. By delaying the debate, the Dems were making it hard for Bush to use his current political momentum to push support for the PA through. It wasn't actually a defeat for Bush (yet), but it made him look like he had no clout with Congress.

But no use crying over spilt milk. The Dems will have to adjust their tactic.

Hate to point this out to you, but in the landmark case Katz v. US, the Supreme court ruled that the 4th Amendment protection against search and seizure extends to Anything that a person seeks to preserve as private, even if it is in a space available to the public. By the way, the case itself dealt with a man in a phone booth who was suspected by the FBI of a crime, and listened in on his conversations via electronic eavesdropping. The patriot act is in direct violation of that Supreme Court precedent and also the precedents of other cases up to and including the recent benchmark case Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, the Gitmo Bay case. US citizens have rights, even if they are terrorists.

<snip> etc.
Hear, hear!

Unless your a terrorist, your rights aren't being infringed, so shut up about it.

And if you are a terrorist... Shut up about it.

If it were really that simple, nobody except terrorists would have a problem with the Patriot Act. That isn't the case. Why? Because our government has the *ability* to violate our privacy because they have "evidence" that we're terrorists. Don't you see? This is severely flawed: already there have been plenty of non-terrorists who have been adversely affected just because of misinformation and accidents. I don't want to think about what will happen if the government goes into a Red Scare-like mode.

If it were really that simple, nobody except terrorists would have a problem with the Patriot Act. That isn't the case. Why? Because our government has the *ability* to violate our privacy because they have "evidence" that we're terrorists. Don't you see? This is severely flawed: already there have been plenty of non-terrorists who have been adversely affected just because of misinformation and accidents. I don't want to think about what will happen if the government goes into a Red Scare-like mode.
Exactly. Why are people so confident that they will never get unfairly accused, or even just suspected? And why are they so confident that none of this spying data will ever be misused? We have 100s of years of history full of people's lives being ruined and ended by false accusations, entire governments using accusation/denunciation without due process of law to maintain their power. We have at least the 20th century, containing several incidents of misuse of secret government powers to persecute innocent Americans -- The Espionage Act of 1917, anti-union actions, the Red Scare, FBI spying on peace groups, right up to the 1990s with corporations trying access employee medical records through HMOs so they can eliminate employees who smoke, drink, or do other things on their own time that their bosses decide not to like. And since the Patriot Act, we've seen several incidents of people being banned from air travel and getting audited, because their name is similar to a terrorist's, or just because of bureaucratic error.

And if all this is kept secret forever from the person who is targeted, how can they ever hope to clear their record? Is anyone here really okay with the idea that they could be accidentally tied to terrorists for the rest of their lives?

you may think any one who supports bush isnt very intellegent, and your entitled to your own opinion, but you need to lighten up,)
I will also say i'm much less inclined to be vitriolic to folks who post more like you posted this one. *bows*
I will go further to say that most fervent Bush supporters who haven't been paying attention THIS FAR INTO THE SCENARIO have earned my scorn for both their intellectual and moral abandon. Not all Bush supporters earn that distinction, but the vast majority have, to speak generally.
Some are consciously, and others are unconsciously ... serving the advent of evil.

For me the problem is that Bush is trying to frame the debate as something bigger than it is. He wants to force Congress to either accept the Patriot Act as it is and make it permanent as is, or else they would have to kill the sunsetting provisions altogether. Now this would not actually kill the Patriot Act entire, but you gotta know, that's what Bush and his cronies will say -- oh look at them Dems, they hate America and want to feed us all to the TERRORISTS(tm) by killing the only thing that's kept you and your helpless babies alive all these years.

The Patriot Act is a disgusting, propangandistic monster. Even its name is revolting. It is nothing but an unnecessary conglomeration of already existing laws with a few major rights violations added on and hidden (poorly) amid the endless blather of its language. The obvious solution is to repeal it. Go back to using the original existing laws, with rewrites to bring them up to speed with current technologies and political realities and to permit interagency cooperation, and try to forget this embarrassing episode ever happened.

But whether the Patriot Act is useful or not is not the point of the fight with Congress. The point is Bush's ability to use this fight to hurt the Democrats politically. By delaying the debate, the Dems were making it hard for Bush to use his current political momentum to push support for the PA through. It wasn't actually a defeat for Bush (yet), but it made him look like he had no clout with Congress.

But no use crying over spilt milk. The Dems will have to adjust their tactic.
Agreed on every point.
I am in SPECIFIC opposition to the Sections i noted, and i am in opposition to the "PATRIOT" Act itself, for the reason cited by yourself here:
Go back to using the original existing laws, with rewrites to bring them up to speed with current technologies and political realities and to permit interagency cooperation
Just so you know, i have been one of the strongest detractors of it and have posted thusly - i would reprint a few pertinent articles but the archives that held it have hence been not replaced on this new server. :(

Red Scare-like mode.
Sadly enough, a pivotal role in the Republican leadership agenda. Indeed.

Unless your a terrorist, your rights aren't being infringed, so shut up about it.

And if you are a terrorist... Shut up about it.

*Sigh*
The patriot act basicly is a change of laws. Now, I have nothing against change - prevents stagnation and such - *provided* you give arguments as to why the change is necessary or a good thing.

Now, try to give me one. The existence of terrorism is not - the patriot act only hurts the chances of some (and nowhere near all) of the small groups that wish to suicide bomb a mall. While such attacks are of course horrible, they are not a massive disaster. An out of control truck could do the same damage and is more likely to occur.
The big guys, capable of obtaining nuclear, chemical or biological weapons of mass destruction will have no problem whatsoever circumventing this act.

So.. what is the use ? And if there isn't one - why do it ?

If it were really that simple, nobody except terrorists would have a problem with the Patriot Act. That isn't the case. Why? Because our government has the *ability* to violate our privacy because they have "evidence" that we're terrorists. Don't you see? This is severely flawed: already there have been plenty of non-terrorists who have been adversely affected just because of misinformation and accidents. I don't want to think about what will happen if the government goes into a Red Scare-like mode.

"Are you or have you ever been, or know anyone who is associated with the Muslim Party?"