Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 47 of 47

Thread: Patriot Act II

  1. #26
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    The Woodlands, Tx
    Posts
    5,974
    http://www.house.gov/paul/search.htm

    Ron Paul said it. I was searching various elected officials house sites for "Patriot Act" or "Patriot" and saw one of the pages that he said it. I dont remember exactly which page since that wasnt the info I was searching for at the time, but it'sd in there.

    The evidence points to the fact that it is indeed true. It was voted for unanimously (I think), yet so many that voted it have now read it, and are not happy. They evidently recieved it AFTER they voted on it, were pressured to vote on it due to urgency..

  2. #27
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    The Woodlands, Tx
    Posts
    5,974
    Oh I am in trouble if they decide that going over the speed limit is a terrorist act....

  3. #28
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    6,623
    Originally posted by Webdude
    The Patriot Act just shows what a bunch of idiots we have in Congress. How the hell can they be stupid enough to pass a bill without being allowed to read it???!!!
    Maybe this is a little off topic, but it's not at all uncommon for members of Congress to vote for or against a bill that they have not read. Come on, those things a really long and confusing with all that legal jargon... reading them is what staffers and lobbyists are around for.

    Now you'd think that with a bill as sweeping as the PATRIOT Act, most of them would have taken the time to investigate its implications... but we'll never know.
    Specializing in SEO and PPC management.

  4. #29
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    The Woodlands, Tx
    Posts
    5,974
    JayC, I agree with you on both points.

  5. #30
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    407
    Man only stupid people who can't read the constitution or don't know how our voting system works say that. I don't like Geroge Bush at all but he still won the election fair and square.
    It was far from fair and square. It was so far from being clear that the Florida Supreme Court said that the recound should continue the recount. A recount which was being done by both Democrats and Republicans (one from each party looked at each card and if both did not agree it did not count).

    The US Supreme Court should have let it continue as it would have made things fair and square. If if turned out Bush had won then no one would have questioned it the way they are doing now.
    Alvin

  6. #31
    Originally posted by Torith
    well all I know is the Patriot Act was bad enough I know Patriot Act 2 wont be any better.
    Ok..in what way was teh PA "bad enough"? Oh, yes, the liberal presses fantasy of bootjack thugs kicking in doors in the middle of night and whisking ppl away. Sorry, that method went out with Janet Reno's regime. Haven't seen Ashcroft burn people to death, shoot children and women, kick in doors and snatch terrorified little kids while the press took pictures and so on. Course Janet was just a sweet woman...well, I think Janet's a woman...could never tell.

  7. #32
    Originally posted by Webdude
    I dont know about the majority, but if the government starts taking away rights, pissing on the Constitution, and all that.....

    well, I think there will be some rogue governments, police departments, even military. It would be anarchy and civil war all over again. Most military will protect the people rather than a dictatorship. Those in it for a carreer will say "It's my job, I have to do what I am told" while patriots and loyalists will seperate and form their own groups. It's too bad the feds would still control the nukes, armory, and everything else that would give them the advantage.

    Just one thing that would cause a problem for them....that's the fact that most homes in America have guns, and are well stocked on ammo. The people are just as armed as the military...lol

    Flamethrower? Bomb? Hell we can build those out of stuff you can get at walmart
    You want to know who's pissing on teh constitution? Not congress, but the courts. The liberal courts who invent constitutional rights that don't exist, that circumvent the very document they are supposed to interrupt. The U.S. is run by 9 men in black robes, nobody else.

    As for losing rights, In the last 4 years, I've not noticed ONE right that I used to have that I no longer have. Hmm...isn't that strange...I thought I lost rights...don't seem to notice anything missing...nope..they are still here...gosh, they must have over looked me...I can still print and say what I want about whomever I want and no one has kicked in my door. I can go down the block to the gun store and buy a shotgun..nope..that's still there. I'm just confused..guess I gotta go buy a copy of the NY Times so they can explain to a simply folk like me what rights and freedoms I'm losing....brb.

  8. #33
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    407
    I have to admit that I have not personally seen any negative effects from the first Patriot Act. However, with greater powers comes greater responsibility. And just because it has not been abused yet does not mean it never will. I do agree people are making it sound much worse then it really is, though I believe it naive to think that a person would not potentially abuse such powers either.
    Alvin

  9. #34
    Originally posted by Jedito
    As far as I know, he won with the help of his daddy's friends at the suppreme court, who suspended the recount of the votes at florida.
    Boy are you so far off the mark.....

    1) They recounted the votes several times..each time Bush won. After each count more and more paper ballots became unreadable due to handling. Chads were falling off showing mulitple votes (chads are the small dots of paper from a punch).

    2) The dems would have kept counting over and over until enough had been damaged to swing the vote..but then the Rep would have pushed for recounts..so in the end, it would have been a never ending cycle.

    3) Supreme Court is comprised of 9 members, and they were not in anyones pocket. It's ok when they rule in favor of liberals (ie Wade vs Roe ..abortion rights...) that's justice and right (though constitutionally invalid), but it's not ok when they decided that enough is enough that after numerous counts the election is decided in favor or the Republican candidate.

    4) The whole fiasco tore this country apart and I put that squarely on the press and Gore. The press for jumping the gun on Florida's counts and then having to retract it, which is what lead to the whole issue. Gore was ready to honorably concide till then.

    There was no fix, there was not "daddy Supreme Court", it was simply the right thing to do. I'll let it go since you obviously are not a U.S. citizen and the only facts are those you garnered from tainted sources.

  10. #35
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,029
    You might not have noticed it yhet, but you will notice it then you will start complaining. Bill of rights was made for a reason, and the patriot act goes against the bill of rights (not all of it but part of it)

    Originally posted by ArtieFishill
    You want to know who's pissing on teh constitution? Not congress, but the courts. The liberal courts who invent constitutional rights that don't exist, that circumvent the very document they are supposed to interrupt. The U.S. is run by 9 men in black robes, nobody else.

    As for losing rights, In the last 4 years, I've not noticed ONE right that I used to have that I no longer have. Hmm...isn't that strange...I thought I lost rights...don't seem to notice anything missing...nope..they are still here...gosh, they must have over looked me...I can still print and say what I want about whomever I want and no one has kicked in my door. I can go down the block to the gun store and buy a shotgun..nope..that's still there. I'm just confused..guess I gotta go buy a copy of the NY Times so they can explain to a simply folk like me what rights and freedoms I'm losing....brb.
    I am back....


  11. #36
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,029
    or how about the police or any other offical can search your house, car without your permission?

    or

    Allowing Law Enforcement Agencies to Evade the Fourth Amendment's Probable Cause Requirement

    I can think of many more if you like.
    I am back....


  12. #37
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,029
    I think this best states it

    "What's So Patriotic About Trampling on the Bill of Rights?"
    I am back....


  13. #38
    Originally posted by alvinks
    I have to admit that I have not personally seen any negative effects from the first Patriot Act. However, with greater powers comes greater responsibility. And just because it has not been abused yet does not mean it never will. I do agree people are making it sound much worse then it really is, though I believe it naive to think that a person would not potentially abuse such powers either.
    And the fact is, this is still the U.S. We STILL have certain rights to remove people from office every 4-6 years, or sooner if they need to be (like Clinton, unfortunately, they lacked backbone to carry thru with removal dispite being impeached).

    But this country had become a bitter one, we are so partisan thanks mostly to the press, that I'm not sure if it can be fixed. Bush obviously is so reviled by the press and left that even if he was St Peter himself, could not do right by them. Kerry, well, Kerry is a waffler and personally does not have a chance and from what I've read in the liberal rags, they are not so keen on him anymore either. Dean? Well....he's appealed to the kids, but they don't vote..lol. Edwards...he might have had a chance, but the DNC tore itself up because it's so focused on hating Bush that it's totally lost it's mind.

    Of course there's always Nader...HAHAHAHAHA.

  14. #39
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    The Woodlands, Tx
    Posts
    5,974
    Ross Perot!! Ross Perot!! Ross Perot!!

    eh, nevermind. I dont think anyone could take such a squeeky voice seriously.

    So what remains is, what choice do we have? None of them are any good. Ok, so the answer is "dont vote". Even if 99% of the people DIDNT vote, someone would still win.

    The only way to REALLY do something is vote ALL politicians out and start new with non-politicians.

  15. #40
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    407
    People just need to vote. The more people vote the more democratic we become.
    Alvin

  16. #41
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Posts
    3,046
    Originally posted by ArtieFishill
    You want to know who's pissing on teh constitution? Not congress, but the courts. The liberal courts who invent constitutional rights that don't exist, that circumvent the very document they are supposed to interrupt. The U.S. is run by 9 men in black robes, nobody else.
    I've been going to political forums for some time now and these little anecdotes always amuse me. Can you explain exactly what rulings by judges are "liberal" or perhaps explain how the media is "liberal"? Generally, conservatives always seem to make mention of "activist" judges, when they disagree with the ruling and not neccesarily because the judge ruled wrongly.

    As for the US being run by "men in black robes", first of all the legislature can overrule courts by adding something to the constitution. That's the point of the "checks and balances" system.

    Furthermore, I'd suggest reading up on the supreme court. Scalia, Thomas and Rehnquist are all conservatives, Scalia and Thomas being ultra-conservatives. Breyer, Ginsburg, Kennedy, O'Connor, Souter & Stevens are at best moderates (in several instances they vote conservatively). So if anything, the "9 justices that run this country" do so in a moderate/conservative matter, so your ideal about "liberal judges" doesn't really fly.

  17. #42
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    6,623
    Originally posted by JustinH
    Furthermore, I'd suggest reading up on the supreme court. Scalia, Thomas and Rehnquist are all conservatives, Scalia and Thomas being ultra-conservatives. Breyer, Ginsburg, Kennedy, O'Connor, Souter & Stevens are at best moderates (in several instances they vote conservatively). So if anything, the "9 justices that run this country" do so in a moderate/conservative matter, so your ideal about "liberal judges" doesn't really fly.
    Yep, and that's just the Supreme Court. The majority of federal judges in office today were appointed by Republican administrations (of course, since there've been significantly more years of Republicans in the White House in the last couple of decades than Democrats). No doubt there are some liberal judges, but they're very much in the minority.

    The "liberal press" thing is even more laughable. Which major press outlets are presenting predominantly liberal viewpoints? The New York Times? Hah... NBC? ABC? CBS? The spectrum of decisionmakers and powerbrokers in the major media runs from conservative to right of moderate.

    It's just become an easy out for conservatives who are in the media (in much larger numbers than liberals) to cry whenever a supposedly "liberal" idea starts to gain popularity among the public that the only reason such a thing could happen is because those poor unwashed masses are being misled by "the liberal media." Hey, wake up... most people in this country don't really identify themselves as wholly conservative or wholly liberal -- they support what they think is right at the time for them and their families and communities. And most people are smart enough to consider different sides of an issue and make that decision; they don't need a conservative big brother looking out for them and protecting them from those scary media liberals.

    Really I have no idea who would win in a whining contest between conservatives and liberals. It seems that the more strongly anyone identifies with either polarized viewpoint the stronger their skills in that area become.
    Last edited by JayC; 04-28-2004 at 12:51 AM.
    Specializing in SEO and PPC management.

  18. #43
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    90
    Yep, and that's just the Supreme Court. The majority of federal judges in office today were appointed by Republican administrations (of course, since there've been significantly more years of Republicans in the White House in the last couple of decades than Democrats). No doubt there are some liberal judges, but they're very much in the minority.

    The "liberal press" thing is even more laughable. Which major press outlets are presenting predominantly liberal viewpoints?
    Just as example, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's ultra-ultra politically correct opinion that discrimination against whites is an overriding national concern, overriding even the 14th Amendment.

    News has opened up to conservatives with increased channels, but in the days of CBS,NBC,ABC hegemony it was different. Just to give you some examples.

    Gun control. Network anchors always use semantically loaded expressions such as "the powerful gun lobby" rather than "people who believe in the 2nd amendment."

    Perhaps the most egregious example was when Goldwater ran for president and the news anchors discarded the terms Republican and Democrat in favor of "extremist" and "moderate" in order to handicap Goldwater's campaign.

    Who are the essayists on PBS's Lehrer news? Pat Buchanan? Bill Buckley? No, we have a liberal black, Clarence Page, a liberal feminist, Ann Taylor, a liberal Hispanic gay, Rodrigues, a liberal Jew, whose name eludes me at the moment Rosen.. something.

    Every group show on network TV has to teach the politically correct message of diversity by having a black in a position of authority and a woman who either has a position of authority or is so spunky she stands up to male authority. Politically correct network TV is so predictable and preachy it is totally lacking in creativity.

    When Washington reporters were polled, 92% admitted they were Democrats.

    I could go on and on, but others like Brent Bozell have documented this stuff in exhaustive detail.

    Admittedly liberals are blind to this for some reason in their constitution. Every conservative knows that conservative talk radio is a success because it is an alternative to the liberal traditional networks, and that liberal talk radio would be a complete failure because liberals already have the main TV networks, but liberals can't see this.

  19. #44
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    587
    okay I know this might not be the best place to post thisbut i'll just say it here it will give you guys some idea on what Patriot Act can do in some cases...please try to stay on the topic and not go off it...

    after the 9/11 there has been 1000's of arabs not only arab but ppl from my country as well...and some ppl i have known for years been arrested...well it is also true that most of them were not legally living here...meaning some had work permits other had expired permits..and still lived here...but there are so many ppl who live in the US...without legal paper work.

    So the problem was most of these ppl couldn't be bailed out and still can't be some of them who are left in jails...and these ppl were never taken to courts...kept in jails..even family couldn't meet them...most of these guys owned stores here in brooklyn or just worked here for years...than after 6 months and year later...they started sending them back their countries...which was even more messed children were american parents weren't...than when pakistani gov't put bit pressured and was helping the US with the war they let go some ppl from jails and return back home or sent them back to pakistan bit faster rather than keep them for another year in jail
    ---------------------------------

    again the only point i am making here is that these ppl were kept in jails without ever been taken to a court and proven they were quality of some thing...some of them were released but after 6 months or a year...some of them were sent back after 6 months or a year...where they had to left their children here...never had the time to even sell anything if they owned it...this is some thing the the gov't did before before too...would do it in a week or 2 not take 6 months to sent some one back...least never kept them in jails for such a long period of time...

  20. #45
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    6,623
    Originally posted by Heathcliff
    News has opened up to conservatives with increased channels, but in the days of CBS,NBC,ABC hegemony it was different.
    [...]
    Perhaps the most egregious example was when Goldwater ran for president
    Oh... I thought we were talking about today, not how it was forty years ago.
    When Washington reporters were polled, 92% admitted they were Democrats.
    Do you have a credible source for that statement? Pretty hard to believe... was that also in 1964?
    Who are the essayists on PBS's Lehrer news? Pat Buchanan? Bill Buckley?
    Both Buchanan and Buckley are working commentators in the major media... is the argument that the media is liberal, or is that PBS is liberal? Or that Jim Lehrer is liberal? Who are the essayists on CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox, MSNBC, etc.?
    Every group show on network TV has to teach the politically correct message of diversity by having a black in a position of authority and a woman who either has a position of authority or is so spunky she stands up to male authority.
    To the extent that may be true, it's aimed at creating contention so that will tune in to watch the show. The whole point of putting together those panels is to get people of varied political points of view (creating that scary "politically correct diversity") who are "spunky" enough to express them. Of course that doesn't get mentioned in speaking about men, only women have to be "so spunky that they'll stand up" if they're going to on TV and express views counter to "male authority..." which is what? Counter to the "normal" conservative point of view? Which "male authority" are they standing up to?
    Last edited by JayC; 04-28-2004 at 06:08 AM.
    Specializing in SEO and PPC management.

  21. #46
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    13,624
    Well,

    PEOPLE NEED TO VOTE

    or

    PEOPLE NEED NOT VOTE FOR BUSH!!!!!

    The Dude

    Tinyurl is the answer for posting long urls!!!

  22. #47
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Posts
    3,046
    Originally posted by Heathcliff
    Gun control. Network anchors always use semantically loaded expressions such as "the powerful gun lobby" rather than "people who believe in the 2nd amendment."[/B]
    Yep, and they call the pro-choice groups the "powerful pro-choice movment/lobby". Again, doesn't fly since they use loaded terms on both sides of the political line. They do that, for ratings, so people will pay attention.

    As for "people who believe in the 2nd amendment". First, it takes too long and more important, the majority of them aren't lobbiests, so again that just doesn't make sense.

    Perhaps the most egregious example was when Goldwater ran for president and the news anchors discarded the terms Republican and Democrat in favor of "extremist" and "moderate" in order to handicap Goldwater's campaign.
    "I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!"

    That was a famous Goldwater quote that began that. Goldwater WAS an extremist and everybody new that.

    Who are the essayists on PBS's Lehrer news? Pat Buchanan? Bill Buckley? No, we have a liberal black, Clarence Page, a liberal feminist, Ann Taylor, a liberal Hispanic gay, Rodrigues, a liberal Jew, whose name eludes me at the moment Rosen.. something.
    I didn't know PBS was the entire "media". Furthermore, PBS does commentaries, they aren't a news network.

    Every group show on network TV has to teach the politically correct message of diversity by having a black in a position of authority and a woman who either has a position of authority or is so spunky she stands up to male authority. Politically correct network TV is so predictable and preachy it is totally lacking in creativity.
    How did this turn into an issue of sex and race?

    I could go on and on, but others like Brent Bozell have documented this stuff in exhaustive detail.
    Yeah Mr. "Left-Wing Conspiracy" Bozell is a reliable source :p.

    Admittedly liberals are blind to this for some reason in their constitution. Every conservative knows that conservative talk radio is a success because it is an alternative to the liberal traditional networks, and that liberal talk radio would be a complete failure because liberals already have the main TV networks, but liberals can't see this.
    Liberals can't see it (and neither can moderates) because it's a fallacy invented by the right. Honestly, does it make sense that ONLY the right see's all this bias in the media, yet they can't really pinpoint examples that are a little newer then the Goldwater example? Come on...

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •