Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You are saying what you what when you want wherever you want -- and most of it is highly critical of the current administration.
You feel no fear in doing so, nor should you.
In fact, it seems that you have no actual basis for your opinions about the Patriot Act, aside from what others tell you.
In other words: you're talking out of your ashtray!
I'm not famous or influential, and I don't live in another country where I could easily be dressed up as an "enemy combatant" and shipped off to Guantanamo to be driven insane by psychological torture. That's not to say that I KNOW that our government would use its cool new powers to do such things, I mean, after all, the PATRIOT Act's so long and complicated that most of the congressmen who initially voted for it probably didn't know exactly what it entailed, but if you don't trust the government with health insurance or welfare spending, can't I not trust them with the power to detain whoever George Bush/Hillary Clinton/Rudy Giuliani deems is a "terrorist?" As a small-government conservative don't you have any qualms at all about a convoluted bill with an extremely Orwellian-sounding title that expands the power of the executive branch of the government beyond its normal limits?
I'm not famous or influential, and I don't live in another country where I could easily be dressed up as an "enemy combatant" and shipped off to Guantanamo to be driven insane by psychological torture. That's not to say that I KNOW that our government would use its cool new powers to do such things, I mean, after all, the PATRIOT Act's so long and complicated that most of the congressmen who initially voted for it probably didn't know exactly what it entailed, but if you don't trust the government with health insurance or welfare spending, can't I not trust them with the power to detain whoever George Bush/Hillary Clinton/Rudy Giuliani deems is a "terrorist?"
Yeah, and Hillary could declare testosterone illegal and have us both turned into cheerleaders.
Our entire legal system is based on trust, in case you haven't noticed. Otherwise, people would make left turns without signalling and cheat on their income tax.
Yeah, and Hillary could declare testosterone illegal and have us both turned into cheerleaders.
Our entire legal system is based on trust, in case you haven't noticed. Otherwise, people would make left turns without signalling and cheat on their income tax.
So... you don't think it's wise to be at least a LITTLE cynical about the intentions of people who kiss enough ass and step on enough shoulders to become president of the US? You don't think there's anything in these acts/bills that could make it easier for Watergate-type scenarios to happen, or for democracy or free speech to be subverted in the US or within our international sphere of influence? That things like warrantless wiretapping/indefinite detainment, torture, suspension of Habeas Corpus for "enemy combatants" might not be great powers for a partisan administration and its loyal servants to have?
So... you don't think it's wise to be at least a LITTLE cynical about the intentions of people who kiss enough ass and step on enough shoulders to become president of the US? You don't think there's anything in these acts/bills that could make it easier for Watergate-type scenarios to happen, or for democracy or free speech to be subverted in the US or within our international sphere of influence? That things like warrantless wiretapping/indefinite detainment, torture, suspension of Habeas Corpus for "enemy combatants" might not be great powers for a partisan administration and its loyal servants to have?
If there is a more cynical person than I on this bbs I really, truly pity him/her.
And, apparently, there is no one more naive than little old fishface.
Do you REALLY believe that it has never been within the power of ANY president to suspend our rights both domestically or abroad -- and that our wise leaders have never brutally exercised those powers?
The real trouble with the Patriot Act, as you wellllll know, is that it is an intitiative put forth by the unpopular Bush Administration. In other words, it's selective political outrage masquerading as a concen for civil liberties.
So please don't try to fighten the children with ominous stories of their being pulled out of their warm beds and taken into the deep dark forest by mean old Dick Cheney if they displease President Chimpy.
Those kids are smart. They know once cackling Witch Hillary takes over, the same rules will apply. But the media won't complain any more about the insidious loss of civil liberties.
Not if they want access to the First Lady and Laddie.
If there is a more cynical person than I on this bbs I really, truly pity him/her.
And, apparently, there is no one more naive than little old fishface.
Do you REALLY believe that it has never been within the power of ANY president to suspend our rights both domestically or abroad -- and that our wise leaders have never brutally exercised those powers?
Of course I really believe it! FDR never really sent Japanese Americans to internment camps, Abraham Lincoln never suspended Habeas Corpus, Richard Nixon was just trying to throw the Democrats a surprise birthday party and it got blown all out of proportion. Let's make it easier for 'em.
Quote:
The real trouble with the Patriot Act, as you wellllll know, is that it is an intitiative put forth by the unpopular Bush Administration. In other words, it's selective political outrage masquerading as a concen for civil liberties.
So please don't try to fighten the children with ominous stories of their being pulled out of their warm beds and taken into the deep dark forest by mean old Dick Cheney if they displease President Chimpy.
Those kids are smart. They know once cackling Witch Hillary takes over, the same rules will apply. But the media won't complain any more about the insidious loss of civil liberties.
I'm sort of scared of Hillary Clinton with or without the PATRIOT Act. But if you want to chalk my opinions up to partisanship and Bush hatred in order to bulk up your fact-free defense then be my guest. The mere fact that it's called the "PATRIOT Act," honestly, would be enough to make me wary, even if Ralph Nader, Dennis Kucinich, or Barney the Purple Dinosaur pushed it through.
Of course I really believe it! FDR never really sent Japanese Americans to internment camps, Abraham Lincoln never suspended Habeas Corpus, Richard Nixon was just trying to throw the Democrats a surprise birthday party and it got blown all out of proportion. Let's make it easier for 'em.
I'm sort of scared of Hillary Clinton with or without the PATRIOT Act. But if you want to chalk my opinions up to partisanship and Bush hatred in order to bulk up your fact-free defense then be my guest. The mere fact that it's called the "PATRIOT Act," honestly, would be enough to make me wary, even if Ralph Nader, Dennis Kucinich, or Barney the Purple Dinosaur pushed it through.
Fact free, milord? Why, you listed a few facts yourself. And you're walking around talkin trash every day!
But you confess that the inappropriate name of the Act bothers you? A rose by any other name and all that, no way?
Surely Witch Hill can be prevailed upon to rename it. How about the IT TAKES A VILLAGE Act?
Just as there used to be a fear of tax-and-spend-liberals? I don't even know if it's propitious to use the words personal responsibility and accountability anymore. If you pick them up and turn them over, it says Made in Karl Rove's Office on the bottom.
There are plenty of things that individuals can't do effectively and that markets can't do efficiently. Some of these things are nevertheless good, and there is no reason on earth for a government not to do them if it can. Government was one of the first things ever invented by human beings. There is a reason for that, and it isn't that we as a species are somehow lacking in anything but a tolerance for problems that can be easily resolved by collective action...
Well for what it is worth and as much as I don't care for taxes, I would certainly prefer tax and spend to borrow and spend if for not other reason than my obligation to future generations of my family.
Well I think it rather obvious that I am not suggesting an anarchist state, as it is my opinion that man being the social animal, still requires communal interaction, if for no other reason than because it has been beneficial to his survival in the past. However, I also don't think we are capable of a purely communal system as evident from the lack of advanced communal systems of government like the former Soviet Union or China. People seem to gravitate towards this happy medium of a more socialist order that is a combination of individual efforts and communal societal needs.
In the case of the United States, we started out with a rather humble set of rules defining a complex mechanism of governing in order to prevent bureaucracy from collapsing the system under the weight of too much government. It seemed to work quite well for us for quite some time, but I think it is getting too top heavy.
For shoots and ladders I will use the tax system as an example. Before 1913 we didn't even need income taxes, but as social programs have expanded and we have spread our tentacles further around the globe, the need for taxes has increased. We arrive today at a tax code that cost inordinate amounts of money, time, and manpower just to implement the oversight. Where is the happy medium between what the society desires and the individual needs and how much expense is it worth to try and satisfy both at the same time?
My concerns are that government simply can't provide for the needs of all the citizenries want, but in trying to do so it would collapse under the expense.
As Winston Churchill once said, "Trying to tax ones self to prosperity is like standing in a bucket and trying to lift yourself up by the handle". (or something to that effect)
I've made my argument very clear. Your "well, people back in the day did it, why should we worry about it?" response doesn't do much to debase it. We had slaves, segregation, McCarthyism and the Red Scare back in the day but I don't hear a lot of people clamoring to bring any of those back, except for maybe David Duke, or Ann Coulter, whose existence is justified in that she merely throws the vile hatred of the evil, irrational unthinking Communist George Soros left back at their soulless, Prius-driving, globe-worshipping tree-hugging, class warfaring peacemongering freedom-hating cadavers.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
