If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ABC)   Remember earlier in the week when the Senate blocked the renewal of the Patriot Act? Maybe not so much   (abcnews.go.com) divider line 437
    More: Followup  
•       •       •

12373 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 Dec 2005 at 12:18 PM (8 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



437 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2005-12-22 02:23:00 PM
"Why not discuss the topic at hand?"

Because that would not distract from the topic at hand?
 
2005-12-22 02:23:08 PM
pontechango: HappyDaddy:

You are intentionally failing to make a distinction between a single exceptional case in which FISA was subsequently amended and thousands of other cases in which FISA was ignored entirely. Your tu quoque defense of Bush is bunk.



You're hallucinating. I merely pointed out that there was a warrantless search of Ames' house authorized by AG Reno, after you made a point of calling that assertion (albeit one that erroneously substituted President Clinton for Reno) Republican bullshiat (or words to that effect). I haven't drawn any connection to the NSA surveillance - one way or the other.
 
2005-12-22 02:23:14 PM
HappyDaddy: I absolutely accept the notion that the "right to privacy" manufactured by the SCt is the law of the land, to the extent that it has enunciated it.

Well thank God.

Would you alter it if you could? If so, in which ways?
 
2005-12-22 02:23:18 PM
I hate to be this cynical, but...

If the (un)Patriot(ic) Act is renewed, and there is another major attack within the next few years, we will see Patriot Act II: the Vengeance. It will cut deeper into our civil liberties, and may never be repealed then.

If the Patriot Act is not renewed, then the next time there's a major terrorist attack, supporters of civil liberties can say "see, the Patriot Act doesn't work," and argue for its repeal.

For the long term future of civil liberties, let us hope the Patriot Act is continually renewed until the unfortunate, tragic, and inevitable next terrorist attack.

I really hate to say it, but civil liberties may die completely if the Patriot Act doesn't stay in effect until we get hit again.
 
2005-12-22 02:23:29 PM
I actually don't have a problem with politicians "flip-flopping", as it shows that you can actually influence them and *gasp!* change their minds.

You some kinda crazy mother(beep)! You KNOW that when you vote pro-wheat farmer in '78, you (beep)ing pro-wheat farmer fo' LIFE, dog!
 
2005-12-22 02:23:54 PM
Random Reality Check

Why don't you think about that the next time you realize that even Weaver95 seems to be abandoning your party.

To be fair to Weaver95, it's his support for the administration that is rapidly eroding. Strike 2 isn't it, Weaver? What would constitute a strike 3 for you?
 
2005-12-22 02:23:59 PM
Immaculate_Misconception: Oh, and as much as I'm enjoying this aspect of the conversation, you do realize that you're only arguing this in order to qualify your "but Clinton", don't you?


See my reply to pontechango
 
2005-12-22 02:24:20 PM
ratboy: Did Saddam get a warrant before he bombed the Twin Towers?

Right about after you stopped beating your wife. How long was that, again?
 
2005-12-22 02:24:58 PM
HappyDaddy:

I haven't drawn any connection to the NSA surveillance - one way or the other.

Context is everything, HappyDaddy. This thread is not about Clinton.
 
2005-12-22 02:25:18 PM
I think Weaver said he's at strike 2.5- the NSA thing counted as a strike and a half, and I forget what strike 1 was.
 
2005-12-22 02:26:56 PM
Pontechango: "Ooh, ooh, Mr. Kotter! I know, I know!!

Yeah, him too (John O'Neill). But I meant what company was contracted to provide security, and who were/are the board of directors? (where's the frog when ya need him?)
 
2005-12-22 02:27:39 PM
HappyDaddy:

after you made a point of calling that assertion (albeit one that erroneously substituted President Clinton for Reno) Republican bullshiat (or words to that effect).

You know damned well that the Ames case was Drudge and the Republican leadership's attempt to justify Bush's NSA wiretaps. After all, you're a genius.
 
2005-12-22 02:28:10 PM
Gosling Sorry about that the pwnd comment wasn't directed towards you. I had some insomnia last night, that was apparently affecting my posting ability :-p. That was directed towards grimace78.

I don't know if I agree with you assesment that the dems want it overturned, the original critic of the act (Russ Fiengold, only senator to vote against in 2001) was pretty vocal about wanting to work out the kinks instead of dropping it totally.

And honestly, My solution would be to shatter the Patriot Act into one bill per provision. If we can't do the line-item veto (please oh please can we have one?), then we can at least turn the bill into a bunch of little bills. That way we can pass the provisions that we actually LIKE while (hopefully) ditching the freedom-removing ones.

That's a great suggestion. I'd agree with that.

Char
 
2005-12-22 02:29:29 PM
Major error in previous post. Disregard, read this post instead.

I hate to be this cynical, but...

If the (un)Patriot(ic) Act is NOT renewed, and there is another major attack within the next few years, we will see Patriot Act II: the Vengeance. It will cut deeper into our civil liberties, and may never be repealed then.

If the Patriot Act is renewed, then the next time there's a major terrorist attack, supporters of civil liberties can say "see, the Patriot Act doesn't work," and argue for its repeal.

For the long term future of civil liberties, let us hope the Patriot Act is continually renewed until the unfortunate, tragic, and inevitable next terrorist attack.

I really hate to say it, but civil liberties may die completely if the Patriot Act doesn't stay in effect until we get hit again.
 
2005-12-22 02:29:56 PM
HappyDaddy

Maybe this will help jog your memory

FLASHBACK: CLINTON, CARTER SEARCH 'N SURVEILLANCE WITHOUT COURT ORDER
http://drudgereport.com/flash8.htm
 
2005-12-22 02:30:00 PM
Patriot Act II: the Vengeance.

Personally I'd wait for it to be on cable....I mean I'm not shelling out $9 for that.
 
2005-12-22 02:30:03 PM
pontechango: This thread is not about Clinton.

I certainly didn't bring him up. I was merely correcting your error from here:

2005-12-22 01:14:39 PM pontechango

Suits me to drop it.
 
2005-12-22 02:31:53 PM
ratboy: Did Saddam get a warrant before he bombed the Twin Towers?

Excellent point! We should strive to be no better than murderous terrorists! Hurray for the good guys!

/asshat
 
2005-12-22 02:32:15 PM
whyarefartslumpy

I Voted for Bush twice, and might vote for him a third time; if he quits being an ass-hat and protects our borders without using the constitution for ass-wipe.

BTW, how many of you lefties are going to have my back when Hillary, et al try to take my guns? I want to make sure that your civil liberties and mine are the same.


If you're able to vote for Bush a third time, you won't have any civil liberties to worry about.
 
2005-12-22 02:32:17 PM
pontechango: I'm not sure if "The Drudge Report" is an ideal reference for this argument. Perhaps you would care to try again (i.e., go to a Government source, for ex.)
 
2005-12-22 02:32:35 PM
But Clinton ....
 
2005-12-22 02:32:59 PM
whats teh big deal? so what if law enforcement can secretly break into your home for any reason without justification and spy on you for any reason without justification?
George Bush would never abuse that unlimited unchecked power. So stop hating u hippies.
 
2005-12-22 02:33:45 PM
cryptozoophiliac

I believe that pontechango was joking. You were joking, weren't you pontechango?
 
2005-12-22 02:34:00 PM
cryptozoophiliac: I'm not sure if "The Drudge Report" is an ideal reference for this argument.

Heh. That was kinda my point.
 
2005-12-22 02:35:35 PM
My bad...here is the relevant passage, IMHO:

"the Attorney
General is authorized to approve applications to the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Court under section 303 of the Act to obtain
orders for physical searches for the purpose of collecting foreign
intelligence information."

In other words: GO TO THE FREAKIN' COURT (FISA), RIGHT?
 
2005-12-22 02:35:39 PM
pontechango

I am meticulous in my writing, even here. I write what I mean and try to be very precise. That is why it irritates me to have people mischaracterize what I have written. I'm not responsible for what other people say or write, even Drudge. Nothing you have read from me in this thread can be reasonably interpreted to be either a defense or a criticism of President Bush.
 
2005-12-22 02:36:26 PM
Bush is so totally OWNED. He threatened to veto anything less than the full renewal of the (Un)Patriot Act. It was a giant game of chicken and he blinked first.

Now if he vetoes it, he loses the act entirely. If he signs it he is a flip-flopping pansy asz waffling librul.

Well played Bush. You have set up a lose-lose scenario.

 
2005-12-22 02:38:05 PM
I understand. But the article linked at Drudge seems to imply that FISA is the appropriate source for orders to search in foreign intelligence cases...no?
 
2005-12-22 02:38:14 PM
This thread is not about Clinton.

For the Bushbots, EVERY political thread is about Clinton. They love him. He is their reason for existing.
 
2005-12-22 02:38:24 PM
To all the people who think this is a "first" for presidents to use the NSA, you should look at 1979 and 1995 when Carter AND Clinton, both did the same thing as Bush and used the NSA to spy on Americans. Get real people, just because a Repub is in office... whatever..

/my first slashie
//maybe i won't use slashies anymore
///GO BUSH!
 
2005-12-22 02:38:25 PM
HappyDaddy: See my reply to pontechango

Just calling it how I see it.

The Ames case has jack shiat to do with the USA Patriot act.

"Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism"

Heh!
 
2005-12-22 02:39:00 PM
HappyDaddy:

I am meticulous in my writing, even here. I write what I mean and try to be very precise. That is why it irritates me to have people mischaracterize what I have written. I'm not responsible for what other people say or write, even Drudge. Nothing you have read from me in this thread can be reasonably interpreted to be either a defense or a criticism of President Bush.

Good for you. It's not just what you say, what you don't say reflects on your character as well.
 
2005-12-22 02:39:05 PM
Gosling

My solution would be to shatter the Patriot Act into one bill per provision. If we can't do the line-item veto (please oh please can we have one?), then we can at least turn the bill into a bunch of little bills. That way we can pass the provisions that we actually LIKE while (hopefully) ditching the freedom-removing ones.


Way to copy the Compromise of 1850.

Seriously though, that's a pretty good idea. It would allow the bits that aren't attacks on our rights, as well as giving the tricky ones and "up or down vote."
 
2005-12-22 02:39:16 PM
whyarefartslumpy said,

"I Voted for Bush twice, and might vote for him a third time; if he quits being an ass-hat and protects our borders without using the constitution for ass-wipe."

Man, that is funny. Where do you send those campaign contributions too?

Then whyarefartslumpy said,

"BTW, how many of you lefties are going to have my back when Hillary, et al try to take my guns? I want to make sure that your civil liberties and mine are the same."

Well, if it makes you feel any better, should anyone try to take away your second amendment rights I will be right there screaming that they are not to be touched. No kidding. I do have conditions, that being, to own a gun you need to be responsible. This personal responsibility thing is something that gets a lot of talk and should certainly be fully understood and accepted by you all.

To that end, if you leave a gun untended and it gets stolen I am going to hold you responsible. So, if you wouldn't leave your life savings in your glove compartment, don't leave your gun there either.

Now, to the second point in your sentence above, if you believe Hillary is going to be the Democrat's nominee, you have probably already had too much KoolAid and you should put the pitcher down and swear to never go back again. You have been overRushed - a serious medical situation where your brain has been influenced by a Oxycotin contact high.

Seek immediate help.
 
2005-12-22 02:40:29 PM
You're spot on the money bigjnsa. "We" do oppose the PATRIOT Act solely based upon our hatred of Republicans.
 
2005-12-22 02:41:02 PM
bigjnsa

To all the people who think this is a "first" for presidents to use the NSA, you should look at 1979 and 1995 when Carter AND Clinton, both did the same thing as Bush and used the NSA to spy on Americans. Get real people, just because a Repub is in office... whatever..

Absolutely! It's not right whoever does it without a warrant. I think we're making a breakthrough!
 
2005-12-22 02:41:53 PM
cryptozoophiliac:

the article linked at Drudge seems to imply that FISA is the appropriate source for orders to search in foreign intelligence cases...no?

Yes, exactly. I really don't get how some people can take Drudge's trash seriously.

/glances at bigjnsa
 
2005-12-22 02:43:39 PM
Again, will someone please explain to me the role of FISA in the gathering of intelligence data in domestic cases? And how is this secret court relevant to Clinton and Carter executive orders?
 
2005-12-22 02:43:48 PM
pontechango: It's not just what you say, what you don't say reflects on your character as well.


Right, good point. I was hoping you might notice that I never question someone's character simply because we have a good faith disagreement on matters of politics or policy. Thanks.

*Try it sometime, it'll make you a better person*
 
2005-12-22 02:44:22 PM
Give me Liberty or Give me Death.

whyarefartslumpy
BTW, how many of you lefties are going to have my back when Hillary, et al try to take my guns? I want to make sure that your civil liberties and mine are the same.

I'll have your back: you (and I) have the Constitutionally-protected right to bear arms.

The one thing that unites all of us - no matter our beliefs - is our Liberty. Don't let your personal beliefs get in the way of this knowledge.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." -Voltaire
 
2005-12-22 02:45:23 PM
How about you find out what sections of the patriot act you disagree with. My opinion on the patriot act is echoed by my representatives in congress, that is what I care about.

I don't want to change whatever opinion you come to about the patriot act, so long as it was formed by reading the actual law.
So, no, I'm not going to sit here and list off all the subparagraphs of the sections, of the patriot act, that I don't agree with.
 
2005-12-22 02:45:30 PM
Not so fast Random Reality Check in your criticism of whyarefartslumpy's "third vote" thingy. If we get a SuperDuper PATRIOT Act then we might need to have our fearless leader in command to help us through our truly helpless ordeal. AAARRRGGHHH!

In other words, a War President makes a good puppet, and we've got to keep our hands up the puppet's ass at all cost; even if it means keeping him power.

no not really.
 
2005-12-22 02:45:38 PM
Not to crow too much but...



See I told you so.

--h
 
2005-12-22 02:46:06 PM
HappyDaddy:

I certainly didn't bring him up. I was merely correcting your error from here:

2005-12-22 01:14:39 PM pontechango


That wasn't an error. crawlspace raised the issue and claimed that no warrants were obtained for his search and arrest. He was factually incorrect.
 
2005-12-22 02:46:53 PM
HappyDaddy

Nothing you have read from me in this thread can be reasonably interpreted to be either a defense or a criticism of President Bush.

That is a ludicrous statement! Many of the regulars who read this board know from past threads that you are one of Bush's most ardent supporters in almost every single situation, right or wrong. It is disingenuous of you to say that ANYthing you post in one single thread about him does not indicate support one way or the other- we ALL know from past posts exactly how you feel about his policies and this administration. Just because you claim balance on this issue does not mean anyone is going to buy it. WAY too late for that.

But props to Weaver95 for finally coming around.
 
2005-12-22 02:48:03 PM
While I really don't know, it seems that the FISA court was created as a way to facillitate the gathering of domestic intelligence while maintaining oversight and security.

Why the current President felt it was necessary to ignore this law has yet to be properly explained IMHO.
 
2005-12-22 02:49:56 PM
OralB or JJJon

Please explain to me how a warrant would have prevented 9/11. I'm sorry to ask you to think a little more critically.

Lovefirststool and whyarefartslumpy

I agree with the slippery slope arguments. A better solution needs to be found.

The problem is a law enforcement approach is not a preventative approach.
 
2005-12-22 02:50:51 PM
hdhale

Is that an effigy on Rush's forehead?
 
2005-12-22 02:52:40 PM
"The problem is a law enforcement approach is not a preventative approach."

And what, pray tell, constitutes an effective preventative approach?
 
2005-12-22 02:52:56 PM
Is that an effigy on Rush's forehead?

Tragically, no.
 
Displayed 50 of 437 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report