So, how long before the Media changes their position on PATRIOT, etc?

[Guest Schwarzgebrannt]

I'm restarting this thread with staff assurance that it will not be trolled as before.

Simple enough, all the stuff that Bush did, which the news-nutz claimed was a 'violation of civil liberties' and such:

PATRIOT Act / Terrorist Wiretapping / HR 1955

How long before all of that becomes 'no big deal' or 'the greatest thing since sliced bread' simply because Obama controls it?

[G27]

I'm restarting this thread with staff assurance that it will not be trolled as before.

Simple enough, all the stuff that Bush did, which the news-nutz claimed was a 'violation of civil liberties' and such:

PATRIOT Act / Terrorist Wiretapping / HR 1955

How long before all of that becomes 'no big deal' or 'the greatest thing since sliced bread' simply because Obama controls it?

That started 11.05.08 from what I can tell.

It's amazing to me how few people seem to be upset at the number of our Bill or Rights that have been trampled, from Lincoln through today.

[musicman]

'bout 30 seconds. C'mon, everybody knows the Messiah hears everything we say anyways!

[Fallguy]

It won't be just the PA either. There has pretty much always been a double standard when it comes to the media.

[Guest jdavis]

everyone knows he can walk on water you know even before ho took office if he spoke about it its the greatest thing since sliced bread, i am looking forward to seeing the new obamanation.

[Guest jackdog]

PATRIOT Act / Terrorist Wiretapping / HR 1955

Say what you want about the above, but they are all infringements to our constitutional rights. Regardless if Bush or the Big O has control over them.

All Americans should have rose up as soon as the patriot act was passed.

[Smith]

The Patriot Act actually made transparent and legal what had been done in this country for a very long time before Bush every got into office. To that I give Bush credit. He didn't try to covertly do as his predecessors did but rather brought it to the public's eye like had never been done. I see it quite the opposite of a lot of our Libertarian and liberal friends. You can't check and balance what doesn't "exist". Bush will forever be seen as the master of the practice simply because he pulled back the curtain.

[Guest SUNTZU]

The media changes positions faster than a two dollar stripper, and are, quite frankly, worth about the same, if not less.

[Guest nraforlife]

I'm lifting this from my thread Freedom

Words to be taken to heart... quotes of Ben Franklin

The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either.

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

Distrust and caution are the parents of security.

Where liberty is, there is my country.

[TGO David]

I'm restarting this thread with staff assurance that it will not be trolled as before.

There have been no assurances made from the Staff. Perhaps what you meant to say was that you are assuring us that you won't be trolling for reactions from the other members.

If this thread stays on an even keel, I'll let it stay. If it goes the way the other one did, it will be locked down and some people are going to get shown to the door.

Fair warning.

[Guest jackdog]

nsnate02

The Patriot Act actually made transparent and legal what had been done in this country for a very long time before Bush every got into office. To that I give Bush credit. He didn't try to covertly do as his predecessors did but rather brought it to the public's eye like had never been done. I see it quite the opposite of a lot of our Libertarian and liberal friends. You can't check and balance what doesn't "exist". Bush will forever be seen as the master of the practice simply because he pulled back the curtain.

Please site examples that will back up your statement.

[Guest Schwarzgebrannt]

There have been no assurances made from the Staff. Perhaps what you meant to say was that you are assuring us that you won't be trolling for reactions from the other members.

If this thread stays on an even keel, I'll let it stay. If it goes the way the other one did, it will be locked down and some people are going to get shown to the door.

Fair warning.

I will handle the other people.

Seemed like an assurance to me. There's absolutely nothing that could even be remotely considered trolling. If the thread goes down, it'll be because of other people, not me.

[Guest Abominable_Hillbilly]

The Patriot Act actually made transparent and legal what had been done in this country for a very long time before Bush every got into office. To that I give Bush credit. He didn't try to covertly do as his predecessors did but rather brought it to the public's eye like had never been done. I see it quite the opposite of a lot of our Libertarian and liberal friends. You can't check and balance what doesn't "exist". Bush will forever be seen as the master of the practice simply because he pulled back the curtain.

I have to disagree with you. What you're essentially saying is that disclosure of a constitutional violation somehow makes it acceptable. That a thief or rapist who ultimately confesses is to be considered absolved before the law. While I'm all for transparency in government, that transparency should be used to stamp out unconstitutional practices--not excuse them.

The Fourth Amendment violations in question do not need to be merely checked or balanced. They need to be eradicated. Nothing has been more pernicious in our federal jurisprudence than this idea of "balancing." For decades now, the courts have essentially said that if the government can come up with a good enough reason, then the constitution can be compromised. The protections against the growth, power, and the abusive nature of government may, at times, be forsaken, so long as there's a compelling "need" for it. Cases like Michigan Dept. Of State Police v. Sitz and Terry v. Ohio are classic examples of these capitulations.

If we are to believe that there truly are exceptions to the Constitution, then we have met our destruction.

[Smith]

nsnate02

The Patriot Act actually made transparent and legal what had been done in this country for a very long time before Bush every got into office. To that I give Bush credit. He didn't try to covertly do as his predecessors did but rather brought it to the public's eye like had never been done. I see it quite the opposite of a lot of our Libertarian and liberal friends. You can't check and balance what doesn't "exist". Bush will forever be seen as the master of the practice simply because he pulled back the curtain.

Please site examples that will back up your statement.

Lincoln, JFK, J. Edgar Hoover, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, etc.

I have to disagree with you. What you're essentially saying is that disclosure of a constitutional violation somehow makes it acceptable. That a thief or rapist who ultimately confesses is to be considered absolved before the law. While I'm all for transparency in government, that transparency should be used to stamp out unconstitutional practices--not excuse them.

The Fourth Amendment violations in question do not need to be merely checked or balanced. They need to be eradicated. Nothing has been more pernicious in our federal jurisprudence than this idea of "balancing." For decades now, the courts have essentially said that if the government can come up with a good enough reason, then the constitution can be compromised. The protections against the growth, power, and the abusive nature of government may, at times, be forsaken, so long as there's a compelling "need" for it. Cases like Michigan Dept. Of State Police v. Sitz and Terry v. Ohio are classic examples of these capitulations.

If we are to believe that there truly are exceptions to the Constitution, then we have met our destruction.

I in no way said it was acceptable or right. I simply make the point that this has been going on behind the scenes for a long time going back to even the Civil War technology aside and that now it is finally defined and addressable.

When did this become a "real" issue? It certainly wasn't a mainstream conversation before Bush 2. So my point is not that Bush was right to do it, but rather by bringing it to the public eye in the way of the Patriot Act, it made what had been done in secret tangible and visible. With the curtain removed it has allowed for Americans to have discourse and an actionable subject to deal with. whether this was intentional by Bush 2 or not is irrelevant. These conversation were considered tinfoil topics as recently as the Clinton administration.

Our freedoms are being eroded away but not by the Patriot Act. t is being done with other much less obvious methods like socialism, taxes, education, political correctness, etc.

[Guest Abominable_Hillbilly]

I in no way said it was acceptable or right. I simply make the point that this has been going on behind the scenes for a long time going back to even the Civil War technology aside and that now it is finally defined and addressable.

Well, Ok. But I don't think that Bush's actions regarding the PA were an attempt to ferret out wrongdoing or to cleanse the government of the same. He wanted to legitimize this terrible behavior, and he got what he wanted. That's why I don't support the PA. It's wrong.

When did this become a "real" issue? It certainly wasn't a mainstream conversation before Bush 2.

Details and realities regarding the breadth and depth of the PA's powers took time to trickle down. Cases had to be hashed out in court, etc.

So my point is not that Bush was right to do it, but rather by bringing it to the public eye in the way of the Patriot Act, it made what had been done in secret tangible and visible.

And still very, very wrong.

I understand what you're saying, though.

With the curtain removed it has allowed for Americans to have discourse and an actionable subject to deal with. whether this was intentional by Bush 2 or not is irrelevant. These conversation were considered tinfoil topics as recently as the Clinton administration.

Yeah. I agree.

Our freedoms are being eroded away but not by the Patriot Act. t is being done with other much less obvious methods like socialism, taxes, education, political correctness, etc.

The PA is just another example of the way in which our liberty is being eroded. Everything you've listed can be tied to the fact that we've not only left the letter of the Constitution, but, additionally, the spirit of the men who wrote it. The PA is, in that regard, no different than the others. Edited January 21, 2009 by Abominable_Hillbilly

[TGO David]

Seemed like an assurance to me. There's absolutely nothing that could even be remotely considered trolling. If the thread goes down, it'll be because of other people, not me.

Just so you know, I'm steadily losing patience with you on this matter. Allow me to clarify and then it would be wise for you to drop off of my radar for a while.

My statement was in reply to your whining via private message about whether anyone else had been disciplined for their involvement in your thread that turned to crap. I told you that it was none of your concern and that you needed to worry about yourself; that I would take care of the other people involved.

You seem to still be preoccupied with concerns about everyone else. You need to focus on what you do and leave everyone else to me and the moderators.

That's all I am going to say on this subject. If you persist, I will revoke your privilege to be here and put you out of my misery.

Thanks.

[Guest jdavis]

If you really want to discuss a topic there are plenty of people on here that are willing to do so, but getting smart with the site administrator is not going to help you out in any way. tungsten seems to be a good guy but i wouldnt push him. I have had the same oppinion on the patriot act since day one, it is just makes legal something that is going to happen regardless of legalities. So in my oppinion its just another useless topic, the infringement on our rights was there long before the patriot act. As far as the press goes in my oppinion again, the press just publishes in reflection to the way certain groups feel so the press doesnt really account for any facts at all it is just glorified oppinions and they change often.

[Guest jackdog]

To me what the PA did was to legitimize State and Federal abuse of the constitution.

How could anyone believe that is a good thing. Explain to me how this instrument which is huge was written in such a quick manner. Or all the asshats that voted for it said well we never read the damn thing. Got news for you everyone who voted for the PA broke their oath of office and that should have been the start of the second American revolution from where I sit.