PDA

View Full Version : SH-H-H-HH! Don't tell anyone......



AmiableLabs
02-26-2010, 01:17 PM
The Democrat-controlled Senate quietly voted to reauthorize the Patriot Act.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
IT'S ALL BUSH'S FAULT!!!
Illegal wiretaps! Violations of civil rights! Big brother!

badbullgator
02-26-2010, 01:55 PM
NOOOOOOOOOO.......

Roger what is going on?????????

ducknwork
02-26-2010, 02:13 PM
Can I use the 'H' word?:D





HYPOCRITES!!!

YardleyLabs
02-26-2010, 02:32 PM
Where is the hypocrisy? A majority of Democrats voted for the Act in 2001, voted for extensions to the act in 2006, and voted for renewal of expiring provisions in 2009. Nothing has changed. Obama has also supported the expanded powers provided by the Patriot Act consistently. Personally, I do not support portions of the Patriot Act and I especially don't support the actions of the government that have gone beyond the provisions of the Act to authorize warrantless wiretaps with no review by FISA. Unfortunately, the majority of Democrats, like the majority of Republicans, have been perfectly welcome to sacrifice citizen rights on the alter of fear.

AmiableLabs
02-26-2010, 02:53 PM
Where is the hypocrisy? A majority of Democrats voted for the Act in 2001, voted for extensions to the act in 2006, and voted for renewal of expiring provisions in 2009. Nothing has changed. Obama has also supported the expanded powers provided by the Patriot Act consistently.
Oh, so Republican AND Democrats support the Act, no one was protesting it. Okay. Got it. Just my imagination. Nothing to see here. Move along. Move along. :roll: :lol:


Unfortunately, the majority of Democrats, like the majority of Republicans, have been perfectly welcome to sacrifice citizen rightsWhether or not we have "sacrificed rights" is debatable.


on the alter of fear.Your side calls it "fear." Others call it "security."

And yes, I know the often cited Benjamin Franklin quote. But again, whether or not we have sacrificed any rights is debatable.

dnf777
02-26-2010, 03:15 PM
Oh, so Republican AND Democrats support the Act, no one was protesting it. Okay. Got it. Just my imagination. Nothing to see here. Move along. Move along. :roll: :lol:

Whether or not we have "sacrificed rights" is debatable.

Your side calls it "fear." Others call it "security."

And yes, I know the often cited Benjamin Franklin quote. But again, whether or not we have sacrificed any rights is debatable.

I think if you spend the energy to research this closely, you'll see the same people who opposed it then, oppose it now.

Anyone who's followed presidential history knows that whenever a president grabs power, the next guy NEVER relinquishes it! That's why some of us are opposed to such power grabbing and disregard for the system of checks and balances for ANY sitting president, REGARDLESS of party affiliantion. That's not hypocrisy, it's consistency. Something very seldom seen here. Except consistent hypocrisy. ;-)

Same argument can be made for "abuse" of house rules and procedural escalations by the republican congress of 2000-2006. Is anyone really surprised that when democrats took over, they'll resort to the same tactics? Apparently so.

As my poli-sci professor expounded to us years ago, "once you give up a right, you're never getting it back!"

For the record: I was opposed to many Patriot Act provisions under Bush, and I'm opposed to it now under Obama. That's consistency.

YardleyLabs
02-26-2010, 03:18 PM
I would call indefinite detention a sacrifice of rights. I would say that any law that allows the government to investigate my personal activities through things like review of library records and makes it a crime for those required to provide information without a warrant to mention it to anyone is a sacrifice of rights. I would absolutely call any warrantless wiretaps to be a loss of rights, but them that entire program was illegal anyway. As those of us who believe in second amendment rights argue repeatedly, threats to those rights to any of us is ultimately a threat to all of us. I do not consider our first and fourth amendment rights to be any less important than our second amendment rights.

EDIT: Fear and security are two sides of the same coin. The difference, I believe, lies in the existence of concretely demonstrable evidence of imminent threat. When you can't demonstrate a concrete, imminent threat, I tend to assume that you are simply playing with fear. When the threat that exists does not rise to the levels of the risk of death from the common cold, I am even less impressed. Compare the total of all American deaths from terrorism over the last decade to the number of people that die in car accidents each year.

Marvin S
02-26-2010, 04:50 PM
Same argument can be made for "abuse" of house rules and procedural escalations by the republican congress of 2000-2006.


HOW OLD ARE YOU? Apparently you, like Woger, can't remind what it was like pre Bush :(.

dnf777
02-26-2010, 05:43 PM
I was only using that to compare and contrast the two parties, and show that BOTH will power grab when given the opportunity. Obviously, that went right over your head, in your partisan-blind state. I'm not surprised. I'll be 42 in May, thank you for asking.

Marvin S
02-26-2010, 07:29 PM
Obviously, that went right over your head, in your partisan-blind state. I'm not surprised.

I voted for Adlai Stevenson when he ran against Eisenhower (for his 1st term) as I did not believe a military man should be President. Actually, Eisenhower turned out not too bad :cool:. I do like the partisan-blind remark, have you looked in the mirror lately :confused:?


I'll be 42 in May, thank you for asking.

So your total voting experience is voting for Clinton twice, AlGore, Herman Munster & the Messiah. You aren't even dry behind the ears, Doc :).

dnf777
02-26-2010, 08:13 PM
I voted for Adlai Stevenson when he ran against Eisenhower (for his 1st term) as I did not believe a military man should be President. Actually, Eisenhower turned out not too bad :cool:. I do like the partisan-blind remark, have you looked in the mirror lately :confused:?



So your total voting experience is voting for Clinton twice, AlGore, Herman Munster & the Messiah. You aren't even dry behind the ears, Doc :).

I always wonder how your type figures to know so much about someone you've never met!? I was just making a comment about how both parties grab power, and it's not a good thing. I believe I even stated "regardless of party affiliation" and you jumped right into presuming to know what others are thinking, let alone their entire life-long voting record. Very amusing. Inaccurate and presumptuous, but very amusing. As for looking in the mirror....why bother? I can read all about myself in your posts! :confused:

Marvin S
02-26-2010, 09:34 PM
I always wonder how your type figures to know so much about someone you've never met!? I was just making a comment about how both parties grab power, and it's not a good thing. I believe I even stated "regardless of party affiliation" and you jumped right into presuming to know what others are thinking, let alone their entire life-long voting record. Very amusing. Inaccurate and presumptuous, but very amusing. As for looking in the mirror....why bother? I can read all about myself in your posts! :confused:

2040 posts in 8 months tells a lot about someone. You are not a really in depth sort of mind ;-). I would note that the majority of your posts can not resist the temptation to reflect your partisanship :(.

JDogger
02-26-2010, 11:41 PM
2040 posts in 8 months tells a lot about someone. You are not a really in depth sort of mind ;-). I would note that the majority of your posts can not resist the temptation to reflect your partisanship :(.

Dave, Marvin's post history only goes back some twenty pages, but take a look at his website. JD

dnf777
02-27-2010, 05:49 AM
2040 posts in 8 months tells a lot about someone. You are not a really in depth sort of mind ;-). I would note that the majority of your posts can not resist the temptation to reflect your partisanship :(.

You're a funny man. You do follow the standard script of when you run out of constructive intelligent things to say, you attack personally. Really shows YOUR depth. Just FYI, you came in at just under 50% correct on your soothsayer predictions of how I voted. Not as smart as you think you are, when it comes to stuffing people into categories. Don't get too ruffled, the last thing I would ever try to do is change your mind on any matter. And to that end, have a nice weekend.

Joe S.
02-27-2010, 07:07 AM
But again, whether or not we have sacrificed any rights is debatable.

Unless you are a US citizen held without charges or access to legal advice in a Navy brig in SC for a long period of time. Then it's pretty clear.

Nice To See You Again Kevin Regards,

Joe S.

road kill
02-27-2010, 07:37 AM
I always wonder how your type figures to know so much about someone you've never met!? I was just making a comment about how both parties grab power, and it's not a good thing. I believe I even stated "regardless of party affiliation" and you jumped right into presuming to know what others are thinking, let alone their entire life-long voting record. Very amusing. Inaccurate and presumptuous, but very amusing. As for looking in the mirror....why bother? I can read all about myself in your posts! :confused:
My dad always told me "a dog is a dog till you look him in the eye, then he is Mr. Dog!!!"


I never judge a man till I look him in the eye.




rk

Leddyman
02-27-2010, 12:01 PM
My dad always told me "a dog is a dog till you look him in the eye, then he is Mr. Dog!!!"


I never judge a man till I look him in the eye.




rk

That is good advice. Mind if I use that?