Since you either a)lack the ability to, or b)are too lazy to conduct 5 seconds of independent research that might awaken your oblivious mind, here are a mere 3 links that will give you some insight as to how the Unpatriot Act is being abused. Of course, this is all 'alleged'.:dis: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/21/attack/main564189.shtml http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act#Alleged_abuses_under_the_USA_PATRIOT_Act http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=17920&c=206 Since you claim to be a Libertarian, here is a search conducted on a Libertarian think-tank website for articles pertaining to Unpatriot Act abuses. Careful, you might learn something! Ooooook, now you haven't exactly explained how they make the distinction betweeen YOU and CRIMINALS. And you are dead wrong, the government has a desire for information of all individuals, not just criminals. I'll reiterate; it makes exertion of control an easier task. Even if those laws would have done absolutely nothing in the way of preventing 9/11, huh? Riiiiiight. It's flattering that you think that I made up this conspiracy, but here's a newsflash for you: this ain't nothing new. And I'm not going to rehash what's already been covered. It's not my problem if you're a slow learner. The last thing I need from you is a lesson in anything. Maybe you are the kind of person that things on here personally. But frankly, I am above that.
of course indeed. i do? i spefically have stated that i voted for bush, as well as i my specific reasons for not voting libertarian. i use specifics when i explain things. you should try it. also, leave the describing of my political leanings to me. i agree that you claim that is true. hey a personal attack. i guess that means i am winning. of course you aren't. i can ask for specifics all day and this is what you will tell me. people whine alot about the patriot act but never have any real instances of abuse. incorrect, you needed, and were provided, a lesson on word usage. you thought ulterior was "alterior". you got mad when i told you, which i enjoyed. again i request specific examples of how the patriot act is abusing our liberty. opinion pieces dont count, bub. if all you can come with is abuses of prisoners at gauntanamo, then i still won't be inclined to oppose the patriot act, because i encourage maximum secret torture, abuse and disrespect of every single person held at guantanamo.
I agree with everything martin said...and then some. martin, I am going to be at 90 Hudson in Jersey City for a week on 8/1 and again on 8/22. We have got to get together for a beverage.
Heck, Can anyone name 1 thing that has been enacted by the government that hasn't been abused at one time or another? What I don't like about our government, sooner or later everything goes too far. You name it, Social Security, Welfare, political correctness, etc. The act enabled in the 70's to invade people's privacy to capture gangsters, I forgot what its called. Lets see, Waco, Ruby Ridge, Elian Gonzalez, anything else? Look, I see no reason to have Homeland Security and the Patriot Act if we aren't going to control our borders, what is the point? We have plenty of Illegals and bad guys, criminals crossing the border to do bad things to good people. The Millenium bomber crossed the Canadian border, the bad guys aren't stupid and will always exploit our weakness. They could sneak over either border, rent a cessna, plant a nuke, that would do more damage than anything on 9/11. They are now putting an X-ray machine as we speak in airports across the country, I say again, this goes to far and its over the line but yet we can't discriminate between an arab or races or someones grandma and we won't secure our borders either.
Chaos, Come on now, could you have found a more biased source than CBS? Read between the lines, I made it easy by putting key words in bold. Oh, God, say it ain't so. The poor little terrorist. The poor little illegals. They could be scarred for life. Poor little scumbags. :bncry: So excactly how long should it take to conduct an investigation? sounds good to me. :thumb: So, 64% either like it the way it is or think that it is not strong enough. Only 25% believe like you do Chaos. Public opinion is not on your side here. I wonder what happended to that other 11%. Maybe they are being falsely imprisoned somewhere.:hihi: They threw that last part in without any proof. "Other polls", whatever. You talk allot about the name of the act. It doesn't seem to make sense to you. On your second link I found this. [font=Arial, Helvetica] [/font] I love this. It doesn't help your argument, Chaos, to post crap from the ACLU. The ACLU has become one of the most corrupt organizations in this country and I couldn't care less what their executive director has to say. If the ACLU says it, then it is a far left, twisted lie. Period
The ACLU is about as far left as you can get. They make Micheal Moore look like Jerry Falwell. say it after me. all together now...you can do it...say it.....liberal agenda....AGENDA...... not a Good agenda. One of those Agenda's that would ban all guns and have you driving EVO's powered by recycled buffalo dung.
Also, why is it always referred to by the left as the "administration's war on terrorism"? Why not our war, or America's war, or something? Hell, even call it the war.
Chaos is losing creditibility fast referring to CBS and the ACLU to make his point. Might as well use Newsweek, Al Jazera and an Iranian source for news! :redface: :lol:
Doesn't sound to me like you're trying too hard to deny it... The fundamental oversight in your little demand is that the 'beauty' of the Unpatriot Act is that it is worded so as to all but dissolve the definition of 'abuse'. In other words it's so broad that it basically allows the authorities unchecked power. Therefore, whatever happens could be 'allowed' under the ambiguous language of the provisions, hence practically making 'abuse' necessarily false. Clever, ain't it? If you are at all privy to the allowances under the Unpatriot Act, then you know that the following passage has effectively been rendered useless: Incorrect. You assumed, and wrongfully so, that I lacked advanced knowledge of said terminology, and did not err in that instance. Again, it’s a frequent tactic by he whose arguing skills rival that of a banana to divert attention away from their weaknesses. Come on, now. Source discrediting is too easy of a way out. You can dismiss anything on the grounds that you simply don’t trust the source. If you’re going to try to argue, refute the facts, not the sources. Ouch! What in the world ever gave you the impression that I was in the least bit concerned with public opinion? Have you any idea how completely uninformed and misled the network news-soaked minds of the general public are? Oh wait, public opinion must not agree with that, either. Dang. Have you bothered to compare the number of Libertarian voters to that of Republicans or Democrats in last years presidential campaign? They’re a heck of a lot more staggering than that. In your haste to discredit one of my arguments, you neglected to actually heed the definition of ‘backronym’: That’s right, the 'abbreviations' were only derived once the name ‘Patriot’ was stamped on there, not the other way around. This only begs the question as to why they felt they needed to further ‘sugarcoat’ a suspect name to begin with. Again with the feeble attempts at source discrediting, huh? Shame on ya. How is the ACLU corrupt? Who was paid off and what were they paid to do? What have they done that is outside of the interests of preserving civil liberties? It’s real easy for you to sit back and chastise them, particularly because you have never had your civil liberties threatened. And O’Reilly’s diatribes make it that much easier to hate them, right? (Yes, I’ve heard him spew the phrase ‘the most dangerous organization in the country’, which bears a striking resemblance to one of your ‘assessments’) I don’t always agree with the people that they defend. But just like you must fight even for those with whom you don’t agree, or whose voice will be used against you, the constitutional rights of every American citizen must be adhered to. It all comes down to checks and balances. The ACLU is absolutely necessary. Credibility? On a bulletin board? Are you kidding me? I'm not trying to win anyone over, dude. You must have mistaken me for someone who gives a crap. Throughout the entirety of this thread, from the very beginning, you all on the 'other' side of the fence instantly attack any source that someone on 'my' side of the fence references. I suppose around these parts it doesn't have any credibility unless its copyrighted by Fox. :dis: Sleazy diversion tactics; products of corporate controlled, mind-numbing newmedia.
