Why do you hate America so much?

[Airlift]

What is it about freedom and personal liberty that makes you feel so threatened? Why do you attack our way of life? Will you not rest until America has fallen and its citizens are so afraid that they will roll over for dictatorship?

These are the questions I would like to ask the mysterious figures in the Justice Department who are pushing anti-american legislation and calling it patriotic. Since I can't ask them, I'll put my questions to our Bush Administration Fan Club. WTF is wrong with you that you would even think of the Patriot Act 2 as anything less than an outright attack on our constitution?

[Hijinks]

terrorist.

[Airlift]

Under the newest patriot act, you calling me a terrorist on some random web board is enough to make it true and subject me to mandatory DNA sampling for inclusion in the national database. The refusal to submit to said test comes with a year in federal prison and $100,000 fine.

[archaic1128]

Aye, the patriot act 2 is a very serious issue. Notice how the media is hush hush about it? God save us all if this thing passes.

Allthough i bet most people here don't have a clue what it is about. If you wnat to read some info on it heres the link.
http://www.infowars.com/print_patriotact2_analysis.htm

[Hijinks]

Originally posted by Airlift
Under the newest patriot act, you calling me a terrorist on some random web board is enough to make it true and subject me to mandatory DNA sampling for inclusion in the national database. The refusal to submit to said test comes with a year in federal prison and $100,000 fine.

You should just support our president in this time of war.

If all of these regulations save just one american, they are worth it.

[Hamma]

It doesent matter what we say, bush said it himself a few weeks ago in regards to the recent peace demonstrations.

Our politicians are going to do what they think is right, regardless of what we say :p

[Confectrix]

Actually, Hamma, he did not say he does not care what the protestors say. He did say he values their opinion, and respects the democratic right for them to disagree with him.

President Bush has to make decisions for the entire country, not just for the very few of this nation whom think war is not acceptable. I for one think his case is very weak. Think of it this way, when 65% (according to CBS poll, 2/18) of Americans want war and the rest don't; there's your two-thirds.

I think Bush said it best himself, "I don't make politcal decisions based upon minor demonstrations; that would be like making policy decisions based on a focus group." (Paraphrased)

Our elected leaders will do what they think is right based on intelligence we don't have. Our leaders are elected by us and are thus held accountable. Bush listens to other arugments; but he doesn't agree. Should we tear him down?

In a word,

No.

[Airlift]

Even the first patriot act had to be reconfirmed 5 years after its passage or it would expire. It's like they were saying "Yeah, we know this shit is illegal and it hurts America, but if you don't like it later we'll stop." Not only does the Patriot Act 2 not include any such provision, but it specifically removes that clause from the first anti-freedom act. So instead we get to hear "Hell yeah we know it's illegal. Fuckoff, we're doing it anyway."

[Confectrix]

First off, that infowars.com "news"site seemed intent on making the act seem worse than it may indeed be. Such sides have a persuasive air, which is counterproductive. I would rather the site provide the facts; and only facts with no personal intepretation.

You can read the proposed act in its entirity at this address; After reading, I suggest you from your own opinions:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c108:1:./temp/~c108n1e3Ri::

While this can be a radical and some might say intrusive peice of legislation, I can only hope we as a nation keep an open mind to new protective measures as we face unprecendented threats and attacks from new enemies and in new ways.

I am not saying I support the legislation, nor am I saying I am against it. I myself have not read the text in its entirity (very long you know, and the computer screen hurts my eyes after a while). Before we know all the facts, let's keep an open mind.

When some tell you only what they want to tell you and in a way that is twisted, the information cannot be acceptable. Any taint of persuasion discovered in an article shows the author had a purpose other than reporting.

Read that text. Think on it. Decide for yourselves.

I'll do the same.

My two cents,

[Airlift]

Our elected leaders will do what they think is right based on intelligence we don't have. Our leaders are elected by us and are thus held accountable. Bush listens to other arugments; but he doesn't agree.

Shenannigans! We don't have the intelligence only because those fuckers roundly dismiss the legal and constitutional requests made by watchdog groups and the media for information. In case you forgot about that little piece of legislature called the Freedom of Information Act.

Now with the Patriot Act 2 (which will be quickly rammed through once the war starts), more open-ended survielance powers are being handed over while simultaneously deconstructing the checks and balances mandated by the very nature of our government.

Bush claims to listen to opposing arguments, but his administration proceeds with their course without even breaking stride. Afterall, war gives us a perfect excuse to push a $300 billion dollar budget deficit. It also draws all attention away from the myriad of domestic issues that will not be addressed in this term. Further, it gives us the perfect place to test our EMP bombs and the rest of our efficiency advancements over the first gulf war. I mean, who has time to investigate government and corporate graft when we're all out scrambling for duct tape and plastic sheeting so we can be safe if Iraq launches its fleet of missile-bearing unmarked pleasure boats.

[Airlift]

Here, try an additional analysis of the law on the table: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/ramasastry/20030217.html

[Hijinks]

Findlaw is just another tool of the liberal media.

[archaic1128]

First off, that infowars.com "news"site seemed intent on making the act seem worse than it may indeed be.

First, how can you say this with a straight face? Everything about this completely goes againt our CONSTITUTION.

You can read the proposed act in its entirity at this address; After reading, I suggest you from your own opinions:

I have done more article reading on this subject than you can shake a stick at. Don't give me your Fukin BS about forming my own opinion.

If you even think that for 1 second this government will not abuse this you are exactly what they want, a SHEEPLE. Grow some balls and learn the CONSTITUTION so you are able to defend our GOD given RIGHTS, what little we have left anyways.

[Hijinks]

Originally posted by archaic1128
[B]Grow some balls and learn the CONSTITUTION so you are able to defend our GOD given RIGHTS, what little we have left anyways.

The constitution is old and out-dated. Do you think Thomas Jefferson could have imagined 767 jets being used as missles? The constitution is not worth the life of even ONE soccermom.

mmm soccermoms.

[Unregistered]

Is this not the hight of hipocracy?

These fucking hippies support politicians when they trample all over my rights with Afirmitive Action, and Political Correctness, but the second someone wants to start keeping tabs on their Anti-American protesting asses you scream bloody murder.

Wake the fuck up. This shit has been happening slowly for many, many years and not one of you wanted to do anything to stop it. It was ok when they stomped on my rights, but now that they are after yours your starting to worry.

I hope they put every last one of those hippie fucks on the watch list.

Just like the old saying

When they came for the blacks I did nothing
When they came for the **** I did nothing
When they came for the ******* I did nothing
and when they came for me...there was no one left to do anything.

Yep this sucks all right. Thanks alot.

[Unregistered]

Originally posted by Hijinks
The constitution is old and out-dated. Do you think Thomas Jefferson could have imagined 767 jets being used as missles? The constitution is not worth the life of even ONE soccermom.

mmm soccermoms.


You know your a stupid fuck right?

[Hijinks]

Originally posted by Unregistered
Is this not the hight of hipocracy?

These fucking hippies support politicians

Yes, becasue Republicans have NEVER trampled on peoples rights.

EVERY POLITICIAN supports trampling on peoples rights if it will get them reelected.

[Airlift]

Is this not the hight of hipocracy?

These fucking hippies support politicians....[blahblahblah]

Good idea, we should take this out of the realm of debate, and start calling each other names like fucking fuck and such. I'll be a hippy if you'll be a fucking fascist fuck.

Affirmative Action laws are a-whole-nother subject from unchecked police-state laws. If you can't debate on this topic, why not go to one of the bazillion threads that already beat your topic into the ground?

[Hijinks]

Originally posted by Unregistered
You know your a stupid fuck right?

Ever heard of sarcasm? Fucking tool.


:p

[Unregistered]

The point is that you can't one day say "The constitution doesn't really mean that you can own guns", and then turn around the next and say "Oh no the government is taking my rights!!"

Either you fight any legislation that wants to dumb down the constitution, and take away our rights, or you shut the fuck up and enjoy the Orwellian Society you helped create.

[archaic1128]

The constitution is old and out-dated. Do you think Thomas Jefferson could have imagined 767 jets being used as missles? The constitution is not worth the life of even ONE soccermom.

Are you fucking nuts dude? The Constitution has nothing to do w/ acts of terrorism. The CONSTITUTION is there to prevent a GOVERNMENT from ENSLAVING us and our RIGHTS. If you so choose to live in a POLICE state where the GOVERNMENT controls every aspect of your life MOVE TO CHINA!

Let me say the DUMBING down of young americans is working.

[Confectrix]

First I respond to Airlift:

The Freedom of Information Act is used for information not regarded as a threat to national security. If that information, when diffused through the public, would prove detrimental to the country as a whole, then it should not and it is indeed not dispersed. When no longer a threat, it will be released; until then what are you going to do with the knowledge of let's say Iraqi mobile biological labs; other than tip off Huessain?

One cannot use the checks and balances to disassemble those very same checks and balances. Also, why would the legislative and executive branches want to push this? After all every six years (four for the executive), these branches have a complete overhaul of staff (senaters and congress-people). Those same people now in power would not have this power. Come now, you mean they are actually setting up an ediface which would limit their power after they are out of office? Or wait? They intend to put a clause in which makes all previously elected officals exempt from legislation. Remember, any law they pass, they have to follow too. No one is above the law. Except God of course.

This is not a testing ground to test our supposed EMP weapons. We do that already in secret locations. We do not wish to go to war. I don't think we should; only as a last report would I adefer to the other side. Preventative war is something new and quite honestly, unheard of.

A war does not hide a budget. A war creates a massive black hole for the budget. Believe me, no one will overlook this budget.

Now to Archaic1128:

If it really went against our consititution then it would not be passed and upheld by our elected officals. Reasoning is above. No law is perfect; just as no government is perfect.

Always form your own opinion. Polarization of the topic does not help. The unification of a diverse pool of ideas will assist in moving this debate further. That is what the country is about. The collection and usage of all ideas. We listen to everybody; even you.

Power is tempting. I think a famous quote goes something like this, "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutly." The power in our country is shared by an intricate system of three branches. Corruption is then limited, and repaiered continously by these three levels.

EDIT:

Just read your latest post Archaic1128. Dumbing down of the young? Hmm. Dirty habits never die then. Your limited use of vocabulary (along with everyone else whom used such words) is quite degenerating.

[Doobz]

some of you people here who seem to support this act need to have lived in communist Soviet Union, an entire society living in fear.

you would very quickly do all you can to abolish this act
or perhaps you all should read Fahrenheit 451. nice example of what the government will get away with when the people believe it only wants to help them

[Airlift]

Utter drivel. You don't fight every battle any more than I do, yet because I don't want to be dna-catalogged and cross-referenced against my credit report while the government surveils me without due process, I'm a hypocrite?

Do you know the definition of Domestic Terrorist?

According to the first Patriot Act, domestic terrorism is any action that endangers human life that is a violation of any Federal or State law.

Even if they can't find a Jay-walking offense to label you as a terrorist with, they can (according to the Partiot Act 2) label you as a foreign power to get pen registers on American citizens for a foreign intelligence investigation. Will they have to show any criminal or terrorist connection? No. Will they have to defend their methods and allegations in a US Court? No.

I may sleep through the inching away of your rights, but I'm sure as shit going to wake up and ring the alarm when you come looking to take the whole hog.

[Doobz]

to respond to airlift,

i understand your reasoning of why these people would not want to pass this, because they will not always be in power. what alot of people don't realise, is that the world of the government that we dont see is very insidious, able threaten important people who know what will happen if they don't go the way a certain powerful person wants them to.
theres ALOT we don't see

[Airlift]

My fault for not labeling my response in a heated thread. I was calling Unreg's post about 'fight em all or submit to 1984' utter drivel and posting my response to it.

[Unregistered]

Ok Airlift when I'm talking to you I will say "Airlift is a stupid Hippie Fuck" so that you'll be able to clearly see the diffrence between someone speaking directly to you and someone making blanket genralizations about Democrats and how they only cry when their rights get steped on.

You never struck me as the type that would failed reading comprehension in school, but hey I guess i was wrong.

I do not support anything that erodes the rights given to me in the constitotion. That has nothing to do with weather or not I am Libral or Conservative. It's because I am an American and I understand that what makes the country great is the our constitution.

This issue is no diffrent then Gun Control, or Affirmitave Action. Both of those seek to weaken the constitution and people support it. If you don't oppose everything across the board you have no reason to cry when stuff like this happens.

[Airlift]

You never struck me as the type that would failed reading comprehension in school, but hey I guess i was wrong.

That's fair Unreg. You never struck me as the type that would have failed grammar in school, either. I guess neither one of us is perfect.

[Hijinks]

Originally posted by Unregistered

This issue is no diffrent then Gun Control, or Affirmitave Action. Both of those seek to weaken the constitution and people support it. If you don't oppose everything across the board you have no reason to cry when stuff like this happens.

Nice strawman.

[Unregistered]

Originally posted by Airlift
That's fair Unreg. You never struck me as the type that would have failed grammar in school, either. I guess neither one of us is perfect.

Then you haven't been reading to many of my posts because I have piss poor spelling and grammer. Especially when I'm typing fast.


Hijinks: Do you do more then troll? Haven't seen you offer up anything in this thread but stupidity.

[Hijinks]

"Do you do more then troll? "

Its a dirty job, but someone has to do it.

[archaic1128]

[B]"If it really went against our consititution then it would not be passed and upheld by our elected officals. "[/B}

Just to show you how misinformed you are:


Section 8: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence [sic.] and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform 1 throughout the United States."

Section 9: � "No Capitation [sic.], or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

Our CONSTITUTION directly states that no citizen shall be DIRECTLY TAXED. We however may be taxed indirectly. Yet our government tried to ram a 16th amendment down our throats(which BTW did not pass, which in turn makes paying taxes VOLUNTARY)
SO please enlighten me again on your flawed notion that if it goes against our constitution the government would not pass it. THX

[Hijinks]

Originally posted by archaic1128


Our CONSTITUTION directly states that no citizen shall be DIRECTLY TAXED. We however may be taxed indirectly. Yet our government tried to ram a 16th amendment down our throats(which BTW did not pass, which in turn makes paying taxes VOLUNTARY)
THX

Tell that to the IRS.

[archaic1128]

Hijinx,
Believe it or not the IRS has STATED this to be TRUE, if you would like me to show you the link i will. As a matter of fact the only way you are OBLIGATED to pay INCOME TAX is if you have a SS#. THJen the IRS has stated you MUST pay.

[Hijinks]

Show me. Then I will show you where a guy was ordered to stop telling people about it.

[Airlift]

This is not a testing ground to test our supposed EMP weapons. We do that already in secret locations. We do not wish to go to war. I don't think we should; only as a last report would I adefer to the other side. Preventative war is something new and quite honestly, unheard of.

Ok, you caught me in a red herring, but I'd be willing to bet you that the E-Bomb will play a prominent role in the war. I predict that it will come in especially handy for siezing oil wells and refineries without damaging the hardware.

Also, why would the legislative and executive branches want to push this? After all every six years (four for the executive), these branches have a complete overhaul of staff (senaters and congress-people).

This bill did not originate with the legislature. It surfaced from the Justice Department. While cabinet posts and ministry positions change out regularly, the enforcement agencies have quite a bit more stability in policy-makers. And anyway, do you really think Ashcroft and pals are concerned that they might one day be out of power? They see this move as good for their version of America. It is as much about preserving the power for the next generation of Jack-boots as it is about feeding the powerbase that this administration has already hoarded.

A war does not hide a budget. A war creates a massive black hole for the budget. Believe me, no one will overlook this budget.

We shall see. Only time will tell on this one, but I contend that they would have a lot harder time pushing the largest deficit since Reagan's administration if there was no looming terror threat to rattle in our faces.

[archaic1128]

Well i will let you start your research here:
http://www.uhuh.com/taxstuff/incomtax.htm

then you can go here:
http://www.uhuh.com/taxstuff/irsnolaw.htm

But here's the just of it from a former IRS agent in his report to his superiors
"For the next 14 months, Joe poured over the information. A few weeks ago, he submitted a 90 page report to his superiors at IRS. In his report, Joe informed his superiors that he had found the following information to be legally accurate and factual (partial list): "

Nextime, don't threaten me you sheeple
and if you still don't believe it heres a letter from a senator,
http://www.uhuh.com/taxstuff/phihatch.htm

[Hijinks]

Who should I believe? uhuh.com or the IRS?

http://www.ustreas.gov/irs/ci/tax_fraud/index.htm

/irs/ci/tax_fraud/index.htm

[archaic1128]

and if you still don't believe it heres a letter from a senator,
http://www.uhuh.com/taxstuff/phihatch.htm

And btw, that was written from a former IRS agent who was ordered to RESIGN because of his report. Now who do you believe a tyranical governbment agency or an senator or a ex-agent?

[Hijinks]

http://www.ustreas.gov/irs/ci/tax_fraud/frivolous.pdf

The word "voluntary," as used in Flora and in IRS publications refers to our system of allowing taxpayers to detaermine the correct ammount of tax and complete the appropriate returns, rather then have the government determine the tax for them.

[Hijinks]

Originally posted by archaic1128
and if you still don't believe it heres a letter from a senator,
http://www.uhuh.com/taxstuff/phihatch.htm



Actually, thats a letter TO a senator. [edited to sound less like an asshole.]

[archaic1128]

Exactly, if you currently have a SS#, and sign a 1040 w/ a SS# on it you are required to pay taxes. IF you DON"T hvae a SS# and DON"T file a 1040 you are not REQUIRED to PAY TAXES.

ALSO, a side note, it is against the law for a company to NOT hire you if you don't have a SS#. thank you very much

[archaic1128]

oops, i stand corrected i posted it wrong. now let me get the one i was looking for.

[Sputty]

It's times like this when the hippies start coming up here....Although I think this "Patriot" Act 2 just rips your rights from you.

[Lexington_Steele]

Originally posted by Unregistered
These fucking hippies support politicians when they trample all over my rights with Afirmitive Action, and Political Correctness, but the second someone wants to start keeping tabs on their Anti-American protesting asses you scream bloody murder.

Wake the fuck up. This shit has been happening slowly for many, many years and not one of you wanted to do anything to stop it. It was ok when they stomped on my rights, but now that they are after yours your starting to worry.

I hope they put every last one of those hippie fucks on the watch list.

Unregistered your argument is fundamentally flawed and you should quit with the name calling. I do not consider myself anywhere close to a hippy, although I know many who are. They tend to be good people. In addition, you have stereotyped all liberals as extremists and that is what you are basing your argument on. That foundation is flawed thus your argument is flawed. If you would quit stereotyping liberals your argument would have more merit.

You are arguing that supporting some government regulation of society equates to wanting a 1984 type of environment. That is akin to saying that wanting to lessing the power of government equates to wanting lawless anarchy. If we did sink to anarchy should I go blaming you and tell you that you asked for it?

I don't think that you want total anarchy, why do you think that liberals want to live with big brother controlling their every action?

Rights are not an all or nothing endeavor. It is a matter of finding the propper balance of regulations versus freedoms. Wanting a propper balance is not hypocracy.

The Republican party talks about making the government have less regulation of society, but then they introduce something like the patriot act and somehow you find the liberals to be the Hypocrits?

Patriot act is going too far. That is not where I think the balance of freedom versus regulation to be.

Just because I want some government regulation does not mean I want complete governmental controll. Please stop stereotyping liberals as people who want communism. They just want a good balance between government regulation and freedom.

[Lexington_Steele]

Originally posted by Hijinks
Who should I believe? uhuh.com or the IRS?

http://www.ustreas.gov/irs/ci/tax_fraud/index.htm

/irs/ci/tax_fraud/index.htm
ROFL. Hmm, I wonder which is more credible.

[Lexington_Steele]

Originally posted by Unregistered
You know your a stupid fuck right?
Way to add to the discussion here. I find it funny that you procede to call Hijinks a troll after this post. Poeple in glass houses and all that.

[archaic1128]

Here ya go hijinx, this is one but i will post the one i can't seem to relocate when i find it.

http://www.thelawthatneverwas.com

click on letters and read them all, it's quite interesting.

[Airlift]

Come on Bohica, how can you pass this thread up? Half the reason I created this thread was to see what you guys think of the Patriot Act series. If you want, you can dodge the question by heaping insults on the hippy democrats. That answers my question as well any other, and you can see that it has already been effectively employed on this thread.

Don't make me beg, Nav. Here I am, Mr. Anti-politics, hanging wide open for political debate, and I walked into it with open eyes. There are even some easy attacks left out there that haven't been used. :eek: :eek:

And for that matter, wtf no LiquidLex? The words democrat, republican, hippy, fascist, liberal media, affirmative action, terrorism, war, and economy were all used repeatedly in this thread, and yet no love from our emphatic politickers?

[Sputty]

I think only a Vulcan's logic can end this debate/flame war

[Airlift]

Ok, I'm the dumbass for missing Lex's mass of posts above.

[Lexington_Steele]

Originally posted by Airlift
And for that matter, wtf no LiquidLex? The words democrat, republican, hippy, fascist, liberal media, affirmative action, terrorism, war, and economy were all used repeatedly in this thread, and yet no love from our emphatic politickers?
I appologise for running late. Did I miss the party?

BTW I too am suprised that we have not seen BOHICA chime in. I also wonder where Sand Trout, and his rants about freedom, stands on this one?

[Sputty]

Too touchy foir them..Or maybe the government is threatening them to not debate anymore. Hmmm...maybe...

[Navaron]

Hang on. I'm looking at buying a house. I'll be back later.

BTW, me, mist and vic are the only conservatives - Dio is socialist, Civilian, denali, and Ranger (i think) are independent, and Tobias is a Vanu. Err liberal.


Trust me, me and Mist have a different view on this than you think. BTW, ask him about driver's licenses. It's crazy shit.

Edit for PS: Sputty, don't call me out, I'll oppose you just on GP. Nah, nothings too touchy for me. You guys are impatient, this thread's not even 10 hours old.

[Sputty]

Dio's a communist? Get him!!! :lol: JK. I know of Dio's views. And, Nav, make sure you don't buy a cat house. BTW Nav, I was joking about the "touchy" thing. Althoguh..I do believe the government is after us all for unfolding their plot. What government you ask? The secret world government!

[Airlift]

Actually, I would expect conservatives to be kind of split on the issue. On the one hand you have support for the conservative administration, on the other you have errosion of essential liberties. GL with the house.

P.S. 10 hours is too slow for whores of leetness.

[Lexington_Steele]

Originally posted by Sputty
Too touchy foir them..Or maybe the government is threatening them to not debate anymore. Hmmm...maybe...
You know, I was wondering where the MLWA was when the thread that included the advertisement about gays was in full swing.

[Sputty]

Where do you think? :brow:

[archaic1128]

Hmm, i'm begining to love these BOHICAN's. We seem to share the same views. I will make my final assessment after i see their opinions.

Hijinx, hope i didn't offend you by posting documentation. I'd hate to get sued for a hate crime and all. :D

"ROFL. Hmm, I wonder which is more credible"

Lex, it seems to me any form of government telling you what, where, how and why you should do things is A-OK in yer book.

[Airlift]

Archaic, it would be a waste of time thinking about whether you offended Hijinks (ever). You're actually seeing him on good behavior on these forums, because he wants to get in the beta ;)

[Lexington_Steele]

Originally posted by archaic1128
"ROFL. Hmm, I wonder which is more credible"

Lex, it seems to me any form of government telling you what, where, how and why you should do things is A-OK in yer book.
And you beleive that if it is on the internet it must be true? You do understand that some sources are more credible than others. I hope you don't beleive that just because it is in print it is true.

I don't think it is a stretch to believe that the IRS knows a little somerthing about tax laws.

[archaic1128]

Well Lex,
If you knew anything at all about CONSTITUTIONAL LAW you would understand the FACT that AMENDMENT 16 was never ratified. It is also well documented that the IRS uses scare tactics and is completely out of control, this is irrefutable.

If you fail to drink the water after being lead to it, you can only blame yourself.

[Lexington_Steele]

Originally posted by archaic1128
Well Lex,
If you knew anything at all about CONSTITUTIONAL LAW you would understand the FACT that AMENDMENT 16 was never ratified. It is also well documented that the IRS uses scare tactics and is completely out of control, this is irrefutable.

If you fail to drink the water after being lead to it, you can only blame yourself.
That doesn't change the fact that a government site is probably more creditable than some random site.

Some tinfoil hat paramilitary group would say that it is common knowlege that all kinds of conspiracies go on and the governemnt is covering them up. This statement does not make them a creditable source.

If you are brought to poisonous water, you can only blame youself if drinking it kills you.

[Hijinks]

Originally posted by archaic1128
It is also well documented that the IRS uses scare tactics and is completely out of control, this is irrefutable.


Well, that is true at least.

One of my co-workers has been audited every year since 1996. He finally got them to tell him that he was being audited because he is drawing a retirement before the age of 55.

He is retired from the Marine Corps.

sillly tax man.

[Hijinks]

Originally posted by Lexington_Steele
Some tinfoil hat paramilitary group would say that it is common knowlege that all kinds of conspiracies go on and the governemnt is covering them up. This statement does not make them a creditable source.


The simple fact that most people don't know about them is proof to some that they are being covered up.

[Fire_Monkey]

First of all, I would like to clear up the issue of "liberals", Liberal is a word that republicans started using to badmouth far left democrats. I for one am on the far left, and I agree wholely with Airlift's statements. And BTW Hijinks please stop trolling or Hamma might get mad :nono:

[KoldFusion]

Can't believe you guys left me out of your political fanatics list.... i'm hurting deeply.

I'm not going to be long winded about this. I'll just say that I have faith in our system as it was established all those years ago. If this thing DOES go through I don't feel it will survive long b/c the supreme court will declare it unconstitutional. I also saw something on infowar.com about food containing some of the chemicals found in marjauna. It was a bill that was supposed to ban the consumption of those foods or something like that.... it never made it through.
I think I would hold back my ranting about such a bill until it indeed comes to pass. Then if need be people can rally against it. I know... i know.... that is the ideal way things should work.... but really the bill hasn't passed yet and you all are ready to kill.

[Hamma]

Originally posted by Confectrix
Actually, Hamma, he did not say he does not care what the protestors say. He did say he values their opinion, and respects the democratic right for them to disagree with him. Then he said "good game,this is what I am doing" :lol:

Anyway it completely floors me everytime a thread like this comes up, how people feel the need to align themselves with a party, or catagorize someone as a "liberal" or a "conservative" and how people are so blind to the views of others once they align themselves with a certain party.

This country is a lose/lose situation at this point. I lost all my faith in democracy long ago.

[Hamma]

Originally posted by Unregistered
You know your a stupid fuck right? btw Unreg, everyone else here has to live by the same rules. So instead of flaming folks, unless you are adding to the conversation, don't bother posting.

[Navaron]

"Liberal is a word that republicans started using to badmouth far left democrats."

This is the last thing in a string of items that you have either made up or don't know about.

Liberal is not an insult. It is as real of a word as conservative. It's in every political science book out there. Liberal is a political leaning, and it is a fact that most liberals are democrats, while a few are republicans. The same thing goes for conservatives and republicans.

[archaic1128]

"That doesn't change the fact that a government site is probably more creditable than some random site."

Lex,
So what you're saying is that the US Supreme court records are not a credible source? My you really are brainwashed.

[Airlift]

The connotation is the thing. It's true that conservative minds use the word liberal in a negative light, but liberal minds are the same way with the word conservative.

But Navaron, what do you think about the Patriot Acts?

[Confectrix]

Archaic1128:

I am certainly suprised at the level of "digging" to which you have made evident by your superficial facts.

Your talk about the IRS brings memory of a certain former congressman [he was expelled], James Traficant. The IRS may use scare tactics on you, but I and everyone I know has no issue with them. This is a big country you know. Even one million affected by the IRS audit service is a small percentage.

Furthermore, in response to your statement on taxes. One, it is below me to care wheter or not I HAVE to pay taxes. I pay taxes because I SHOULD. How do the roads you drive on stay the shape there in? The freedom with which is provided you? The peace and quiet you enjoy? The privilages you enjoy on a daily basis? This money comes from taxes; from the people of a country working together for a common society in a society. If you want a free ride by quoting some unreferenced and ill-followed statement then so be it. I, along with many other Americans don't mind providing cash for the country we live.

The Constitution is a living document; meant to evolve with time; not be straitlaced and domineering. Kind sir, I tell you, if we followed that document to the letter up until this day without change, we would not be where we are today.

And taxes, without them, you would have no country to live in.

Hamma:

It saddens me to see you have no faith in Democracy. In what then, do you place your trust? We are not in a lose/lose siutation. I don't understand your viewpoint.

WRH_KoldFusion:

I was going to move into the Supreme Court overruling this Act if it was brought before it as a case. Good thinking. Checks and balances seem to be forgotten in the minds of those whom only see the bad of an act [which may never occur].

On a final note, this war is not about oil. It's about ensuring the freedoms of all involved in the situation. In our case, freedom from Saddam's threats of terrorism [still not proven he has any links to terrosit groups] and in the case of the Iraqi peoples, freedom from a tyrannous dictator.

[Bighoss]

as an American I feel that our country is not in the same good shape it use to be in where our president just had sex with interns and let other people do his job.:D

I don't like the presidents priorities and I don't like our foriegn policy. I definently don't like the way the economy is heading and I think that the goverment is using fear tactics to scare us into this war on Iraq. This high terror level seems to be a good example. People won't want to continue to buy plastic sheets and duck tape and living in constant fear. They will obivously wish for any solution to get out of this situation and the majority of people will turn the the war on Iraq seeing the country is divided it will be enough for this war. Why else would they make such a big deal about TERROR ALERT HIGH: ORANGE LEVEL (ARE YOU GOING TO DIE?) this seems to be the basic headline on the news.

The patriot acts scare me espically operation total awarness. I don't have anything to hide so I guess I have nothing to worry about but I'm sure people would be easily framable. Just like the days where if the government wanted somone gone they would claim there a commy.

I am in favor of some kind of USA citizen identification card. It would help end illegal immagration and could be a smart card and contain many other useful items on it.

But I know somone here will think I'm retarded because hey... I'm Bighoss so Human torch FLAME ON:furious:

[archaic1128]

"I am certainly suprised at the level of "digging" to which you have made evident by your superficial facts."


Confectrix,
These are not superficial facts, they are public court records from the US SUPREME COURT. This being a democracy and all, it takes 2/3rd's majority to get an ammendment approved, correct? Well then, the needed vote count to approve amendment 16 was to be 36, in which they only recieved 27. again, PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE.

Now as far as saying it's our duty to pay taxes, i agree to a certain extent. I never said i didn't, but if you followed this argument from the beginning you would've realized how it transgressed. Thus being my reply to Hijinx's thoery that the government doesn't pass anything that is unconstitutional. With regards to that, Amendment 16 clearly goes against the constitution. Like it not it's hard factual knowledge if one so chooses to research.

[Confectrix]

Archaic1128:

I don't follow you. I am following the discussion. However, in skimming, I may have missed a few minute points. Anyway, a reponse to your last post:

Amendment XVI:

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

U.S. Constition Art. 1 Sect. 8:

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."

Let me illustrate the strong points:

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States"

DOES NOT disagree with, but rather enchances and reinforces:

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

Unless I am missing your point? I don't know anyone whom would say that the entire governmental process based on the Constitution was against that very document hellbent on destroying it.

Seems like a far fetched idea, huh?

Yours,

[Hamma]

Originally posted by Confectrix
Hamma:

It saddens me to see you have no faith in Democracy. In what then, do you place your trust? We are not in a lose/lose siutation. I don't understand your viewpoint. Its all about your party, all that happens is bitching and fighting and nothing gets accomplished. (just like these threads) When it does, there is shit strung on to it that have nothing to do with the bill/law. We have been talking about prescription drugs for YEARS but NOTHING ever happens because everyone just fights over the details.

Politicians vote the way of their parties, not the way they should vote, by the people.

It just sickens me, there should either be more parties, or no parties. Sure it worked for a few hundred years, but its all turning to crap IMO.

[Bighoss]

democracy only works when the people work with the government. No one cares anymore that is why our democracy isn't working so well?

honestly is this a government by the people for the people or a government by the government for the corporations?

Oh yah hamma this is cool little known fact. Before George Washington stepped down after his two terms as the American President he forsaw people creating political parties and warned us that they would only cause problems. He seems to be right to me. He also warned us not to get entangled with the old world in alliances, that seems to have messed us up also.

[Airlift]

The Constitution is a living document; meant to evolve with time; not be straitlaced and domineering. Kind sir, I tell you, if we followed that document to the letter up until this day without change, we would not be where we are today.

Modified by strict process only. However, the Patriot Acts ignore the constitutional ammendment process and go straight for the freedoms.

I was going to move into the Supreme Court overruling this Act if it was brought before it as a case. Good thinking. Checks and balances seem to be forgotten in the minds of those whom only see the bad of an act [which may never occur].

Feh! If that were the case I wouldn't be so bothered. However, the action in this law will not take place in the standard US Courts. Provisions in the second act specifically bar you from making a federal case over searches that are allowed under the act. How can you test the constitutionality of something that you can't bring before the courts?

Congress will have the chance to lay the smack down on this act, it's true. However, they never even questioned the patriot act. in the House, there was no opposing testimony. We the citizens of the United States need to be concerned about this act now, not after it passes. We have a history of witch hunts, from Salem to McCarthyism. Fighting terror is very important, but we mustn't give up essential liberties for a measure of false security.

[Confectrix]

Airlift:

The Patriot Act is not becoming an amendment; rather it is a bill awaiting its surfacing to law. This bill is not ignoring the legislative process at all. Votes are required in both houses as well as the president's signature in order for it to become law.

In response to your court approach problem; think of it this way. You will probably never be searched. If you are, you can bring the case to the Supreme Court; they have the authority to request a case [I doubt the bill will disban the entire judicial branch to in favor of the "secret court"]. According to the bill as it is now, only if you are discovered as a terorrist or affiliated with a terrorist group do you recieve a non-civilian trial [in other words, your secret court]. Proof is needed for this step to occur. They won't haul you away fettered and without reason.

If this becomes law as it is [which rarly happens with bills] and it is as bad as you claim it COULD be, then it will be reviewed by the Supreme Court. They have the power to declare it null and void.

[Hamma]

Originally posted by Bighoss
democracy only works when the people work with the government. No one cares anymore that is why our democracy isn't working so well?

honestly is this a government by the people for the people or a government by the government for the corporations?

Oh yah hamma this is cool little known fact. Before George Washington stepped down after his two terms as the American President he forsaw people creating political parties and warned us that they would only cause problems. He seems to be right to me. He also warned us not to get entangled with the old world in alliances, that seems to have messed us up also. wow, did me and BigHoss just agree? :eek:

[BLuE_ZeRO]

No hamma... just block it out! RUN HAMMA RUN! :scared:

[Unregistered]

Mr. Franklin summed up the intent of the Patriot Act, and those that would support it 244 years ago.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin, 1759.

[Bighoss]

Originally posted by Hamma
wow, did me and BigHoss just agree? :eek:

TOO SCARY:scared: :scared: :scared:

[Hijinks]

Originally posted by Airlift
Fighting terror is very important, but we mustn't give up essential liberties for a measure of false security.

go fly a kyte.

[Bighoss]

why would u tell him to fly a kyte?

[Hamma]

Originally posted by Hijinks
go fly a kyte. *cough*trolling*cough*

[Hijinks]

Originally posted by Hamma
*cough*trolling*cough*

Hello? McFly?

He was paraphrasing Ben Franklin, so I told him to go fly a kyte.

Ben did some exparaments involving kytes.

[Airlift]

Confectrix, I agree with you that it is simple legislature and not an ammendment. However, it is a bill that is in direct conflict with the constitution in multiple ways.

I never said the law was circumventing the process other than some creative ramrodding under the atmosphere of terror that has been nurtured in post-9/11 America. I was directly addressing your point that we don't need to strictly adhere to the constitution because it is a living document.


You're 100% right. I probably won't get searched because I am not a terrorist or a criminal. That is not enough assurance for me. If it is enough for you, then I suggest that you need to take a long look at why we have Due Process in the first place.


Originally posted by Confectrix
According to the bill as it is now, only if you are discovered as a terorrist or affiliated with a terrorist group do you recieve a non-civilian trial [in other words, your secret court]. Proof is needed for this step to occur. They won't haul you away fettered and without reason.

Please refer to the definition of domestic terrorism under the second patriot act. Yes, that is any federal or state law.

If this becomes law as it is [which rarly happens with bills] and it is as bad as you claim it COULD be, then it will be reviewed by the Supreme Court. They have the power to declare it null and void. [/B]

Again, I point to the fact that the first phase passed within a few weeks. How rare is that with a bill?

[Bighoss]

Originally posted by Hijinks
Hello? McFly?

He was paraphrasing Ben Franklin, so I told him to go fly a kyte.

Ben did some exparaments involving kytes.

good cover up:thumbsup:

[SleightOfHand]

Nav:
BTW, me, mist and vic are the only conservatives


I'm a conservative too, I just try to keep quiet in these sort of political debates...

[Hijinks]

Originally posted by Bighoss
good cover up:thumbsup:

My subtle brand of humor doesn't work all that well on the interweb.

[Confectrix]

I understand now that the wording in the bill, the atmosphere of the country [economicaly], the current state of foreign affairs, as well as the impending threats of terrorism place enourmous pressure on all of us and distort our views.

Obviously, then, stemming from the above, I cannot hope to swerve your steadfast contempt for the Patriot Act II. I only ask that you earnestly keep an open mind and look toward the future of this country with hopeful pride and assurance that everything done is done for the common good.

This by no means I am agreeing with you; I don't. My viewpoint it articulated in all my previous posts. I do, however, understand your viewpoint and I feel for it. I respectfully think your making too much out of nothing and playing a conspiracy theory game. Neither is benefical to any country or argument.

This may suprise you, but I trust the government. I trust that they will do what is best for the security of you, myself and all other Americans. We may not all agree, but did we all agree on helping Europe remove Hitler? No. Discussion, debate, and arugment is a heathy thing. But your premtive notion that the govenment is trying to become an all-powerful entity hellbent on controlling everything from when we go to the bathroom, to when we move across country is ill-placed. I trust the government because they never gave me reason to mistrust them. When you mince words, you can come up with many interpretations; alot of which have NO OFFICAL standing.

Therefore, I am finished debating this issue, namely for two reasons, I quite frankly can't keep up with the level of responses; and secondly, I can't restate my case every time I post in a different way or in some subsection.

I welcome you to continue your extremly hypothetical examples on how bad this act could be. I welcome you even more to see what it could be, beyond all the evil it could do, but for which it is not intended.

I myself don't care either way if it is passed. Life is too short to worry if the government is survailing me.

I have nothing to hide.

[Fire_Monkey]

Originally posted by {BOHICA}Navaron
"Liberal is a word that republicans started using to badmouth far left democrats."

This is the last thing in a string of items that you have either made up or don't know about.

Liberal is not an insult. It is as real of a word as conservative. It's in every political science book out there. Liberal is a political leaning, and it is a fact that most liberals are democrats, while a few are republicans. The same thing goes for conservatives and republicans.

Both are not good descriptions for what the parties stand for. And yes liberal in this sense is used by many "un-informed" people as an insult. At least Navaron, you can recognize that it is not meant to be insulting, but sometimes it makes "these" people have a different view on what that party believes in.

And BTW stop trying to smash my information. I know what I'm talking about.

[archaic1128]

Conefectrix,
that was a beautifull post on amendment 16, however you fail to realize that it did NOT PASS. Look at the articles that you spewed and you will see why. It is in direct conflict w/ the CONSTITUTION stating that we as citizens are not to be DIRECTLY TAXED. I don't know how to put it any more simple than that. It is public record that enough votes did not equate to 2/3rd's majority.

Also, on the patriot act 2, again many of the articles directly conflict the CONSTITUTION. If you think i should give up my freedoms for the betterment of my so called security you are nuts.
Many articles in this bill, directly state that the government agencies will not have any oversight to balance them out. I'm sorry but my faith in the government only goes so far. I refuse to bend over and await a total police state. You may have great faith that the government is all so holy and does not abuse power, i on the other hand do not.

I've read the entire bill available, and i completely disagree w/ it.
It is a pawn to directly take our civil rights w/o any checks or balances.

[Bighoss]

a government by the government for the government:D

[Airlift]

Confectrix, I give you points for the patronization. Very nice touch combining 'you are a conspiracy theorist' with 'please don't think I'm agreeing with you just because I'm too smart to argue with someone who is obviously irrational'. Since you're so clearly done with the matter, feel free to disregard my response. Of course, it was obvious from the get-go that my primitive notions would drive me to type it out anyway.

You have a strong argument about having trust in the government. And I do have some trust in them. Every day our government deals with a daunting number of situations from mundane to extraordinary. There is an enormous amount of overhead involved in running a nation, especially a world power. There are many things that go on in every administration that I don't want to know about. Contrary to your hastily assembled opinion of me, it is enough to know that the checks and balances are in place.

Call me crazy, but I read the patriot act the first time through and I didn't like it then. I complained that it was a dangerous precident to set that we would so eagerly trade our constitutional rights for a sense of security against the evil men who want to hurt us.

I have this one in pdf, and it is much worse than the precident. Not only does it modify the earlier act by removing the sunset clause and building on the foundation of the patriot act, but it goes further in all of the things I've posted above (you know, my neo-gemstone manifesto).

NOTE THIS: Arguing against this legislature is not an indication of delusion, but rather of participation in the process. That is something much better for this country than implicite trust.:p

[diluted]

sigh..i wish i kept up with this thread :'(

i could have kicked everyoens ass :cool:

[Hijinks]

Originally posted by Airlift

NOTE THIS: Arguing against this legislature is not an indication of delusion, but rather of participation in the process. That is something much better for this country than implicite trust.:p

If we lived in china, this thread alone would be enough to have us killed and our familes billed for the bullet.

[Confectrix]

Perhaps BigHoss, perhaps. But can you, or any of us be so sure as to point fingers?

Airlift:

My "hasty" opinion of you is quite high. I value a man of principle when challenged on those principles.

I agree with you that aruging against this legislation is not delusional; I also agree it is a participation in the process.

Oddly enough then, my viewpoint is also part of the process. Because I am neutral to both sides make me delusional? I don't think so. I see it as the grounds of compromise. Which is where all major decisions were melded.

Trust is a good thing, when founded by a track record and when therefore properly placed. Flagrent mistrust and constant questionment of governmental policies is quite detrimentral; alsmost as bad as implicite trust.

[archaic1128]

If we lived in china, this thread alone would be enough to have us killed and our familes billed for the bullet.

hijinx, if this bill passes we will be leaps and bounds closer than you think

[Hijinks]

"Hippies...hippies everywhere...they want to save the world but all they do is smoke pot and smell bad"-Cartman

[Fire_Monkey]

:spam: :spam:
Stop trolling Hijinks

[Hijinks]

Originally posted by Fire_Monkey
[Admin. Removed by Signature]

Stop knocking off Airlift's sig.


:love:

[Fire_Monkey]

Make me :P~

This thread is degenerating rapidly. I believe that Bush is an asshole, ignorant, highschool dropout, who is only in office because of his daddy. :D

[Hijinks]

Originally posted by Fire_Monkey
Make me :P~

This thread is degenerating rapidly. I believe that Bush is an asshole, ignorant, highschool dropout, who is only in office because of his daddy. :D

Don't forget the voters of florida who couldn't figure out the ballot even though they had been using the same one for 50 years.

:rolleyes:

[Bighoss]

Originally posted by Confectrix
Perhaps BigHoss, perhaps. But can you, or any of us be so sure as to point fingers?

Airlift:

My "hasty" opinion of you is quite high. I value a man of principle when challenged on those principles.

I agree with you that aruging against this legislation is not delusional; I also agree it is a participation in the process.

Oddly enough then, my viewpoint is also part of the process. Because I am neutral to both sides make me delusional? I don't think so. I see it as the grounds of compromise. Which is where all major decisions were melded.

Trust is a good thing, when founded by a track record and when therefore properly placed. Flagrent mistrust and constant questionment of governmental policies is quite detrimentral; alsmost as bad as implicite trust.

god damnit I can't follow that. I bet you could have a buddha confused lol

[Hamma]

As for this ammendment, I never really commented on.

It doesent bother me, as someone said already in this thread. Sometimes you must make a sacrifice for the better of the country.

Either way, people think they have more privacy than they actually do. The government can look up anything they want about you at any time :p

[Confectrix]

It's degenerating because myself being the only voice of reason against these masses of ignorant fools has decided against continuing such a discussion.

I'm joking of course.

We need some light humor to offset the deeply stern tone of the entire topic.

Good night gentlemen.

[Pilgrim]

To chime in from the fun Land of the American Liberal ... not to be confused with the Democrats who are not Liberals, just political.

This is the one issue that I believe that both True Libs, and You Limbaugh loving softies should agree on. Here it is in point format.

Liberals should oppose this becasue... Liberals, by their very deffinition believe in the evolution of Society, the Changing of the Rank, and the Individual to become better then they were. Any errosion of Personal Freedom deters Society and the individual from growing... and is therefore against the Liberal Ideal. (Just for y'all who are Brainwashed... liberal does not equal, socialist, or even a love of government, or some dependent wuss boy, to me it is the simple desire for change.)

Consevative should not dig this one because they desire (again by deffinition) For a retention of the Status Quo. This radical of a departure from what the constitution intended is exactly the type of thing that I would think Conservatives should be against.


Now the Reality of the situation is such that no one wants a Terror attack, no one wants to have to take their shoes off at airports, and no one wants to be DataBased a thousand times for saying Bomb and bush in the same post :) But for security is it worth it... is the errosion of all of our freedoms an acceptable price for the possibility of saving one person, or a thousand, or ten thousand from death...

I say ask the hundreds, and the thousands, and the Tens of thousands who died to insure us those freedoms... is it worth it?

My generation has never had to fight for our right to be, as an American I have nothing but the History channel to show me the price of those freedoms... And I think as a country we have lost our way if we sell them for as cheap a slogan as Security without guaranty.

An insane person willing to do harm to us will succeed... Selling our freedoms for a mantle of "We're Doing Something" regardless of how pointless that something is... Well that's just a bad trade.

My thoughts


PAX

[Lexington_Steele]

Originally posted by Confectrix
Airlift:

The Patriot Act is not becoming an amendment; rather it is a bill awaiting its surfacing to law. This bill is not ignoring the legislative process at all. Votes are required in both houses as well as the president's signature in order for it to become law.

In response to your court approach problem; think of it this way. You will probably never be searched. If you are, you can bring the case to the Supreme Court; they have the authority to request a case [I doubt the bill will disban the entire judicial branch to in favor of the "secret court"]. According to the bill as it is now, only if you are discovered as a terorrist or affiliated with a terrorist group do you recieve a non-civilian trial [in other words, your secret court]. Proof is needed for this step to occur. They won't haul you away fettered and without reason.

If this becomes law as it is [which rarly happens with bills] and it is as bad as you claim it COULD be, then it will be reviewed by the Supreme Court. They have the power to declare it null and void.

I wish I had the faith that you do.

I see an act like this and become very worried. I see John Ashcroft as attorney general and he scares me. I am whole heartedly against 99% of the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003 (DSEA). Why am I scared? The people who are in power have let the bill get this far. The executive branch of our government seems to be behind this bill.

You say the judicial branch will protect me if this bill proves to be unconstitutional. There is speculation that a number of Supreme court justices will retire at the end of this term. Now who is it that has the power to reshape the face of the supreme court? My worry goes up another notch.

This Act could very well become a reality because a few people feel the need to completely reshape the face of our Government.

Your, "I have nothing to hide" sentiment does not make me feel any better either. If I am not a criminal I should not be treated like a criminal.

If I am declared an enemy of the US, I can then be detained without criminal charges, judicial review, or access to an attorney or any other outside party for an indefinate period of time.

Lists of who are being detained are not made available to the public.

The criteria for what constitutes an enemy of the US is being loosened a great deal. You don't even have to break a law anymore to be considered an enemy of the US under the DSEA.

I don't like the idea of people dissapearing without a trace, especially if they have commited no crime.

"Any proposed legislation of this type is likely to undergo changes -- often worsening ones -- as it chugs through Congress. But what this draft makes clear is that the wide variety of Bush Administration assaults on civil liberties over the past 16 months have been part of a carefully crafted strategy, with each outrage -- once judicial challenges and public indignation dies away -- laying the groundwork, through precedent, for the next, more extreme measure."

Feel free to call me an idiot for not wanting to live in a police state.

[Lexington_Steele]

Originally posted by Confectrix
It's degenerating because myself being the only voice of reason against these masses of ignorant fools has decided against continuing such a discussion.

I'm joking of course.

We need some light humor to offset the deeply stern tone of the entire topic.

Good night gentlemen.

:lol: That was quite a joke you had there. Do you have any others. [/sarcasm]

[archaic1128]

Lex, I believe this is the first time i fully agree w/ you :D

Anyways, i take back my opinion of you being a liberal (or as liberal i thought you were), as confectrix surely showed what a true "government can do no wrong" type is.

[Confectrix]

I see this is never going to end.

Lex (If I may call you that):

First of all, I'm never sarcastic. Aristotle used to say: "Sarcasm is the recourse of a weak mind."

You speak of Aschroft as someone whom scares you, but yet you produce no reasons as to WHY he stikes fear into your heart. As a member of the Bush Administration, yes, he does have power; and yes, he may not be the best for his job, but he certainly is not the worst, nor is he the monster you equate him to be.

This bill will not remove the judicial review process. You claim that since you can't get a case to the Supreme Court then nothing will happen. Nonsense. The judicial branch of the government likes their power just as much as the other two. If any part of their power is usurped, according to your ideas of a power-hungry government, would not the courts respond?

A bill does not become a law by a few people. A bill becomes a law by the majority. I doubt every single person in the Congress and in the Executive branch agrees with every facet of this proposed law. You need not worry; your voice of opposition is heard.

The I have nothing to hide sentiment is not meant to offset the nature of this bill's strong statements and definitions; rather, I placed it in one of my prior posts to show that if you are not a criminal, you won't be treated as a criminal. Not the other way around, as you propose.

IF you are declared an enemey of the United States. Hmm. Not only is that a very big if, but so hypothetical that it doesn't even warrent consideration. You may state that the definition of domestic terrorism in the Patriot Act II is so vauge and unexact, but in reality, it is exact. I admit, it may not be too exact, but who wants a bill so perfect in it's definition that it causes no good to come from the law?

You will not live in a police state. Contray to the popular consensus here.

Archaic1128:

I do not beleive that the government can do no wrong. If you have that impression of me, I'm sorry to disappoint you. The government is an institution like any other. It has its problems, weaknesses, and failures. At the same time it accomplishes great things, does great work, and has a excellent track record. I take the good with the bad, step back and see that our government has done. When I do so, I see that despite all the failures, disappointments and terrible mistakes, the government has incured, do not outweigh the great works they have achieved.

I do not understand your opinion and many others whom state that the government is some kind of oppressor waiting to be broken free of the chains of the constitution. The government is in place to protect the constitution. Call me crazy but that is the point of a democracy; to function out of a consitution by the people and for the people.

IF this act is passed...what freedoms will you not enjoy that you had previously?

[KoldFusion]

Originally posted by Fire_Monkey
Make me :P~

This thread is degenerating rapidly. I believe that Bush is an asshole, ignorant, highschool dropout, who is only in office because of his daddy. :D

Your only here b/c of your daddy and i don't hate you :D :love:
BTW Bush isn't a high school drop out.... therefore it is unfair to label him as such. It would be fair to call Clinton a draft doger

[MrVicchio]

The patriot act scares people because it is a new law, and one done by "conservatives" were this created during the Clinton Administration, it would be hailed as a great enforcement of law.

That is politics 101. One need only look to the unilateral actions of Clinton in Kosovo and Somalia and then look at the lack of protests against "unilateral" action to see the double standard applied to the two major parties in the USA.

The constitution, atleast for the last 100 years, has been MORE empowered and followed by republican administrations, then by democrat administrations. Repulicans by thier very nature believe in the constitution "AS IT WAS WRITTEN" where as the Democrats often follow the "Living document" argument.

But I am skirting here, so I will get to the point;
The major dislike and even hate for the patriot act is that it holds people accountable. In this day and age of irresponsibility, anything that might hold a person accountable is hated. A man robs a liquor store and there are those that say he is poor and needy, and that the liquor store is insured so he should get a light sentance.

America is the greatest nation in History, and when you are at the top there are those that will seek to tear you down. Our nation is falling because we have embraced diversity and that has balkanized and threatens the very fabric of our exsitance. America is founded on the principle that people are individuals, and that by working together we can achieve great things. Sadly, we see our society being torn along lines of race, religion and other "group identities" in the name of diversity. What group a person is associated with carries more wieght then who a person is. The great irony is, that this view is rallied behind by the civil rights crowd, whose greatest leader, Dr. Martin Luther King, commanded the worlds respect by fighting the very priniciple those that follow him now eschew.

[MrVicchio]

Yeah, George Bush is a tottal idiot, just look at his collegate achievements and you must conclude he has no clue, I mean he dropped out of divinity schoo.. wait.. that was Al Gore.... nm.

[Confectrix]

Mr Vicchio:

I agree with you concerning the accountability. In today's world we do shy away from it. I think this bill indirectly touches that; but not completly and directly.

I have to disagree with your take on diversity however. It is the very nature of our diversity which provided and upholds the very fabric our nation rests. You rightly state that this country; our cuntry, is being torn in many different directions. The soultion to that is to embrace diversity and accept different viewpoints so long as they are morally acceptable. Not to stand firm against all diversity in the attempt to nullify the effects of so great a privalge we enjoy and have enjoyed.

Diversity does not threaten our society. The fear of it coupled with the notion of the idea that it harms us is the threat.

I, however, do not think we should turn a blind eye to obvious rouge groups [or any group, for that matter] claiming diversity for every kind of action they wish to take and uphold.

[Confectrix]

Just a thought:

I remember an old Latin phrase attibuted to no one. Therefore, the quotation is not mine, but anothers; who's? I don't know.

Ubi dubium ibi libertas.

Where there is doubt, there is freedom.

Interesting.

[Bighoss]

but in all the countries that doubted there government adapted communism and then no one was free:(
weird saying:confused:

[archaic1128]

Confectrix, this is quite long and i only went into a partial explanation of my opinion.




Section 103: Strengthening wartime Authorities Under FISA.
*Under 50 U.S.C. Articles 1811,1829,1844, the Attorney General may authorize, w/o the prior approval of the FISA Court, electronic surveillance, physical searches, or use of pen registers for a period of 15 days following a congressional declaration of war. This wartime exception is unnecessarily narrow; it may be invoked only when Congress formally has declared war....

Patriot act 2- It is clear they wish to abolish the above mentioned timeline, or any substantial reasoning giving them no oversight commitee and giving them free will to do as they see fit. In other words they could declare martial law w/o congress approval.

Section 104: Strengthening FISA's Presidential Authorization Exception.
50 U.S.C. Article 1802 allows the attorney general to authorize electronic surveilance for up to a year, w/o the FISA Court's approval in two narrow cicumstances. (1) If the surveillance is are directed solely at communications between foreign powers; or (2).........In addition, the Attorney General must certify that there is no substantial likelihood that such surveillance will aquire the communications of U.S. persons (essentially, the government is fully capable to snoop on foreign governments as long as the certify that it is not directed to aquiring information soley directed at a U.S. citizen)

Patriot Act 2-, Expands upon this by giving the Attorney General no need to certify the privacy of a U.S. citizen. Be it electronic surveillance, or spoken communications. Which is further expanded upon in Section 122: Inclusion of Terrorist Activities as Surveillance Predicates. Under this clause the President or Attorney General can conduct the above mentioned even during peacetime or a non-emergency status. Thus it completely negates the U.S.C. article 1802.

Section 106: Defence of Reliance on Authorization.
50 U.S.C. article 1809b and 1827b create a defense for agents who engage in unauthorized surveillance or searches, or who disclose information w/o authorization, if they were relying on an order issued by the FISA Court.(in other words if they have the courts(oversight) approval, agents are protected under this clause.) This provision would clarify that the "good faith reliance" defense is available, not just when agents are acting pursuant to a FISA Court order, but also when they are acting pursuant to a lawful authorization from a President or the Attorney General.

Patriot Act 2-, Clearly defines that a President or Attorney General can conduct unlawful seizures and searches w/o an oversite commitee's approval, and be protected under the "good faith" defense. In other words " Trust me, i know what's good for you" Again, this clearly takes away any need of proir approval, or any oversight commitee. It completely abolishes our fourth Amendment, and gives the person conducting the unlawfull search and seizure immunity.


Let's take a look at what terrorism is defined as under the first Patriot Act.
Section 802. Definition of Domestic Terrorism.
Section 808. Definition of Federal Crime of Terrorism.

If you have read this it is clearly defined as to what actions are considered to be a "terrorist act" I have no problem with this as it IS clearly defined. However, now they want to broaden these definitions to a more undefined or unlimited definition. Which in hand directly correlates to section 501. In this section they have the right to lock up the (un-)defined so called terrorist indefinitely w/o due course. Again another example that directly goes against our Bill Of Rights. Just to show how undefined it will be- any person that violates any federal or state law can be declared an "enemy combatant". Which by definition, and as ridiculous it sounds, even a litter-bug now fits this definition. With the President, Attorney General or a Secretary of State having sole exclusivity in deeming anyone to be with no oversite. Now w/ a further broadening of Section 201, Patriot Act 2, the so called "enemy combatant" can be locked up and the Freedom of Information Act gets thrown out, because now they do not have to notify anyone, not the press, or family members as to where, how and why the accused (not proven guilty yet) person is etc. With this section coupled with section 501, any person can be locked up indefinitely, w/o a trial, w/o family members etc being notified. Again a clear cut conflict of the Bill of Rights. Now throw in section 109, and you are not allowed to plead the fifth anymore.




I could go on and on but i will leave it at that. Now you may think that by giving up your civil rights you are clamping down on terrorism, i disagree. I see no reason as to why honest U.S. citizens should be subjected to these new standards. Where in all of this do you see anything that will directly affect a "terrorist's" ability to conduct terrorism? The only thing i get out of this is a direct attack gutting out the Bill of Rights. So pardon me if i choose the personal freedoms of american citizens over what could be used to someday oppress the the very people that believe in the CONSTITUTION and BILL OF RIGHTS.

One other note- every subsection declares that the new powers will only be used to fight international terrorism, and domestic terrorism, but it was already made clear that any crime is considered domestic terrorism. " How dare you speak out against the government and it's corrupt politicians. I now declare you a enemy combatant". If you honestly think this will or could not be used, i deeply disagree with you. As it is quite clear they are wiping out our right to free speech as well.

[Airlift]

Thanks Vicchio for finally taking up the gauntlet. Your answer is very interesting, but it really makes me wonder if you have read the patriot acts at all. Quite simply, the theory that we are afraid of it because it is new legislation and further that we cower at the prospect of being accountable for our actions just doesn't come near addressing the constitutional breeches in the act itself.

I won't sit here and take shots at your opinion, because I really did want to know how you feel about it and you've answered that question consisely. Thanks, and we'll agree to disagree.

I would like to attest that I am not afraid of the consequences to my own actions, but consequences of potential allegations that might have nothing to do with me, yet from which I am offered no significant protection. I would be more than happy to go into a point-by-point discussion of the act itself if you feel prepared to defend the law rather than just state your opinion of why people fear it. Futhermore, I am concerned for the rights of others, something the "I have nothing to hide" set is overlooking.

I've taken some dings on this thread for arguing hypotheticals. Let's take things that happened just this morning to respond to the hypothetical nature of my concerns. A South Forida University professor has been arrested over the night for connection to terrorism, tho the charges won't be released until later today. If the Patriot Act 2 becomes law, he would not be charged, arrained, or tried in US Federal Courts. We wouldn't have to be told that he has been arrested (including any family members he has or any details of the investigation or charges released). There would be no way for anyone to determine exactly what happened.

Is this guy a terrorist? Maybe, and I'm glad they took him into custody because he has been under investigation for a year and the enforcement agencies now feel that they have enough evidence to move. BRAVO! Now they simply prove it in court and American Justice is served. This is how it is supposed to work.

[Lexington_Steele]

Originally posted by MrVicchio
Yeah, George Bush is a tottal idiot, just look at his collegate achievements and you must conclude he has no clue, I mean he dropped out of divinity schoo.. wait.. that was Al Gore.... nm.
You know we have been over this, Bush was a C student at best and in his entire collegiate career he only recieved one A, and thatwas from a sociology professor that gave every student she ever had an A.

Yes Bush must be brilliant. Oh that was sarcasm, Aristottle must be frowning down upon me from up on high.

[Confectrix]

Lex,

:rolleyes:

:)

[Hijinks]

I hate america because they wont let me get high and own automatic weapons made after 1986.

[Lexington_Steele]

Originally posted by Confectrix
This bill will not remove the judicial review process. You claim that since you can't get a case to the Supreme Court then nothing will happen. Nonsense. The judicial branch of the government likes their power just as much as the other two. If any part of their power is usurped, according to your ideas of a power-hungry government, would not the courts respond?

The I have nothing to hide sentiment is not meant to offset the nature of this bill's strong statements and definitions; rather, I placed it in one of my prior posts to show that if you are not a criminal, you won't be treated as a criminal. Not the other way around, as you propose.

IF you are declared an enemey of the United States. Hmm. Not only is that a very big if, but so hypothetical that it doesn't even warrent consideration. You may state that the definition of domestic terrorism in the Patriot Act II is so vauge and unexact, but in reality, it is exact. I admit, it may not be too exact, but who wants a bill so perfect in it's definition that it causes no good to come from the law?

IF this act is passed...what freedoms will you not enjoy that you had previously?
So how will I be able to get into the judicial system if I am held without any outside contact, with no charges brought against me, my citizenship is taken away and I am deported? With this act I worry that they trying to be able to cirumvent the Judicial branch entirely.

You tell me not to worry because it is unlikely that I will be declared an enemy of the state. Well alot of the powers that this act is reinstating are powers that the government used to have and abuse. What will prevent abuse of this power? As you are very fond of quotes I have one for you. It was Lord Acton that said, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men." I see that this could be used as a tool to eliminate political enemies by those in power. So why should I believe that these administrators will not act in their own interests?

What freedoms will I lose if this bill passes? The right to an attorney, the right to a speedy trial. The right to not be held without charges against me.

And Vic, if Clinton brought this Act up I would not support it. The thing is that Clinton would not have created this act.

[Airlift]

Lex, I disagree about Clinton. He would have probably been all over this bill just like the current administration. One of hijinks' favorite Clinton quotes is the one about how we should limit constitutional garuantees if it will help enforce the law, or something like that.

[Hijinks]

If the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution
inhibit the government's ability to govern the people,
we should look to limit those guarantees."
President Bill Clinton, August 12, 1993

[Lexington_Steele]

Originally posted by Airlift
Lex, I disagree about Clinton. He would have probably been all over this bill just like the current administration. One of hijinks' favorite Clinton quotes is the one about how we should limit constitutional garuantees if it will help enforce the law, or something like that.

Well you got me there then. I personally give Clinton two thumbs down for that statement. As I said in a previous thread, just because I support a politician does not mean I support every single thing they do or say. Sometime is it a matter of the lesser of two evils. I was not a Gore fan, but I still voted for him.

If Clinton or Gore was in office and this act was presented I would still be whole heartedly against it.

[MrVicchio]

If Gore were in Office The Taliban would still own Afgahnistan, we'd have signed the Kyotot Accords, and there would have been another terrorsit attack somewhere in America.

[SandTrout]

Don't worry to much, I'll be ending civilization when I get my hands on some thermonuclear bombs(just for the EMP, not to kill anyone). I sudgest you arm yourselves against the totalitarian Gov. that seems to be supported by the Republicans as well now.

Damn Bush is pushing his luck with these bills.

[Sputty]

Originally posted by MrVicchio
If Gore were in Office The Taliban would still own Afgahnistan, we'd have signed the Kyotot Accords, and there would have been another terrorsit attack somewhere in America.
And if Gore were in office I'd control all of Europe, Asia, and Africa while I prepare to invade krobblok 9 and become Emperor of an alien world. But, Gore probably would've signed the Kyoto Accords, so nothing wrong with that. Just saying, don't just assume something like that would happen whne no none expected anything like that ever.

[MrVicchio]

You obviously have NO clue what the Kyoto accords would require of the USA. And if you did, you wouldn't say it would be okay.

BTW Only one country in the world, atleast last time I checked, had fully ratified the Kyoto Accords. And it was Romania or some snot like that.

[mikkyT]

What is it about freedom and personal liberty that makes you feel so threatened?

ahahahahahahha

aahahhahahahhaa

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

ahahahahhahahaha

You think America has those qualities? ahahahahhahaha

ahahahahhahahaa

Like Eminem says
"How many people are proud to be citizens of this beautiful country of ours?
The stripes and the stars for the rights of men who have died for the protect?
The women and men who have broke their necks for the freedom of speech the United States Government has sworn to uphold....
....or so we're told."

You have no freedom except that which is granted to you by Mr George "Ill hijack me an election" W*&&%^ Bush.

Bush doesn't care about the freedoms of the world, therefore your freedom is entirely localised.

[mikkyT]

If Gore were in Office The Taliban would still own Afgahnistan

Well, the US created the Taliban after all...

[Airlift]

Stop right there, buddy! The US didn't create the Taliban, we only trained and funded them.... erm... San Diemus High School Football Rules!

[Sputty]

To be fair no one thought ahead during the Cold War...Pretty stupid of "them" but then again better dead than red(I hear)

[Doobz]

actually, when we helped them, they were'nt the taliban, they were'nt torturing people, and they werent being oppressive

they were being oppressed

[Airlift]

Similarly, when we were propping Iraq up to oppose Iran, Saddam was a cuddle-bear beacon of democratic hope, not the crazed despot that he is today. :D

[archaic1128]

BTW, Cofectrix and Hijinx, I have those IRS documents now if you care to see them. Taken directly out of the IRS Strategic Handbook As well as a US Supreme court ruling Document. This kinda stuff is hard to find. I must have about 700 bookmarks to look thru :D

[Confectrix]

archaic1128

Sure, either PM me or post them here. Either way, I'd like to see them.

And thanks.

Yours,

[DarkDragon00]

Terran Elite Airborne Regiment

Here is my view on AMERICA...

To protect my country and her intrests...

"WHAT, HER INTRESTS TO STEAL!"
"HER INTRESTS FOR MONEY!"
"HER INTRESTS TO MAKE SURE THAT COUNTRYS CANT DEFEND THEMSELVES CUZ SHE DOESN'T LIKE THEM!"

* EVERY COUNTRY HAS THE RIGHT TO HAVE SECRET WEAPONS, IF EVERYONE KNEW WHERE THEY WHERE THEY WOULD HELP WITH THE DEFENSE WOULD THEY? NAW, THEY WOULD JUST TARGET THOSE FIRST AND INVADE. SO THERE ISN'T GONNA BE A DRAFT...hmmm. 30 DAYS INTO THE WAR KOREA IS GONNA JOIN IN AND THERE WILL A DRAFT AND BELIVE ME BEING A FULL TIME STUDENT WONT HELP YOU NOW! IM JUST SAY'N THE US DID STEAL ALL THIS LAND FROM THE INDIAN, MEXICO, THE BRITISH, ECT. SHE PRETENDED TO BE A NICE LITTLE DAUGHTER TO MOTHER ENGLAND, THAN RAN OUT WITH THE CASH AND PROPERTY. I THINK AMERICANS((WRONG NAME BECAUSE AMERICA AND AMERICANS ARE ALL THOSE WHO LIVE IN NORTH,CENTRAL, AND SOUTH AMERICA!)), I MEAN UNITED STATERS, MOSTLY THOSE IN THE GOVERNMENT, ARE GOLD FREAKN' DIGGERS. THERE I SAID IT. DONT ANYONE BE OFFENDED, BUT I SAY WHAT I MEAN, AND I MEAN WHAT I SAY, I NEVER WATCH MY MOUTH.

THE UNITED STATER GOV. IS JUST MAKING MORE ENEMIES, MORE ATTACKS HAPPEN BY BEING NOSY. WAR WILL BREAK OUT BECAUSE BUSH AIN'T GONNA BACK, BUT IF I GET BLOWN TO PIECES BY THIS STUPID *&%$ AMMA BE REALLY PISSED OFF. AS FOR THE WAR I DON'T CARE, NOT MY FAMILY MEMBERS, IF YOU WANT TO LET UR FAMILY DIE BECAUSE OF GOLD DIGGING THEN GO 'HEAD LET THE WAR BEGIN, BUT THAT COULD MEAN SACRAFICING A GENERATIONS, CUZ I DONT BELIVE IT WILL BE A 2WEEK WAR, IT WILL TAKE A WHILE, I DONT NEED ANOTHER WORL WAR, AND I REALLY DONT WANT TO END UP LIKE FALLOUT!

WELL, SAID MY SUFF, IM OUT, THIS WAS DARK.

[Confectrix]

Dragon:

General Franks sees a complete victory and his installment as Viceroy within WEEKS. This is not about money; its about regulations; regulations for the control of WMD.

The oil infastructure in Iraq will be reconstructed by companies that wish to undertake the task. The US will not have governmental control of the facilities. We have never pillaged before; we will not start now.

There will be no draft and Korea will not stick it's nose in. Why? They know that China will immediatly side with us, as they have already stated. All they need is a nuclear equipped Japan or Taiwan.

Concerning the draft, the current secretary of defense frankly stated that draftees are useless in combat due to the nature at which they are taken as well as the limited training they recieve. Congress will never authorize when this nation's policy of draft. It's not worth it.

[MrVicchio]

Besides, the only ones pushing the draft are a couple of DEMOCRATS. Why are they pushing it? They want to see a draft, so they can then create hate towards Bush. Seriously.

[Airlift]

must... follow... own accord... resistance crumbling Gahh!

(wait, maybe you can post something non-political...)

....


....


(hmmm...)

Ok wait, I have a question. I'll leave out any opinion so I can at least appear to be above board...

Mr Vicchio, since it's the dems that are pushing this act, NOW can it be an attack on essential liberties?


(uh oh... I gotta get out of here)

Weapons Inspecters? What, no, I haven't seen any around here. Except for the ones that came by a couple weeks ago, but ya know, those guys said everything was fine.

Nope, no politics here...

:airlift runs:

[MrVicchio]

I was just stating a fact, its two Dems pushing it. Thats all.

[Confectrix]

Tis true.

[Lexington_Steele]

Originally posted by MrVicchio
I was just stating a fact, its two Dems pushing it. Thats all.

Ahh, so it was to make an attack on Democrats the way they want to make attacks on Bush. Why do you need to run a mud slinging campaign against any and all democrats? The Democrats are doing this in attempt to gain more political power the way politicians do. Whats your excuse? Are you running for Planetside political office or something? ;)

[MrVicchio]

Yes, I was viciously attacking two democrats by pointing out they are pushing for the draft... cause they are.

[Confectrix]

I think it's time we say

Goodbye thread.

:wave:

[Lexington_Steele]

Originally posted by MrVicchio
Yes, I was viciously attacking two democrats by pointing out they are pushing for the draft... cause they are.

I did notice that you didn't answer Airlifts question. Since it has the support of some democrats, now is it ok to not like the bill?

I believe you posted in favor of the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003. Since you are "attacking" those democrats who are supporting the Act, does that mean you have changed your mind about the Act? Do you still support Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003?

[MrVicchio]

Go away troll.

I wasn't attacking anybody. Stated reason of the Draft propsal according to a memo from the DNC "To recreate the atmposphere of the 60's of hatered towards the military which we can use to our advantage in 2004"

[Airlift]

It's hilarious that you would call Lex a troll, since you are the original PSU political muckraker. Trolly, heal thyself. :p

[MrVicchio]

:rolleyes:

[Airlift]

:D

[mikkyT]

This thread is degenerating rapidly. I believe that Bush is an asshole, ignorant, highschool dropout, who is only in office because of his daddy

hes only in office because he rigged the vote! :)