How the…?
by CmdrFenix on Dec.10, 2009, under Political Discussion
I am in shock. Complete and utter shock at how hypocritical the congressional Democrats are. On one hand they can and do condemn the Patriot Act as I do. It’s a blatant violation of our rights. It gives too much discretion to law enforcement. In what I have come to expect as congressional bull$h1t they chose to renew it only showing that once power is been given to a gov’t agency, they are VERY unlikely to ever give it up; even if it’s the right thing to do.
During more than two hours of sometimes-heated debate in the powerful Senate Judiciary Committee, some lawmakers accused one another of caving to intelligence officials who wanted to expand their powers, while other senators said the renewal was necessary to protect against looming – and classified – terror threats.
But when the hearing was over, the committee approved renewing measures that include allowing broad warrants to be issued by a secretive court for any type of record, from financial to medical, without the government having to declare that the information sought is connected to a terrorism or espionage investigation. A proposal that would put limits on such requests was defeated.
Let us be very clear about this. The patriot act is nothing more than a broad law enforcement tool that enables them to better spy on Americans all in the guise of fighting terrorism. This was something that was rushed through congress in the days following 9/11 all using the pain of those attacks to get it passed with as little debate as possible. It will be one of George Bush’s legacies.
The thought that people will be safer by stripping away their freedoms is handing victory to the Islamic Fascists. You cannot save Rome by burning it, and you cannot protect freedom by eliminating it.
You want to send a clear message of resistance to the terrorists? Rebuild the twin towers exactly as they were built before and light the building up on opening day with the windows lit in shape of a hand giving an obscene gesture.
December 10th, 2009 on 8:12 pm
Does this surprise you? Have you seen the footage of the peace rallies, the screaming throngs of anti-Iraq war people lately? Now that a Democrat is prosecuting the war, it’s ok. Now that Democrats are violating peoples God given rights, it’s absolutely fine. Welcome to an extension of the police state.
December 10th, 2009 on 10:25 pm
I wouldn’t point my finger JUST at the Demorcrats. The Republicans started the whole business of putting together the Patriot Act. Unfortunately our entire gov’t is at fault.
December 11th, 2009 on 8:38 am
I agree. We’ve been moving away from liberty towards police state for quite some time. Both parties and all branches of government have been pushing us in that direction.
December 12th, 2009 on 4:28 pm
The renewing of the expiring provisions in the patriot act was nothing short of a travesty. You’re dead wrong on the motivation however. This isnt some BS about “once you give them power, you dont get it back” or any crap like that, it’s far more simple. The democrats are scared shitless of being called “unamerican” “weak on defense” “paling around with terr’ists” and the other complete crap that foxnews&co spews out. It really is that simple. The republicans voted to renew because they are evil disgracefull excuses of human beings who -WANT- to take your rights and freedoms away. The democrats voted to renew because they are evil disgracefull excuses of human beings scared shitless of being made fun of.
Let’s get one thing very clear though. “Liberty” as a concept (and thats what it is .. it’s a philosophical concept, not a religion, got it?) has nothing to do with either the existance-or-lack-of a police state. As I’ve been forced to remind some of my guanoloco friends lately, a kid up the street with a slingshot can “trample your sacred liberty, enshrined in the constitution, sacraficed for by mountains of dead soldiers, and ejaculated for by the almighty god himself!” far FAR more easily then a police state can. While I agree completely that police states are bad 100% of the time, let’s not make the mistake of assuming that a police state is A) what “we’re moving towards” or B) has anything to do with your “liberty” …
December 12th, 2009 on 4:31 pm
As for jeremy’s comments in the first reply, if you actually go out and read some of the supposedly “liberal” press, I think you’ll find that support for Pres Obama is far less universal then you might think. The left’s big problem has always been that it’s fractured, and not much has changed about that.
December 13th, 2009 on 11:31 am
Yes and No. Does their motivation over why they renewed the act change the end result that they care more about appearances and perceptions than what is right? I am agreeing with you on the Republican party for the record, but I’m sorry, any party that puts appearances and perceptions before what is right doesn’t deserve to hold office. At least the Republican’s aren’t afraid to stand up for what they believe.
As I showed you from the whitehouse.gov site before Pr Obama changed it, he DOES see a radically different way to secure our liberties than I think either you or me would support if they actually came up. I’m not just talking about gun control either. Thankfully he backed away from those and right now because they aren’t popular ATM, so I’m just watching and waiting.
I am trying above all else to get people to think about this. I do not see how giving up ANY personal freedoms makes us any safer and I will NEVER support the Patriot Act or ANYONE who had the balls to actually vote for it. I still say you cannot save / retain liberty by violating people’s rights and how can I trust a gov’t that first doesn’t trust me?
… and the statement, “once you give them power; good luck getting it back”. Why do you think I am such a supporter of firearms ownership and keeping that issue up in the forefront? Once a new gun control measure is passed, short of a supreme court decision, it is VERY difficult to get a ban or restriction of any kind removed. Why? Because the Demorcrats are too much of a bunch of $^#&( to ever admit something was wrong or doesn’t make sense because it might make them look bad.
December 13th, 2009 on 2:13 pm
I hear those evil communists in concord want you to have a LICENSE before driving a car now, can you believe that shit? Your god given sacredly enshrined liberty to drive a car REVOKED!
And can we stop using the word “liberty” please? No offense intended, but in the last year that it’s become popular again, I’ve not once heard it used with the correct meaning in the correct context by those claiming to cherish it.
As for dems vs repubs, you’re setting a -very- dangerous position there … vote for the guy you know is dead wrong and bent on destroying the world just because he’s sincere about it, rather then the wishy-washy guy who’s mostly talk … If you actually meant that, I really -REALLY- hope you dont vote again. Ever.
December 13th, 2009 on 2:34 pm
I do not think a driver’s license is guaranteed within the bill of rights, but again if what I am doing is not harming anyone else; then leave me alone!
According to the Merriam Webster dictionary:
Liberty: 1 : the quality or state of being free: a : the power to do as one pleases b : freedom from physical restraint c : freedom from arbitrary or despotic control d : the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges e : the power of choice c : a violation of rules or a deviation from standard practice d : a distortion of fact
2 a : a right or immunity enjoyed by prescription or by grant : privilege b : permission especially to go freely within specified limits
3 : an action going beyond normal limits: as a : a breach of etiquette or propriety : familiarity b : risk, chance
4 : a short authorized absence from naval duty usually for less than 48 hours
I think my argument is based on definition 1a, but of course, on the premise that what I am doing is not harming anyone else.
I am not saying vote for either Republicans or Democrats. I was stating my personal feelings about how the various political parties have been handling themselves. Right now if given a choice between the two, I’d probably abstain or maybe throw my vote at a write-in or third party candidate; if there actually is one that isn’t bat shit crazy.
December 13th, 2009 on 2:52 pm
So only the liberty in the bill of rights matters? Other forms of liberty, if not explicitly outlined in the United States Bill Of Rights, aren’t worth protecting then?
Check, got it.
As for the definitin of liberty, I’m glad you looked it up… so now the next time a gal turns a guy down for a date, you can rail on her for infringing his liberty by denying him the power to do as he pleases…. In short, keep this shit in perspective.
December 13th, 2009 on 2:53 pm
Wordpress needs a decent auto spell checker to fix my typos, I type too fast and I don’t proofread
December 13th, 2009 on 3:20 pm
Haha, that is why I use Firefox!
Come now, you are taking the whole argument to an absurd level, or should I call you the O’Reilly of the left?
December 13th, 2009 on 3:32 pm
I’m not taking it to an absurd level. You always make that claim, but you simply aren’t getting the point …
If you apply your view of “liberty” to a right, let’s say the right to wear silly hats, and claim that it’s worth using lethal force to defend, constitutionally enshrined, and all that jazz … then in order to be intellectually honest, you must also be willing to apply your view of “liberty” to the right to wear silly shoes. And silly shirts, etc. I point this out, and you accuse me of taking it to the extreme.
It may be that my way of reasoning with this stuff is skewed by my hobbyist study of physics, but if you can’t apply a position 100% of the time and have it still be “valid” … then it’s not valid.
If infringing your ability to “do what you want” by passing a law is bad, then infringing your ability to “do what you want” by a girl saying no to a date must also be bad for the exact same reason, and furthermore must be the same KIND of bad, and must be bad to the same degree/extreme/level. Otherwise, you’re being a hypocrite. Failsauce.
December 14th, 2009 on 9:36 pm
Article 9 of the bill of rights. Just because rights aren’t in the constitution, doesn’t mean they don’t exist,and those rights belong to the people and the states. One of those unlisted rights is the right to travel. In Heller vs. DC, the justices stated that the modern semi auto pistol was the most modern firearm and individuals can own and use them for defense. I think that the car is the most modern means of travel and shouldn’t be considered a privledge as it is these days..
And Tim, you should be able to do whatever you want, as long as you aren’t harming anyone else. Which means if she says no to the date, you would be harming her by forcing her to go on one.
December 15th, 2009 on 8:27 am
But she’s harming you by denying you emotional stability and mental wellbeing.
Hopefully you see the philosophical problem this leads to, and perform some serious reflection on the concept. More likely though you’ll come back and post some BS about how stability or mental wellbeing dont matter or otherwise nitpick my example rather then consider the broader implication…
December 15th, 2009 on 6:33 pm
She’s not required to provide me with emotional stability or mental wellbeing. No one is required to provide me with anything. The broader implication is that you want to use force to take things away from me and give them to others against my will for the “greater good”, including the original post, my privacy and ability to be secure from unreasonable searches of my property and papers.
I don’t for a minute believe people should be able to do everything they want, but if they’re not harming others…..
December 15th, 2009 on 7:20 pm
Like I expected, you opted to nitpick the example rather then consider the broader implications. Not surprising.
It’s very simple. Anytime two people disagree about something, there is STRONG potential for denial of “liberty”, even if such denials are minor. This concept will never change. You’re going to have to accept that sometimes “liberty” is lost in order for society to function. You stop at a red light, despite being in a hurry, even if there is no other traffic (or maybe you dont?). You are denied “liberty”. Better load a musket and rail against traffic lights at empty intersections to avoid being a hypocrite, since I know you care about that, right?
Oh, sorry, I was mistaken..
December 15th, 2009 on 7:50 pm
Just remember… there is an element of common sense here Tim. Stopping at a red light, no normal person would object to. So how much “Liberty” do we sacrifice? Our rights to keep and bear arms? What about the patriot act (which WAS the point of this article) which steps on ALL of our rights in the name of security? How much do we have to loose? Tell me where the line in the sand is?
December 15th, 2009 on 8:00 pm
See, I don’t attempt to personally offend you when I bring up arguments. Obviously, driving through intersections when the light is red is going to harm someone. I’ve never treated you with the contempt that you are treating me with. I know, I’m the stupid moron that believes that you should leave me alone if I’m not harming anyone. I’m not planning on shooting my computer with a musket because it’s denying my ability to have a civil conversation with someone who disagrees with me.
December 15th, 2009 on 8:18 pm
“You stop at a red light, despite being in a hurry, even if there is no other traffic (or maybe you dont?)” key part of the phrase being “even if there is no other traffic”
December 15th, 2009 on 8:19 pm
John, re: your most recent comment, now you’re starting to get my point. It’s not black and white.