socialists movment woot woot!!!!

[Strauss]

LOL, so now you're citing Congressional wisdom for your argument??? :24:

Ex. Telephone, email,and financial record searches without a court order.

Ex. Indefinite detention of any alien who the AG believes could be a terrorist. Yeah, that means no evidence, or due process.

Ex. Expands FISA to include US citizens.

Ex. Domestic call-tracking... Google NSA database.

Ex. Sneak and peak searches

British Columbia and Nova Scotia have gone so far as to pass privacy laws to protect their citizens from our Patriot Act.

Congress reauthorized the Act with more than a few minor adjustments. A number of the provisions were ruled unconstitutional, and had to be changed.

You can say it 100 times if you want.... there's no question that governmental authority has been expanded,even though it was tempered a bit with the '05 and '06 reauthorizations. To say that the Patriot Act hasn't expanded gov't authority and intrusion into our privacy is either a sign of ignorance..... or you work for the government. :eek

Everyone of the the powers you cite existed BEFORE the Patriot Act, that's the point you fail to address. I didn't cite Congressional wisdom (I note your hero Obama did not speak out against renewal of the Act) I noted the support by the liberals in Congress for the renewal of the Act. No expanded government authority just placing it all in one place. There is no question you don't understand nor have read the Act.

You Democrats have been in power two years now how come you haven't repealed it in that time? Nothing to stop you from doing so considering you think its such a grave expansion of governmental intrusion on your personal liberties. Curious now that you liberal Democrats are in power we hear nothing about the Act and its repeal. Nothing to stop you from doing it yet the silence on the issue is deafening. Even the liberal whores at Huffington, Daily Kos and MoveOn.org have stop writing on the issue. Can anyone say "red herring"?

 

[trekguy]

Everyone of the the powers you cite existed BEFORE the Patriot Act, that's the point you fail to address. I didn't cite Congressional wisdom (I note your hero Obama did not speak out against renewal of the Act) I noted the support by the liberals in Congress for the renewal of the Act. No expanded government authority just placing it all in one place. There is no question you don't understand nor have read the Act.

You Democrats have been in power two years now how come you haven't repealed it in that time? Nothing to stop you from doing so considering you think its such a grave expansion of governmental intrusion on your personal liberties. Curious now that you liberal Democrats are in power we hear nothing about the Act and its repeal. Nothing to stop you from doing it yet the silence on the issue is deafening. Even the liberal whores at Huffington, Daily Kos and MoveOn.org have stop writing on the issue. Can anyone say "red herring"?

No, many of those powers did not exist before.

IF the Patriot Act contained nothing that wasn't already in place, why were some original provisions challenged, and ruled unconstitutional, and had to be changed in the reauthorization???

I believe it will be addressed...but there are more pressing issues at this point in time.

Obama voted for the reauthorization after a number of changes were made.

Red herring is right.... you've taken this discussion exactly where I thought you would. :clap

 

[Strauss]

No, many of those powers did not exist before.

Absolutely wrong wrong wrong. I have appeared in court on these very issues long before the Patriot Act existed. You could't be anymore wrong. You've got to stop reading the liberal blog sites they are leading you astray.

IF the Patriot Act contained nothing that wasn't already in place, why were some original provisions challenged, and ruled unconstitutional, and had to be changed in the reauthorization???

Really? Name the part that was found unconstitutional.

I believe it will be addressed...but there are more pressing issues at this point in time.

Bullshit answer. The Democrat Congress has had more than two years to address the alleged unconstitutional Patriot Act, the one you assert violates your personal liberties. This two year period was long before the current "crisis". Nothing has been done, no one even talks about it anymore. Why is that? maybe because there isn't any political mileage left to get out of it? Maybe because the liberals know that the Patriot Act is the right thing to do?

Obama voted for the reauthorization after a number of changes were made.

There was less than a handful of changes all sponsored by Bush. You still haven't addressed the question, if this Act is so bad that it tramples on your "personal liberties" why would your god-hero Obama vote for it? Is he not the protector of the oppressed? Is he not the community organizer against the opposer?

Red herring is right.... you've taken this discussion exactly where I thought you would. :clap

Translation: You hate getting called on the bullshit you post. You post general statements mainly taken from liberal blog sites such as Huffington, Daily Kos and the like and accept their talking points without question. You have no real depth of understanding of most of the topics they post talking points about but being the good little liberal you post them without question or thought and you've taken the discussion exactly were I thought you would. (More bullshit.)

 

[trekguy]

In September 2004, Judge Victor Marrero of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York struck down the NSL provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act. This prompted Congress to amend the law to allow limited judicial review of NSLs, and prompted the government to appeal the case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The appeal was dismissed by Doe I v. Gonzales, 449 F.3d 415 (2d Cir. 2006) because Congress amended Section 2709 in the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005,

On the recommendation of the Second Circuit, the district court considered the amended law in 2007, in Doe v. Gonzales. On September 6, 2007, Judge Marrero struck down the NSL provision of the revised Act, ruling that even with limited judicial review granted in the amended law, it was still a violation of separation of powers under the United States Constitution and the First Amendment. This is not yet enforced, pending a possible government appeal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Liberties_Union_v._Ashcroft_(2004)#cite_note-0Brandon Mayfield (born July 15, 1966) is an American attorney in Washington County, Oregon. He is best known for being erroneously linked to the 2004 Madrid train bombings. On May 6, 2004, the FBI arrested Mayfield as a material witness in connection with the Madrid attacks, and held him for over two weeks. Mayfield was never charged, and an FBI internal review later acknowledged serious errors in their investigation. Ensuing lawsuits have resulted in a formal apology from the U.S. government, a $2 million settlement, and the overturning of provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act on constitutional grounds.

On September 26, 2007, two provisions of the U.S. Patriot Act were declared unconstitutional. Finding in Mayfield's favor, Judge Aiken ruled that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, as amended by the Patriot Act, "now permits the executive branch of government to conduct surveillance and searches of American citizens without satisfying the probable cause requirements of the Fourth Amendment," which violates the Constitution of the United States


It took just a few minutes to dig these up...

I'm sure your response will be just more bullying, profanity, and whatever...

IF you are a lawyer, I'm beginning to see why you have so much time to be on internet forums.

 

[Alien Allen]

Trekkie you have not addressed the question about why if it is so bad that the press and the democrats have been mum on it as of late. and more importantly why Obama supported it if it is all you claim it is??

 

[Strauss]

On September 26, 2007, two provisions of the U.S. Patriot Act were declared unconstitutional. Finding in Mayfield's favor, Judge Aiken ruled that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, as amended by the Patriot Act, "now permits the executive branch of government to conduct surveillance and searches of American citizens without satisfying the probable cause requirements of the Fourth Amendment," which violates the Constitution of the United States


It took just a few minutes to dig these up...

I'm sure your response will be just more bullying, profanity, and whatever...

IF you are a lawyer, I'm beginning to see why you have so much time to be on internet forums.

Trekkie you have not addressed the question about why if it is so bad that the press and the democrats have been mum on it as of late. and more importantly why Obama supported it if it is all you claim it is??

So what you are saying is that the declaration as being unconstitutional was never challenged at the appellate level. Big frig deal. Until the Supreme Court says its unconstitutional or refuses to review an Appeal's Court decision declaring a statute unconstitutional you got nothing. I'd explain why just having a declaration by a District Court means nothing but you don't want the truth, you just want to keep on spouting the talking points.

My we have such a soft constitution, are you a man or a mouse? Face it you can't defend your position without crying wolf...."you're picking on me boo hoo boo hoo". Grow some balls.

And as Alien Allen has so righteously pointed out you still haven't explained why if the Patriot Act is such an infringement on your personal liberties why it hasn't been repealed by this Democrat Congress. Address this point if you can. BTW, your prior lame attempt that they are busy with other matters doesn't hold water, they've had two years prior to the current mess to address the issue of the Patriot Act and didn't other than to vote to extended it or was that to make it permanent?

BTW genius, its the weekend and I don't post much during the work week.

 

[trekguy]

So what you are saying is that the declaration as being unconstitutional was never challenged at the appellate level. Big frig deal. Until the Supreme Court says its unconstitutional or refuses to review an Appeal's Court decision declaring a statute unconstitutional you got nothing. I'd explain why just having a declaration by a District Court means nothing but you don't want the truth, you just want to keep on spouting the talking points.

My we have such a soft constitution, are you a man or a mouse? Face it you can't defend your position without crying wolf...."you're picking on me boo hoo boo hoo". Grow some balls.

And as Alien Allen has so righteously pointed out you still haven't explained why if the Patriot Act is such an infringement on your personal liberties why it hasn't been repealed by this Democrat Congress. Address this point if you can. BTW, your prior lame attempt that they are busy with other matters doesn't hold water, they've had two years prior to the current mess to address the issue of the Patriot Act and didn't other than to vote to extended it or was that to make it permanent?

BTW genius, its the weekend and I don't post much during the work week.

The process of lawsuits, judge's rulings, and appeals isn't the point. The point is, that the provisions in the Patriot Act expanded gov't powers that were/are invasive to our privacy, and at least some judges have ruled them to be unconstitutional. You said all it did was "reorganize", and did not expand any powers. The fact that they were challenged proves that point... and proves you wrong.

Why would you think I have a soft constitution? LOL. Because I call you on your bullying and name-calling?? It is what it is. Most people who need to use such tactics are the weak ones, btw. They talk tough, but that's about it. I speak to you, and anyone else here, just the way I would if we were face to face. I very much doubt that you can say that.

Regarding the Patriot Act reauthorization... the reauthorization of the Act in it's original form was rejected, and many provisions were amended in '06. It's as much as they could at the time. With the election coming up, it was not a subject that the Democrats needed to open up. It would have given the Republicans a way to wrongfully claim that the Democrats were against the security of the US. It will be dealt with during this administration.

 

[Strauss]

The process of lawsuits, judge's rulings, and appeals isn't the point. The point is, that the provisions in the Patriot Act expanded gov't powers that were/are invasive to our privacy, and at least some judges have ruled them to be unconstitutional. You said all it did was "reorganize", and did not expand any powers. The fact that they were challenged proves that point... and proves you wrong.

Why would you think I have a soft constitution? LOL. Because I call you on your bullying and name-calling?? It is what it is. Most people who need to use such tactics are the weak ones, btw. They talk tough, but that's about it. I speak to you, and anyone else here, just the way I would if we were face to face. I very much doubt that you can say that.

Regarding the Patriot Act reauthorization... the reauthorization of the Act in it's original form was rejected, and many provisions were amended in '06. It's as much as they could at the time. With the election coming up, it was not a subject that the Democrats needed to open up. It would have given the Republicans a way to wrongfully claim that the Democrats were against the security of the US. It will be dealt with during this administration.

You should stop while you have at least a little credibility left. One judge does not make the Patriot Act or any part of it unconstitutional.

No one has bullied you nor called you names. You just can't handle it when adults talk.

The re-authorization required a few minor changes. The point is and which you keep ignoring and dancing around is YOUR claim that it violates your personal liberties yet Congress appears to believe that there is nothing wrong with the Act. Your speculation about Congress and elections doesn't change the fact that no one has talked about its repeal.

 

[dt3]

Regarding the Patriot Act reauthorization... the reauthorization of the Act in it's original form was rejected, and many provisions were amended in '06. It's as much as they could at the time. With the election coming up, it was not a subject that the Democrats needed to open up. It would have given the Republicans a way to wrongfully claim that the Democrats were against the security of the US. It will be dealt with during this administration.

So what you're saying is: The Patriot Act is grossly flawed and violates our basic rights, as you see them, under the Constitution. The Congress is doing nothing about it for political reasons. And you're ok with that? If it's as bad as you claim, I imagine you'd be writing or calling your representatives every day, right? If you believe our fundamental rights are being horribly violated, how can you say it's a subject that they don't need to "open up"?????

 

[Alien Allen]

So what you're saying is: The Patriot Act is grossly flawed and violates our basic rights, as you see them, under the Constitution. The Congress is doing nothing about it for political reasons. And you're ok with that? If it's as bad as you claim, I imagine you'd be writing or calling your representatives every day, right? If you believe our fundamental rights are being horribly violated, how can you say it's a subject that they don't need to "open up"?????

Good point :thumbup

If it is as bad as presented then it should be beyond politics.

So then it looks like the democrats were only interested on presenting ideas that would get them elected it appears.

Come on Trekkie........... Admit that the democrats suck as bad as the republicans.

I know you won't but if you were honest you would. :nod:

 

[Strauss]

So what you're saying is: The Patriot Act is grossly flawed and violates our basic rights, as you see them, under the Constitution. The Congress is doing nothing about it for political reasons. And you're ok with that? If it's as bad as you claim, I imagine you'd be writing or calling your representatives every day, right? If you believe our fundamental rights are being horribly violated, how can you say it's a subject that they don't need to "open up"?????

And I guess the failure of Pelosi and Reid to have the Act repealed is Bush's fault. :sarcasm

BTW, quit picking on him and calling him names.

 

[trekguy]

So what you're saying is: The Patriot Act is grossly flawed and violates our basic rights, as you see them, under the Constitution. The Congress is doing nothing about it for political reasons. And you're ok with that? If it's as bad as you claim, I imagine you'd be writing or calling your representatives every day, right? If you believe our fundamental rights are being horribly violated, how can you say it's a subject that they don't need to "open up"?????

I said the Patriot Act infringes on personal liberties... which it does... I never said it was grossly flawed with our rights being horribly violated, those are your words.

I also said that some of the more controversial provisions were amended in '06....so that means Congress has done something about it. I personally think that it needs more looking in to.

If embellishing that makes it easier for you to argue... that's your choice.

 

[trekguy]

Good point :thumbup

If it is as bad as presented then it should be beyond politics.

So then it looks like the democrats were only interested on presenting ideas that would get them elected it appears.

Come on Trekkie........... Admit that the democrats suck as bad as the republicans.

I know you won't but if you were honest you would. :nod:

I'll agree with you that there are good and bad in both parties. Unfortunately, there seems to be no debating policy without the blanket condemnations, stereotyping, etc. This also applies to both sides.

 

[trekguy]

You should stop while you have at least a little credibility left. One judge does not make the Patriot Act or any part of it unconstitutional.

Never said it did. It just proves that there were expansion of powers (in some judges' opinion that were unconstitutional) that you said weren't there.

No one has bullied you nor called you names. You just can't handle it when adults talk.

The name-calling and insults don't bother me... it just shows weakness. I can handle adult conversation just fine... who knows, it could still happen here.

The re-authorization required a few minor changes. The point is and which you keep ignoring and dancing around is YOUR claim that it violates your personal liberties yet Congress appears to believe that there is nothing wrong with the Act. Your speculation about Congress and elections doesn't change the fact that no one has talked about its repeal.

What?! If there was nothing wrong, why would there need to be changes? You're getting sloppy now.

Hmm, now it's a fact that no one in Congress is talking about it??? How do you know that?

 

[Strauss]

Never said it did. It just proves that there were expansion of powers (in some judges' opinion that were unconstitutional) that you said weren't there.

Reading comprehension is a concern of yours isn't it? If it isn't it should be.

The name-calling and insults don't bother me... it just shows weakness. I can handle adult conversation just fine... who knows, it could still happen here.

No name calling but you seem to always revert to this when your arguments are shown to be less then intelligent.

What?! If there was nothing wrong, why would there need to be changes? You're getting sloppy now.

Wow, now you're stretching. The improvements were submitted by the Bush Administration.

Hmm, now it's a fact that no one in Congress is talking about it??? How do you know that?

I'm paid to know and the Patriot Act is a dead issue on the Hill. The liberals made hay out of it while they could, now that they control the reins of power they aren't so quick to condemn the Act.

 

[Strauss]

I said the Patriot Act infringes on personal liberties... which it does... I never said it was grossly flawed with our rights being horribly violated, those are your words.

I also said that some of the more controversial provisions were amended in '06....so that means Congress has done something about it. I personally think that it needs more looking in to.

If embellishing that makes it easier for you to argue... that's your choice.

The controversial provisions? What were those? My God you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Seriously, read something other than liberal blogs......you REALLY have no clue! At first I thought you were just being obstinate but the reality is you're arguing out your ass because this post proves you have no concept of what actually happened with the Act.

 

[trekguy]

Wow, now you're stretching. The improvements were submitted by the Bush Administration.

Wrong, the Bush Administration wanted the Act made permanent with no changes.

Congressional Democrats and even many Republicans worked for the changes.

I'm paid to know and the Patriot Act is a dead issue on the Hill. The liberals made hay out of it while they could, now that they control the reins of power they aren't so quick to condemn the Act.

The controversial provisions? What were those? My God you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Seriously, read something other than liberal blogs......you REALLY have no clue! At first I thought you were just being obstinate but the reality is you're arguing out your ass because this post proves you have no concept of what actually happened with the Act.

Two of the more controversial provisions, sections 206 and 215 are up for reauthorization in Dec 2009. Hardly a dead issue.

OK, now your turn again, here's where you tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about... of course you won't post any real information or facts to back it up. :24:

 

[dt3]

I said the Patriot Act infringes on personal liberties... which it does... I never said it was grossly flawed with our rights being horribly violated, those are your words.

I also said that some of the more controversial provisions were amended in '06....so that means Congress has done something about it. I personally think that it needs more looking in to.

If embellishing that makes it easier for you to argue... that's your choice.

Ok, since you say it isn't grossly flawed, I'll ask you this. Which parts of the current Patriot Act are ok in your book?

 

[lumpenstein]

Good point. But I think most Americans don't really know what socialism (or Obama) is really about. All they know is it's something to do with "Change". If they truly knew what it meant for them and for companies and for jobs, most would be up in arms about it. At least, that's what I think and believe from personal experience and talking to other people.

Then I suggest you educate us so we can make an informed decision.

As for "if you don't like it move" that is such an infantile cliché it doesn't merit comment except it only reflect on the intelligence - or lack thereof - of the poster.

You see, you have fallen it the same old trap: all or nothing, the same way you deal with religion. A person believes whole-heartedly, 100% in the bible or capitalism or he doesn't and the world just doesn't work that way. Socialism is merely the pooling together the resources, time and effort to achieve something for the common good of the society. You are a socialist to a degree if you contribute to the building of roads, schools, water treatment plants and garbage removal even if you don't necessarily use any of those services (One of the stupidest things I have ever heard was somebody saying "Why should my tax money be put towards schools? I don't have any kids!").

We are all socialists to a degree (unless a person is a hermit living in a cave somewhere) so don't fall into the trap of "Socialism: yes or no." A much better question would be "Socialism: how much?".

 

[Alien Allen]

I said the Patriot Act infringes on personal liberties... which it does...

I never said it was grossly flawed with our rights being horribly violated, those are your words.

make up your mind. is it the former or the later?? :willy_nilly:

if it infringes on personal liberties then your rights are being violated.

looks like liberal babblespeak and back tracking