Patriot act, 2 supported it, 1 opposed

[tpahl]

It's called tyranny. They were threatened with claims of being 'unpatriotic' if they didn't pass it. They would be blamed for the next terrorist attack, if it happened.

Has anyone called Ron Paul unpatriotic yet? I have not heard it if they have. I understand they were concerned about their appearance. I guess I would just rather see them have some balls and do the right thing. And I do not think that even one of them thinks it is really right to vote on something you have not read.

Ron Paul gets elected by a landslide with little help from the GOP because they do not like his critisism that much. Why does he do so well? the people actually respect the guy. How many people honestly respect their politicians in america today? not many from what I have seen.

Travis

 

[DKSuddeth]

Has anyone called Ron Paul unpatriotic yet? I have not heard it if they have. I understand they were concerned about their appearance. I guess I would just rather see them have some balls and do the right thing. And I do not think that even one of them thinks it is really right to vote on something you have not read.

Ron Paul gets elected by a landslide with little help from the GOP because they do not like his critisism that much. Why does he do so well? the people actually respect the guy. How many people honestly respect their politicians in america today? not many from what I have seen.

Travis

maybe you misunderstood me. I didn't say the PEOPLE threatened them with being unpatriotic, I meant that the government leadership threatened them.

 

[tpahl]

maybe you misunderstood me. I didn't say the PEOPLE threatened them with being unpatriotic, I meant that the government leadership threatened them.

So you are saying that these people that you elected to office have forgotten who they work for?

Travis

 

[DKSuddeth]

So you are saying that these people that you elected to office have forgotten who they work for?

Travis

thank you captain obvious!!!

 

[musicman]

tpahl:

What you say would be 100% true if the only issue were the making of laws, but there are other factors to consider. For one, there is national defense. There are significant differences in the mindsets of the two majors on this matter. Read "Dereliction of Duty", by Lt. Col. "Buzz" Patterson, if you want an insight into Democrat views on the military. The Democrats have demonstrated, again and again and AGAIN that they cannot be trusted with the national defense.

For another, there is the matter of Supreme Court appointments. In our lifetime, we have watched the judiciary grow into a monster, bent on writing it's own social agenda, and the will of the people be damned. Congressional gridlock stands in the way of any remedy for this exercise in sheer tyranny.

Has the Republican party betrayed conservatism? Absolutely. Is it still a preferrable choice to the Democrats? Any way you look at it, hell yeah. And, I'm sorry to say - realistically, at this point, a vote for the LP amounts to a protest vote. Chalk it up in the Democrat column. Until something drastic happens, our practical choices remain: dumb or dumber.

 

[popefumanchu]

Bush has decided to rename them enemy combatants, which is fine, he can call them Enemy evil doers, or enemy bad guys or whatever he wants, but that does not change the fact that they are still enemy soldiers or criminals, not some new third class of imprisoned people.

According to the Geneva convention enemy "soldiers" are defined as uniformed troops representing the fighting force of a specific country and are accorded the full rights of the Geneva Convention. The enemy we fight are not uniformed and do not represent a specific country. These fighters are defined as enemy combatants by the Geneva Convention, which says the only thing you cannot do is execute them.
These people are criminals. They kill innocent people. They are murderers. They are organized to kill more innocents and control as many people and as many resources through fear and force of arms as possible. They hate freedom. They are evil. They must be destroyed.

We are holding them so that we can get the information we need to stop the rest of them. They are being treated well. They have culturally appropriate meals and clerical services. If we think one of them has info, we tighten the screws. I don't give an airborne cat dook if we rough them up a bit to save some innocent people. Evil deserves no mercy, for it will not afford us any.

 

[tpahl]

tpahl:

What you say would be 100% true if the only issue were the making of laws, but there are other factors to consider. For one, there is national defense. There are significant differences in the mindsets of the two majors on this matter. Read "Dereliction of Duty", by Lt. Col. "Buzz" Patterson, if you want an insight into Democrat views on the military. The Democrats have demonstrated, again and again and AGAIN that they cannot be trusted with the national defense.

Actually I would say both parties are failing in this department. Both the democrats and republicans in congress gave Bush permission to go to war without a formal decleration. The power to declare war and execute war were divided by the founders for good reason and congress did not have the power to give the executive branch its power. http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul197.html
It is entitled... "


This is not the first time it has happened this way. it has been this way ever seince the end of WWII. Before that the president could not take us into war without permission from congress.

Since this unconstitutional change has taken place, both parties have pretty much equally shared responsibility in sending our troops over seas and into wars every few years.

For another, there is the matter of Supreme Court appointments. In our lifetime, we have watched the judiciary grow into a monster, bent on writing it's own social agenda, and the will of the people be damned. Congressional gridlock stands in the way of any remedy for this exercise in sheer tyranny.

I direct you to an excellant article by Ron Paul (R) texas, http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul197.html
It is entitled... "Protecting Marriage From Judicial Tyranny"

Has the Republican party betrayed conservatism? Absolutely. Is it still a preferrable choice to the Democrats? Any way you look at it, hell yeah. And, I'm sorry to say - realistically, at this point, a vote for the LP amounts to a protest vote. Chalk it up in the Democrat column. Until something drastic happens, our practical choices remain: dumb or dumber.

Of course it is a protest vote. But the whole point of a protest vote is to send a message back to the major parties. that message? "we want smaller government, give us a good candidate or you will not get my vote"

By continueing to vote for the bad choices they are giving you, you are saying, you can count on me no matter how bad you get.

Travis

 

[tpahl]

According to the Geneva convention enemy "soldiers" are defined as uniformed troops representing the fighting force of a specific country and are accorded the full rights of the Geneva Convention. The enemy we fight are not uniformed and do not represent a specific country. These fighters are defined as enemy combatants by the Geneva Convention, which says the only thing you cannot do is execute them.
These people are criminals. They kill innocent people. They are murderers. They are organized to kill more innocents and control as many people and as many resources through fear and force of arms as possible. They hate freedom. They are evil. They must be destroyed.

We are holding them so that we can get the information we need to stop the rest of them. They are being treated well. They have culturally appropriate meals and clerical services. If we think one of them has info, we tighten the screws. I don't give an airborne cat dook if we rough them up a bit to save some innocent people. Evil deserves no mercy, for it will not afford us any.

regardless of whether they fit some definition in the geneva convention, they are human beings that should get a fair hearing regardless of how evil we think they are or whether they would do the same to us. if for no other reason than as I pointed out before, our next leader may not be so moral in who gets defined as an enemy combatant. For example it could be a socialist that hates republicans and he comes after you. You might be upset once captured, and think it is unjust, but the rest of the world will not hear your cries for help.

Travis

 

[musicman]

I can't argue with you much, Tpahl, because you're right. I would just opt for practicality at this stage of the game. Something's going to have to give, though, in the next four years. The idea is to keep the truly heinous jackals out of office until then.

What part of Texas is that guy from? My brother lives in Dallas.

 

[tpahl]

I am pretty sure he is from Austin. Some newspapers have reported Buda because that is where his campaign hq's is, but that is not where he lives.

I can understand the desire for practicallilty. My only comment to that would be, 'is it really practical to vote for someone with whom you disagree with? Even if your candidate wins, you lose. I think it is more practical to admit that this election is a lost cause and instead send a message.

Also can I ask you what state you are registered to vote in?

Travis

 

[musicman]

I'm registered in Ohio. I lived in Dallas for a few years, but , God, how I missed trees, and hills, and green grass!

I can see why you'd want to express your dissatisfaction with the status quo with your vote. It's something we're all going to have to take a hard look at, very soon. For now, I tend to go with a straight Republican ticket. I figure that, when it comes to the crunch, they're all going to vote along party lines anyway. I might as well go with the major party whose fundamental policy is closer to my own.

The "grand old party" is going to have to get it's shit together, though. This country is basically conservative.

 

[Annie]

I'm registered in Ohio. I lived in Dallas for a few years, but , God, how I missed trees, and hills, and green grass!

I can see why you'd want to express your dissatisfaction with the status quo with your vote. It's something we're all going to have to take a hard look at, very soon. For now, I tend to go with a straight Republican ticket. I figure that, when it comes to the crunch, they're all going to vote along party lines anyway. I might as well go with the major party whose fundamental policy is closer to my own.

The "grand old party" is going to have to get it's shit together, though. This country is basically conservative.

Musicman, I think you've expressed my sentiments well. There are many things that I agree with the Libertarian perspective, not all, but that's true of the GOP also. However, to my way of thinking, this is not the time to switch horses, especially when the reality of the world is not being considered. Funny thing? I probably would have felt very differently 9/10/01.

 

[popefumanchu]

regardless of whether they fit some definition in the geneva convention, they are human beings that should get a fair hearing regardless of how evil we think they are or whether they would do the same to us. if for no other reason than as I pointed out before, our next leader may not be so moral in who gets defined as an enemy combatant. For example it could be a socialist that hates republicans and he comes after you. You might be upset once captured, and think it is unjust, but the rest of the world will not hear your cries for help.

Travis

Evil is not an opinion. It is a definition of someone who hates liberty and does not respect life.

The American people are a moral people and, especially after Clinton, will not allow an immoral person to be president. Morality and democracy go hand in hand. Socialism is innately immoral.

What our president does now doesn't force future presidents to do the same thing.

Are you really that paranoid?

 

[tpahl]

Evil is not an opinion. It is a definition of someone who hates liberty and does not respect life.

The American people are a moral people and, especially after Clinton, will not allow an immoral person to be president. Morality and democracy go hand in hand. Socialism is innately immoral.

What our president does now doesn't force future presidents to do the same thing.

Are you really that paranoid?

Yes, I am. And so were our founding fathers. The whole point of the constitution was to limit the powers of the government and the few things that it left to the government it made sure and divided the power to protect freedom even more. Without some paranoia we would end up with a dictatorship in a matter of a decade.

Travis

 

[acludem]

The current president is already acting like a dictator. The reason our Constitution was written was to strengthen the national government from the Articles of Confederation. Our founders wanted to create a national government that was somewhere in between the English system and the Articles' system. That's why they chose the three branch system with checks and balances. It provided for a strong national government with checks to be sure that no one branch could strong arm the other two. They also sought to give states some protection, too while making it clear that the national government was supreme.

They weren't clear enough - there was a civil war that ultimately proved that states rights were secondary to the interests of the nation as a whole - a concept still foreign to many conservatives including some members of the Supreme Court.

John Kerry supported the Patriot Act as a short-term necessity. Renewing it and giving more power to the Justice Department would be a massive error.

acludem

Kerry/Edwards '04!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[tpahl]

John Kerry supported the Patriot Act as a short-term necessity.

He had not even READ the act so he just went on autopilot and voted yes to more government power.

Travis