Questions for Herr Ashcroft

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by Bern80
The only people that should be upset w/ the patriot act are those that have something to hide.

I've nothing to hide, and it is most upsetting to me.

It has been a common argument of despots throughout history that"...You have to break a few eggs to make an omlet..." In other words, the ends justify the means. And if a society is willing to sacrifice the freedoms that have been its foundation for more than two centuries in return for a modicum of security, then they deserve neither.

If the Bush administrations "Homeland" security strategies are carried out to their logical conclusion, then the terrorists will have won. America will be a police state, the world and we lose.

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit

Dubbyuh isn't half the man his father is, and I think his ambition srings from a massive inferiority complex. Either that , or Poppy tossed off on a flower pot and raised a bloomin' idiot.

If his dear old dad hadn't blown it and capitulated to the requests of the weak and unintelligent, ole W wouldn't be in this mess.

 

[MtnBiker]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
US Attorney General John Ashcroft was visiting an elementary school.
After
speaking for 15 minutes, he said, "I will now answer any questions you
have."
Bobby stood up and said: "I have four questions:
1. How did Bush win the election with fewer votes than Gore?
2. Why haven't you caught Osama bin Laden?
3. Why are you using the American Patriot Act to destroy civil
liberties?
4. Where are the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?"
Just then the bell went off and the kids were sent out to play.
Upon returning, Mr. Ashcroft said: "I am sorry we were
interrupted. I will now answer any questions you have."
A little girl called Julie stood up and said: "I have six questions:
1. How did Bush win the election with fewer votes than Gore?
2. Why haven't you caught Osama bin Laden?
3. Why are you using the American Patriot Act to destroy civil
liberties?
4. Where are the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?
5. Why did the bell ring 20 minutes early?
6. Where is Bobby?"

Why does this seem so familiar? Hmmm....Oh yeah the Hillary Factor 9-28-03

Not even original

note thread from link is in the humor section

 

[Bern80]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
I've nothing to hide, and it is most upsetting to me.

again, why? If you have nothing to hide the Patriot Act will never effect you.

It has been a common argument of despots throughout history that"...You have to break a few eggs to make an omlet..."

Which despots might we be talking about here?

In other words, the ends justify the means. And if a society is willing to sacrifice the freedoms that have been its foundation for more than two centuries in return for a modicum of security, then they deserve neither.

What freedoms are you speaking of? In other words what is the government prohibiting you from doing since the act was passed?

If the Bush administrations "Homeland" security strategies are carried out to their logical conclusion, then the terrorists will have won. America will be a police state, the world and we lose.

There is nothing logical about your conclusion. I browsed through the acts table of contents, (you can look the actual bill up on yahoo by searching 'the patriot act' or i can provide a link if it's okay w/ jimnyc, not clear on linking rules yet), the only item i found somewhat questionable was under title II, sect. 202 of the table of contents "authority to intercept wire, oral and electronic communication relating to computer fraud and abuse offenses" which is pretty much illegal anyway as are the majority of the provisins in the act. The rest seems to be more about cooperation by government entitie once a terrorism law is actually broken. Feel free to share any other exceptions

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit


I might have implied Dubbyuh and his merry band were a bunch of Nazis, but I never actually came out and called them that.

Good one. Shit like this is what makes you such an annoying idiot.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by Bern80
again, why? If you have nothing to hide the Patriot Act will never effect you.



Which despots might we be talking about here?


What freedoms are you speaking of? In other words what is the government prohibiting you from doing since the act was passed?



There is nothing logical about your conclusion. I browsed through the acts table of contents, (you can look the actual bill up on yahoo by searching 'the patriot act' or i can provide a link if it's okay w/ jimnyc, not clear on linking rules yet), the only item i found somewhat questionable was under title II, sect. 202 of the table of contents "authority to intercept wire, oral and electronic communication relating to computer fraud and abuse offenses" which is pretty much illegal anyway as are the majority of the provisins in the act. The rest seems to be more about cooperation by government entitie once a terrorism law is actually broken. Feel free to share any other exceptions

Point one: All the more reason to stand opposed to it.

Point two: Pick one...They have never hesitated to use any means to advance their ends of absolute power and control. It is also interesting to note that many of history's despots, especially modern ones, have acted "...In the name of the people..." whilst they utterly crushed "...the people..." to further their own agendas. We need look no further than Hitler, Stalin, Pohl Pot, Castro, Pinochet and others for the proof of that pudding.

Point three: Sneek-and peek searches, library use, expanded FISA warrants with reduced burden of proof, COINTELPRO-like operations by the FBI against groups opposed to the administration...Need I go on?

Point four: Did you actually read the provisions? Or is the table of contents the best you can manage?

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
Good one. Shit like this is what makes you such an annoying idiot.

Thank you!

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
Point one: All the more reason to stand opposed to it.

Point two: Pick one...They have never hesitated to use any means to advance their ends of absolute power and control. It is also interesting to note that many of history's despots, especially modern ones, have acted "...In the name of the people..." whilst they utterly crushed "...the people..." to further their own agendas. We need look no further than Hitler, Stalin, Pohl Pot, Castro, Pinochet and others for the proof of that pudding.

Point three: Sneek-and peek searches, library use, expanded FISA warrants with reduced burden of proof, COINTELPRO-like operations by the FBI against groups opposed to the administration...Need I go on?

Point four: Did you actually read the provisions? Or is the table of contents the best you can manage?

You're just mad because now it's harder for you and Anti-American buddies to topple America:The Empire of Evil.:clap1:

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
Thank you!

No really. It's very immature. "I didn't say it, I only implied it, therefore I cannot be held accountable for my 'implications' (wink, wink)." It's very childish. If you want to actually debate, quit being such an evasive little twirp.

 

[Aquarian]

moi- I'm glad you understood the spirit of my post since it was you I was replying to

 

[jimnyc]

Bern80 wrote:

What freedoms are you speaking of? In other words what is the government prohibiting you from doing since the act was passed?

Bullypulpit responded:

Point three: Sneek-and peek searches, library use, expanded FISA warrants with reduced burden of proof, COINTELPRO-like operations by the FBI against groups opposed to the administration...Need I go on?

And how has any of this prohibited you from doing anything? Did you not understand his question? Allow me to rephrase for you:

What have you SPECIFICALLY been prohibited from doing? SPECIFICALLY what freedoms exactly have YOU lost? Not the possibility if you are a suspected terrorist, but what have you already lost?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
I've nothing to hide, and it is most upsetting to me.

It has been a common argument of despots throughout history that"...You have to break a few eggs to make an omlet..." In other words, the ends justify the means. And if a society is willing to sacrifice the freedoms that have been its foundation for more than two centuries in return for a modicum of security, then they deserve neither.

If the Bush administrations "Homeland" security strategies are carried out to their logical conclusion, then the terrorists will have won. America will be a police state, the world and we lose.

BP, What's your attitude on an individuals 2nd amendment rights. Do you believe individuals have the right to own hands guns? I'm just checking.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
BP, What's your attitude on an individuals 2nd amendment rights. Do you believe individuals have the right to own hands guns? I'm just checking.

Yep, I've hunted all my life. Never had to use an automatic weapon on a deer though. A .270 caliber 180gr boatail does the trick. One shot, one kill.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
Yep, I've hunted all my life. Never had to use an automatic weapon on a deer though. A .270 caliber 180gr boatail does the trick. One shot, one kill.

Good. I just hate fair weather constitutionalists.

Honestly BP, on the patriot act you're not totally, totally off in left field, so to speak.

It's a little bit disconcerting, and I do shudder when I think of a lib controlled administration with these sorts of powers. I guess we'll have to see to it that that never happens again!

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by jimnyc
Bern80 wrote:


Bullypulpit responded:


And how has any of this prohibited you from doing anything? Did you not understand his question? Allow me to rephrase for you:

What have you SPECIFICALLY been prohibited from doing? SPECIFICALLY what freedoms exactly have YOU lost? Not the possibility if you are a suspected terrorist, but what have you already lost?

Well, ya know I haven't lost any. But before you get on yer high horse and crow "Victory!" there is a caveat here.

Dubbyuh has already used the broadened powers contained within the PATRIOT Act to arrest a US citizen on US soil hand hold that individual indefinitely, without charge, and without access to cousel. This arbitrary exercise of presidential power is what the Constitution was crafted to prevent. The Constitution was written by people who had been through the bloody crucible of war against an oppressive power, and was not intended to be tossed aside at the first sign of trouble. It is the LAW OF THE LAND. Dubbyuh's arrest of a stupid ex-gang gang-banger effectively usurps the Consitution, which he has sworn to support and defend.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
Good. I just hate fair weather constitutionalists.

Honestly BP, on the patriot act you're not totally, totally off in left field, so to speak.

It's a little bit disconcerting, and I do shudder when I think of a lib controlled administration with these sorts of powers. I guess we'll have to see to it that that never happens again!

That's nice to hear. But just as with freedom, there are responsibilities inherent in the exercise of power. Unfortunately both "conservatives" and "liberals" seem to have abdicated such responsibiliies.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
Well, ya know I haven't lost any. But before you get on yer high horse and crow "Victory!" there is a caveat here.

Dubbyuh has already used the broadened powers contained within the PATRIOT Act to arrest a US citizen on US soil hand hold that individual indefinitely, without charge, and without access to cousel. This arbitrary exercise of presidential power is what the Constitution was crafted to prevent. The Constitution was written by people who had been through the bloody crucible of war against an oppressive power, and was not intended to be tossed aside at the first sign of trouble. It is the LAW OF THE LAND. Dubbyuh's arrest of a stupid ex-gang gang-banger effectively usurps the Consitution, which he has sworn to support and defend.

1 out of 300 million isn't something I'm going to worry about. And unless someone is onvolved in some shady activities, they have nothing to worry about either. If they are, then I have no problem with them losing certain freedoms. As to the everyday law abiding citizens, we aren't losing anything.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by jimnyc
1 out of 300 million isn't something I'm going to worry about. And unless someone is onvolved in some shady activities, they have nothing to worry about either. If they are, then I have no problem with them losing certain freedoms. As to the everyday law abiding citizens, we aren't losing anything.

Well jim, yer a pretty smart fella, but in this case you are dead wrong. It sets a precedent for unbridled presidential power.

For a thorough commentary on the subject, I refer you here:

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/script...ry=writ&submit.x=24&submit.y=8&submit=Search!

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
Well jim, yer a pretty smart fella, but in this case you are dead wrong. It sets a precedent for unbridled presidential power.

For a thorough commentary on the subject, I refer you here:

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/script...ry=writ&submit.x=24&submit.y=8&submit=Search!

I'm quite familiar with the case, thank you.

Yes, it gives unbridled presidential power, to go after those involved in crap they shouldn't be involved in. No complaints from me!

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by jimnyc
1 out of 300 million isn't something I'm going to worry about. And unless someone is onvolved in some shady activities, they have nothing to worry about either. If they are, then I have no problem with them losing certain freedoms. As to the everyday law abiding citizens, we aren't losing anything.

Jim, I have to say that your statement is about as unamerican as can be. This country was created, and the constitution written, to keep government as much out of the personal life as possible. It should also be known that when the rights and freedoms of ONE person is violated, so are all of our rights and freedoms violated.

Implying that someone has something to hide if they have problems with the patriot act is extremely hypocritical to any and all who raised holy hell when actions like this were suggested by a democratic party member, as in RWA's suggestion, and to even suggest that one political party is more responsible with curtailing freedoms and liberties than another goes against the entire grain of what the USA once stood for.

With sneak and peek searches, you may never know if the government has violated your fourth amendment rights or not until its too late and since the commencement of the patriot act we have seen more usage against non-terrorism related cases as time goes on. Advocating the usage of this 'unpatriot act' for non-terrorism related cases smacks of either extreme partisan ship or complete disregard for anyones rights guaranteed by the constitution.

What is it you people want? Like me, I assume you want a free and safe america, but do we go against the basics that america has stood for to achieve it or do we force our governing authorities to work harder with the effective tools they had before the patriot act? Do we re-write the bill of rights to obtain a security that was known to never be able to exist by the founders of the constitution or do we act as patriots in defending the liberties of the individual?

You're either for constitutional rights or against them.