TEA Party derails PATRIOT Act fasttrack vote

[Dr.Drock]

in my lifetime.

I'm not holding my breath about it staying out of government but if the most unconstitutional piece of legislation in US history stays off the books I'll sign up to become a democrat this year.

They will renew it this week when they hold the vote that only needs a simple majority.

Sad.

They are very likely to renew it.

They will do so without any needless "rule" requiring a ridiculous super-majority.

Wonderful!

Excellent.

As it should be.

Terrific.

GREAT!

And yes, I am serious.

There is not one single solitary rational argument against it.

Another instance of there being no difference between Republican and Democrat, they can hold hands and dance around the Patriot Act, just like they can with every other major issue.

 

[Liability]

They will renew it this week when they hold the vote that only needs a simple majority.

Sad.

They are very likely to renew it.

They will do so without any needless "rule" requiring a ridiculous super-majority.

Wonderful!

Excellent.

As it should be.

Terrific.

GREAT!

And yes, I am serious.

There is not one single solitary rational argument against it.

Another instance of there being no difference between Republican and Democrat, they can hold hands and dance around the Patriot Act, just like they can with every other major issue.

Except, I'm neither. And many of my conservative and libertarian friends disagree with me.

Nope. You are just spouting mindless platitudes.

The FACT remains that you and your ilk have offered not one legitimate principled point that rationally supports your position in opposition to the Patriot Act.

I don't "dance around" the Patriot Act. I support it. It is a powerful tool (set of tools, actually). As such, like many of our laws and law enforcement and national security tools, it can be subject to abuses. Therefore, scrutiny is perfectly appropriate. Vigilance is required. But that's not an argument against the Patriot Act. You cannot offer a coherent argument against the Patriot Act. And you never have.

 

[Dr.Drock]

They are very likely to renew it.

They will do so without any needless "rule" requiring a ridiculous super-majority.

Wonderful!

Excellent.

As it should be.

Terrific.

GREAT!

And yes, I am serious.

There is not one single solitary rational argument against it.

Another instance of there being no difference between Republican and Democrat, they can hold hands and dance around the Patriot Act, just like they can with every other major issue.

Except, I'm neither. And many of my conservative and libertarian friends disagree with me.

Nope. You are just spouting mindless platitudes.

The FACT remains that you and your ilk have offered not one legitimate principled point that rationally supports your position in opposition to the Patriot Act.

I don't "dance around" the Patriot Act. I support it. It is a powerful tool (set of tools, actually). As such, like many of our laws and law enforcement and national security tools, it can be subject to abuses. Therefore, scrutiny is perfectly appropriate. Vigilance is required. But that's not an argument against the Patriot Act. You cannot offer a coherent argument against the Patriot Act. And you never have.

I'm going to assume you haven't read anything I've posted, hence how you're saying what you are now.

We'll find something we agree on, just not this one.

 

[signelect]

Looks to me like we are all on the same page more or less. We all want our freedom and have lost faith in those in Washington to do anything right and not abuse the power but we also want to be safe from terrorist who come to the US. They come here because they are safer here than than what ever country they call home. I know that being safe is not 100% and I don't want to give up my constitutional right just for that. Washington is passing too many laws that apply to us but not to them.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Looks to me like we are all on the same page more or less. We all want our freedom and have lost faith in those in Washington to do anything right and not abuse the power but we also want to be safe from terrorist who come to the US. They come here because they are safer here than than what ever country they call home. I know that being safe is not 100% and I don't want to give up my constitutional right just for that. Washington is passing too many laws that apply to us but not to them.

I'll take the terrorism fearmongering seriously when our bureacrats take port/border security seriously.

Until then, I'm not going to be in favor of any legislation that gives them more power under the excuse of terrorism.

 

[Liability]

Another instance of there being no difference between Republican and Democrat, they can hold hands and dance around the Patriot Act, just like they can with every other major issue.

Except, I'm neither. And many of my conservative and libertarian friends disagree with me.

Nope. You are just spouting mindless platitudes.

The FACT remains that you and your ilk have offered not one legitimate principled point that rationally supports your position in opposition to the Patriot Act.

I don't "dance around" the Patriot Act. I support it. It is a powerful tool (set of tools, actually). As such, like many of our laws and law enforcement and national security tools, it can be subject to abuses. Therefore, scrutiny is perfectly appropriate. Vigilance is required. But that's not an argument against the Patriot Act. You cannot offer a coherent argument against the Patriot Act. And you never have.

I'm going to assume you haven't read anything I've posted, hence how you're saying what you are now.

We'll find something we agree on, just not this one.

I read your stuff. Like I said, though: you can offer not ONE single solitary scrap of a coherent argument.

Some argument? Yeah. But nothing persuasive or logical.

 

[MonsterZero]

If there is any hope for changing this country and repealing this MOST unconstituional thing, Americans are going to have to get SERIOUS, ORAGANIZED, and start a third party.

 

[Liability]

If there is any hope for changing this country and repealing this MOST unconstituional thing, Americans are going to have to get SERIOUS, ORAGANIZED, and start a third party.

It's not unConstitutional.

 

[MonsterZero]

If there is any hope for changing this country and repealing this MOST unconstitutional thing, Americans are going to have to get SERIOUS, ORAGANIZED, and start a third party.

It's not unConstitutional.

Oh boy. Did Glenn Beck tell you that?

 

[Liability]

If there is any hope for changing this country and repealing this MOST unconstitutional thing, Americans are going to have to get SERIOUS, ORAGANIZED, and start a third party.

It's not unConstitutional.

Oh boy. Did Glenn Beck tell you that?

No. Why? Did Soros tell you that it was?

 

[CMike]

Allowing terrorists to plot more freely is certainly a liberal thing to do

 

[MonsterZero]

It's not unConstitutional.

Oh boy. Did Glenn Beck tell you that?

No. Why? Did Soros tell you that it was?

Who?

 

[Synthaholic]

Allowing terrorists to plot more freely is certainly a liberal thing to do

That would be Liberals like Condi Rice, Rumsfeld, Wolfawitz, Cheney and Bush who ignored Richard Clarke's warnings, thereby "allowing terrorists to plot more freely".

 

[CMike]

What warnings ?

 

[Synthaholic]

What warnings ?

New to politics?


Bush administration rejects Clarke charges - CNN

 

[Liability]

Oh boy. Did Glenn Beck tell you that?

No. Why? Did Soros tell you that it was?

Who?

Kid, if you don't know (or don't choose to admit knowing) who Soros is, then it is evident that you are in way the fuck over your head on this Board.

 

[Liability]

Allowing terrorists to plot more freely is certainly a liberal thing to do

That would be Liberals like Condi Rice, Rumsfeld, Wolfawitz, Cheney and Bush who ignored Richard Clarke's warnings, thereby "allowing terrorists to plot more freely".

Simpleholic not only buys the self-serving bullshit offered by Clarke, but tries to perpetuate the myth.

Newsflash: Clarke is absolutely a liar.* But people like Simpleholic "see" only what they wish to see. No surprise.

Simpleholic remains a pathetic fail.

___________________________
*

JohnofTesh
25-03-2004, 17:01
From Boortz.com:

The proceedings of the committee to elect John Kerry President continued yesterday, this time with walking contradiction Richard Clarke testifying. This is the guy that wrote the book blaming 9/11 on President Bush and praising Bill Clinton's 8 years of inaction on terrorism as somehow better. What an absolute crock...perhaps he's been hired to revise the Clinton legacy because the facts just aren't on this guy's side.
Surprisingly, this egomaniac's head actually fit through the door of the hearing room. Clarke kicked off his testimony with an apology to "the loved ones of the victims of 9/11....your government failed you. Those entrusted with protecting you failed you and I failed you." His statement should have more truthfully been "to the loved ones of the victims of 9/11...the Clinton administration failed you. Prior to the slaughter of your loved ones on 9/11 by Islamic terrorists, Bill Clinton turned down the direct handover of Osama Bin Laden on numerous occasions. The Clinton administration refused to allow the CIA to kill Bin Laden, with only capture as the stated policy. Those entrusted with protecting you, including myself, were abject failures who viewed terrorism as a law enforcement problem. And don't forget to buy my book."

Well ... let's get to the rest of Clarke's testimony. We can basically wrap it up this way. Clarke told the commission, as he told America in his book, that the Bush administration did virtually nothing to address the threat of Al Qaeda until the attacks of 9/11. Nothing. He said that Bush was virtually unprepared to act as though it's a major problem.

Uh oh. Small problem. The White House was a few steps ahead of Clarke yesterday ... as was Fox News Channel. Jim Angle is a reporter for Fox. As the news about Clarke's book started to hit Angle remembered a briefing he received from a White House spokesman in August of 2002. That briefing was for background. That means that the seven reporters on the telephone conference call could not identify who their source was .. .only what their source said. Angle remembered that the person who delivered that briefing was ... Richard Clarke.

As luck would have it, Angle had a recording of that briefing. He listened to it and found that what Clarke was saying then was markedly different from what Clarke was saying now. So Angle went to the White House to seek permission to release a transcript of that 2002 briefing, and to identify Richard Clarke as the source. The White House, after conferring with the National Security Council, agreed.

So what did Clarke have to say in the 2002 briefing?

Let's start with a statement Clarke made to the 9/11 Commission yesterday. Clarke told the commissioners that early on in the Bush administration he told the president: " ... and I said, well, you know, we've had this strategy ready ... ahh ... since before you were inaugurated. I showed it to you. You have the paperwork. We can have a meeting on the strategy anytime you want."

So .. there's Clarke telling the media and the commissioners yesterday that he had presented paperwork to Bush on a strategy for dealing with Al Qaeda and was ready to discuss it. But what did he say to Jim Angle in 2002? This: "I think the overall point is, there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush Administration."

Lying then? Or lying now?

And what about this "Bush did virtually nothing" claim?

In the 2002 background briefing Clarke said: "When President Bush told us in March to stop swatting at flies and just solve this problem, then that was the strategic direction that triggered the NSPD (National Security Presidential Directive) from one of roll back to one of elimination." "NSPD" is National Security Presidential Directive. So Clark was telling reporters in August of 2002 that the directive from the president in March of 2001 was to stop swatting at flies ... to eliminate Al Qaeda. This is what calls doing virtually nothing?

In the 2002 briefing Clarke also told Angle and the rest of the reporters that Bush had ordered an increase in CIA resources by five times .. .including funding for covert actions against Al Qaeda. Again ... doing virtually nothing?

Here's the kicker. It comes from the transcript of the 2002 Clarke briefing ... near the end.

Jim Angle: "So, just to finish up if we could then, so what you're saying is that there was no -- one, there was no plan; two, there was no delay; and that actually the first changes since October of '98 were made in the months just after the administration came into office?

Richard Clarke: "You got it. That's right.

So .. while the terrorist threat was increasing Clinton made no changes in his plan of action against terrorism during the last two years of his presidency, but Bush got on the stick immediately. That is what Clarke is now describing as "doing virtually nothing."

Obviously Clarke is lying. We just have to figure out which statements are the lies? Was he lying in 2002 when he was working in the Bush White House? Or is he lying now when he's trying to sell a book?

Figure it out.


P.S. I vote Liar Now.

-- Richard Clarke - Liar Then or Liar Now? [Archive] - Diablo 3 & Diablo 2 Forums @ Diablo: IncGamers {All emphases added byme.}

 

[AquaAthena]

I am glad it passed too. Growing intrusion into our lives by the government is the most dangerous threat we face today.

 

[Dr.Drock]

I am glad it passed too. Growing intrusion into our lives by the government is the most dangerous threat we face today.

Part of the debate me and liability had on this thread was when I gave examples of government abusing the power. He countered that government not going by the law isn't an instance of the Patriot Act being wrong, which is fair if you think they'll follow the letter of the law.

If you give government an inch more of power they'll take a mile, if you pass a government program with a certain budget they'll go way over it.

I just don't like the idea of giving more power in anything, no matter how miniscule or big, because they ALREADY have too much.

 

[BenNatuf]

The war that is ongoing due to the AUMF the congress passed declaring it in 2001 against AQ and their affiliates, and any nations, states, organizations or persons who harbor, aid, abet or support them or their affiliates. What you fools fail to get is that the PA actually restricts what the President can do as before it passed he needed no warrant to gather intelligence against our enemies in the first place. He can do that under his authority as the CinC.

Then you mean the endless, so-called "War On Terror"®.

The so-called war on terror is, sadly, a bit misnamed. You guys love to harp on that trivial point.

But the war against the scumbags who wage war against us -- and who not only utilize the "tools" of terrorism but gladly embrace the handle "terrorists" -- is a perfectly valid thing for us to be doing.

Your mindless (drooling) "complaint" that the war is "endless" is really quite stupid of you. You seem to think that you've latched onto a real telling rhetorical "point." You haven't. Not even close.

There isn't a time limit on fighting an enemy that hasn't surrendered, you moron.

If the fuckwads trying to kill our people and attack our physical and property interests want the war to end, all they have to do is capitulate.

If that offends your precious sensibilities, too fucking bad. You remain a huge asshole, Simpleholic.

You said it in a much more entertaining manner than I would have!!!