The patriot act shows how socialist our politicians have become

[SuperDemocrat]

i supported the patriot act because it was needed after 911 to find terrorist and its powers aren't already found in other existing laws so I never understood the sometimes overly exaggerated complaints about it. With that being said the new powers were temporary because the law had to be renewed every few years. I thought out politicians would let it expire at some point but then they kept voting it back in. It now appeared that a temporary law was going to be a permanant thing in our government.

What does this have to do with "socialism"? I believe in road to serfdom the author makes an interesting observation on how hard it was to repeal laws in the 20th century. It was common for laws to be repealed before but now it seems politicians like to hold onto power and acquire more power along the way.

It just seems like that in every level of government it is impossible to diminish it in any way. We can't cut spending on any level even military spending can't be cut. Such a thing was possible during the 90s because bill Clinton did cut the size of the military and even bragged during the campaign of 1996 that he reduced government by 200,000 employees. It was his way of stealing conservative votes from bob dole. Now when there was talk of reducing the military in 2012 we couldn't do that. We can't even shut down bases left over from ww2. It just seems like our government doesn't want to let go of any power whatsoever. Not one drop of it and that should tell us that there is something wrong.

 

[occupied]

Still didn't explain how an authoritarian domestic spy network is socialist. It's the opposite of socialist because it benefits no one but the power elite.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

Still didn't explain how an authoritarian domestic spy network is socialist. It's the opposite of socialist because it benefits no one but the power elite.

When you say "power elite" do you mean politicians who happen to rule our nation. By the way, did you know Kerry was transported by a military tanker plane because of a broken leg? It is the kind of thing dictators do in their own countries which is to use the government for their own personal pleasure.

 

[occupied]

Still didn't explain how an authoritarian domestic spy network is socialist. It's the opposite of socialist because it benefits no one but the power elite.

When you say "power elite" do you mean politicians who happen to rule our nation. By the way, did you know Kerry was transported by a military tanker plane because of a broken leg? It is the kind of thing dictators do in their own countries which is to use the government for their own personal pleasure.

By power elite I mean the plutocrats and their pet politicians of both parties, not just the one party I happen to disagree with more. Quit being partisan on this issue, support is not a clear-cut party line thing here for once and learn the definition of "socialist", it is not defined as "everything democrats do".

 

[JakeStarkey]

It's not "socialism", it is authoritarianism, which can be found in democracies, theocracies, republics, you name it. Use the term correctly.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Still didn't explain how an authoritarian domestic spy network is socialist. It's the opposite of socialist because it benefits no one but the power elite.

What the fuck do you think Socialism is?

 

[FA_Q2]

Still didn't explain how an authoritarian domestic spy network is socialist. It's the opposite of socialist because it benefits no one but the power elite.

This.
The PA is not an example of socialism – that is an asinine statement. It is an example of totalitarianism (or at least a move in that direction).
It has nothing to do with socialism at all. What the law shows us is that the government loves power as though that needed to be outlined. If you thought that the government would give that kind of deference up after is given then you were naive. The government is not going to give that power up lightly. They are talking about phasing SOME of the phone surveillance right now but I do not believe it until I see actual results.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

Still didn't explain how an authoritarian domestic spy network is socialist. It's the opposite of socialist because it benefits no one but the power elite.

When you say "power elite" do you mean politicians who happen to rule our nation. By the way, did you know Kerry was transported by a military tanker plane because of a broken leg? It is the kind of thing dictators do in their own countries which is to use the government for their own personal pleasure.

By power elite I mean the plutocrats and their pet politicians of both parties, not just the one party I happen to disagree with more. Quit being partisan on this issue, support is not a clear-cut party line thing here for once and learn the definition of "socialist", it is not defined as "everything democrats do".

interesting...

 

[Pogo]

i supported the patriot act because it was needed after 911 to find terrorist and its powers aren't already found in other existing laws so I never understood the sometimes overly exaggerated complaints about it. With that being said the new powers were temporary because the law had to be renewed every few years. I thought out politicians would let it expire at some point but then they kept voting it back in. It now appeared that a temporary law was going to be a permanant thing in our government.

What does this have to do with "socialism"? I believe in road to serfdom the author makes an interesting observation on how hard it was to repeal laws in the 20th century. It was common for laws to be repealed before but now it seems politicians like to hold onto power and acquire more power along the way.

It just seems like that in every level of government it is impossible to diminish it in any way. We can't cut spending on any level even military spending can't be cut. Such a thing was possible during the 90s because bill Clinton did cut the size of the military and even bragged during the campaign of 1996 that he reduced government by 200,000 employees. It was his way of stealing conservative votes from bob dole. Now when there was talk of reducing the military in 2012 we couldn't do that. We can't even shut down bases left over from ww2. It just seems like our government doesn't want to let go of any power whatsoever. Not one drop of it and that should tell us that there is something wrong.

The PATRIOT Act (get the name right-- it's an acronym) is in no way "socialism" -- it's authoritarianism.

And your admission that you supported it tells us volumes about your own authoritarianism.

 

[occupied]

Still didn't explain how an authoritarian domestic spy network is socialist. It's the opposite of socialist because it benefits no one but the power elite.

What the fuck do you think Socialism is?

I could give you the textbook definition but you have google, look it up.

 

[Sonny Clark]

i supported the patriot act because it was needed after 911 to find terrorist and its powers aren't already found in other existing laws so I never understood the sometimes overly exaggerated complaints about it. With that being said the new powers were temporary because the law had to be renewed every few years. I thought out politicians would let it expire at some point but then they kept voting it back in. It now appeared that a temporary law was going to be a permanant thing in our government.

What does this have to do with "socialism"? I believe in road to serfdom the author makes an interesting observation on how hard it was to repeal laws in the 20th century. It was common for laws to be repealed before but now it seems politicians like to hold onto power and acquire more power along the way.

It just seems like that in every level of government it is impossible to diminish it in any way. We can't cut spending on any level even military spending can't be cut. Such a thing was possible during the 90s because bill Clinton did cut the size of the military and even bragged during the campaign of 1996 that he reduced government by 200,000 employees. It was his way of stealing conservative votes from bob dole. Now when there was talk of reducing the military in 2012 we couldn't do that. We can't even shut down bases left over from ww2. It just seems like our government doesn't want to let go of any power whatsoever. Not one drop of it and that should tell us that there is something wrong.

Well, lets place the blame where it rightfully belongs, shall we. QUESTION: Do politicians just waltz into Washington and take a seat?

Remember, before you go and blame government, first realize and understand where government comes from. The government couldn't do anything unless the people grant them the power to do whatever they do. The people elect them to office. The people place them in power. The people give them Carte Blanche to do as they damn well please. Once elected to office, politicians exert their will and not the will of the people. Yet, voters continue to elect and to re-elect them to office. How many politicians have served more than one term in office? How many voters complain for four years ( two in some cases ) after election day? How many voters have seen the damage to this once great nation, yet continue to vote the anti-America crooks into office, expecting a different result?

Don't blame those that sit in Washington, blame the voters for allowing them to ruin this once great nation. If you give a bank robber the keys to the bank vault, and he robs the vault, who's fault is it that the bank was robbed? If you place the candy dish where a small child can reach it, then tell the child not to get into the candy, and he does anyway, who's fault is it? If you elect an anti-America crook to serve in government, and that crook assist in destroying this nation, who's fault is it that this country is coming apart at the seams? Place the blame where it rightfully belongs.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

It's not "socialism", it is authoritarianism, which can be found in democracies, theocracies, republics, you name it. Use the term correctly.

Like national socialism? What about ussr?

 

[Pogo]

Still didn't explain how an authoritarian domestic spy network is socialist. It's the opposite of socialist because it benefits no one but the power elite.

Exactly. Socialism would be focused on the social -- the interests of the people. Authoritarianism serves the interests of the powerful.

 

[occupied]

i supported the patriot act because it was needed after 911 to find terrorist and its powers aren't already found in other existing laws so I never understood the sometimes overly exaggerated complaints about it. With that being said the new powers were temporary because the law had to be renewed every few years. I thought out politicians would let it expire at some point but then they kept voting it back in. It now appeared that a temporary law was going to be a permanant thing in our government.

What does this have to do with "socialism"? I believe in road to serfdom the author makes an interesting observation on how hard it was to repeal laws in the 20th century. It was common for laws to be repealed before but now it seems politicians like to hold onto power and acquire more power along the way.

It just seems like that in every level of government it is impossible to diminish it in any way. We can't cut spending on any level even military spending can't be cut. Such a thing was possible during the 90s because bill Clinton did cut the size of the military and even bragged during the campaign of 1996 that he reduced government by 200,000 employees. It was his way of stealing conservative votes from bob dole. Now when there was talk of reducing the military in 2012 we couldn't do that. We can't even shut down bases left over from ww2. It just seems like our government doesn't want to let go of any power whatsoever. Not one drop of it and that should tell us that there is something wrong.

Well, lets place the blame where it rightfully belongs, shall we. QUESTION: Do politicians just waltz into Washington and take a seat?

Remember, before you go and blame government, first realize and understand where government comes from. The government couldn't do anything unless the people grant them the power to do whatever they do. The people elect them to office. The people place them in power. The people give them Carte Blanche to do as they damn well please. Once elected to office, politicians exert their will and not the will of the people. Yet, voters continue to elect and to re-elect them to office. How many politicians have served more than one term in office? How many voters complain for four years ( two in some cases ) after election day? How many voters have seen the damage to this once great nation, yet continue to vote the anti-America crooks into office, expecting a different result?

Don't blame those that sit in Washington, blame the voters for allowing them to ruin this once great nation. If you give a bank robber the keys to the bank vault, and he robs the vault, who's fault is it that the bank was robbed? If you place the candy dish where a small child can reach it, then tell the child not to get into the candy, and he does anyway, who's fault is it? If you elect an anti-America crook to serve in government, and that crook assist in destroying this nation, who's fault is it that this country is coming apart at the seams? Place the blame where it rightfully belongs.

Only rich people who support the wealthy can afford to seek national office so we end up with scoundrels every time, real populists unsuccessfully run all the time, you people call then "socialists who hate business".

 

[Pogo]

It's not "socialism", it is authoritarianism, which can be found in democracies, theocracies, republics, you name it. Use the term correctly.

Like national socialism? What about ussr?

If "national socialism" refers to the NSDAP, socialism was simply a new and trendy term at the time, hadn't been exercised in practice, and was already part of the name of that party (to which Hitler objected but went along with it for the marketing appeal). Both Nazi Germany and the USSR were authoritarian states -- regardless what they named themselves.

You can call yourself anything you like -- doesn't make it your essence. North Korea after all calls itself the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Clearly that's not the case.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Patriot Act, as currently implemented by Obama is more like Orwellian Fascism

 

[occupied]

It's not "socialism", it is authoritarianism, which can be found in democracies, theocracies, republics, you name it. Use the term correctly.

Like national socialism? What about ussr?

What about any tyrannical dictatorship who called themselves by a populist name? It's in how they act, not what they claim to represent.

 

[Sonny Clark]

i supported the patriot act because it was needed after 911 to find terrorist and its powers aren't already found in other existing laws so I never understood the sometimes overly exaggerated complaints about it. With that being said the new powers were temporary because the law had to be renewed every few years. I thought out politicians would let it expire at some point but then they kept voting it back in. It now appeared that a temporary law was going to be a permanant thing in our government.

What does this have to do with "socialism"? I believe in road to serfdom the author makes an interesting observation on how hard it was to repeal laws in the 20th century. It was common for laws to be repealed before but now it seems politicians like to hold onto power and acquire more power along the way.

It just seems like that in every level of government it is impossible to diminish it in any way. We can't cut spending on any level even military spending can't be cut. Such a thing was possible during the 90s because bill Clinton did cut the size of the military and even bragged during the campaign of 1996 that he reduced government by 200,000 employees. It was his way of stealing conservative votes from bob dole. Now when there was talk of reducing the military in 2012 we couldn't do that. We can't even shut down bases left over from ww2. It just seems like our government doesn't want to let go of any power whatsoever. Not one drop of it and that should tell us that there is something wrong.

Well, lets place the blame where it rightfully belongs, shall we. QUESTION: Do politicians just waltz into Washington and take a seat?

Remember, before you go and blame government, first realize and understand where government comes from. The government couldn't do anything unless the people grant them the power to do whatever they do. The people elect them to office. The people place them in power. The people give them Carte Blanche to do as they damn well please. Once elected to office, politicians exert their will and not the will of the people. Yet, voters continue to elect and to re-elect them to office. How many politicians have served more than one term in office? How many voters complain for four years ( two in some cases ) after election day? How many voters have seen the damage to this once great nation, yet continue to vote the anti-America crooks into office, expecting a different result?

Don't blame those that sit in Washington, blame the voters for allowing them to ruin this once great nation. If you give a bank robber the keys to the bank vault, and he robs the vault, who's fault is it that the bank was robbed? If you place the candy dish where a small child can reach it, then tell the child not to get into the candy, and he does anyway, who's fault is it? If you elect an anti-America crook to serve in government, and that crook assist in destroying this nation, who's fault is it that this country is coming apart at the seams? Place the blame where it rightfully belongs.

Only rich people who support the wealthy can afford to seek national office so we end up with scoundrels every time, real populists unsuccessfully run all the time, you people call then "socialists who hate business".

FYI - No one forces anyone to vote for the crooks. No one holds a gun to anyone's head and makes them vote the crooks into office. Every single voter has the right to write-in a candidate of their choice. Yes, the wealthy, the powerful, and the influential place the crooks on the ballots. But, it's the voters that play the game, and aids and abets them by voting them into office. The voters do exactly what the professional politicians want them to do. HINT: The most feared enemy of politicians is a united citizenry. As long as we're divided along party lines, they win, we lose. Nothing pleases professional politicians more than to see and hear us taking sides for either Republicans or for Democrats.

 

[occupied]

i supported the patriot act because it was needed after 911 to find terrorist and its powers aren't already found in other existing laws so I never understood the sometimes overly exaggerated complaints about it. With that being said the new powers were temporary because the law had to be renewed every few years. I thought out politicians would let it expire at some point but then they kept voting it back in. It now appeared that a temporary law was going to be a permanant thing in our government.

What does this have to do with "socialism"? I believe in road to serfdom the author makes an interesting observation on how hard it was to repeal laws in the 20th century. It was common for laws to be repealed before but now it seems politicians like to hold onto power and acquire more power along the way.

It just seems like that in every level of government it is impossible to diminish it in any way. We can't cut spending on any level even military spending can't be cut. Such a thing was possible during the 90s because bill Clinton did cut the size of the military and even bragged during the campaign of 1996 that he reduced government by 200,000 employees. It was his way of stealing conservative votes from bob dole. Now when there was talk of reducing the military in 2012 we couldn't do that. We can't even shut down bases left over from ww2. It just seems like our government doesn't want to let go of any power whatsoever. Not one drop of it and that should tell us that there is something wrong.

Well, lets place the blame where it rightfully belongs, shall we. QUESTION: Do politicians just waltz into Washington and take a seat?

Remember, before you go and blame government, first realize and understand where government comes from. The government couldn't do anything unless the people grant them the power to do whatever they do. The people elect them to office. The people place them in power. The people give them Carte Blanche to do as they damn well please. Once elected to office, politicians exert their will and not the will of the people. Yet, voters continue to elect and to re-elect them to office. How many politicians have served more than one term in office? How many voters complain for four years ( two in some cases ) after election day? How many voters have seen the damage to this once great nation, yet continue to vote the anti-America crooks into office, expecting a different result?

Don't blame those that sit in Washington, blame the voters for allowing them to ruin this once great nation. If you give a bank robber the keys to the bank vault, and he robs the vault, who's fault is it that the bank was robbed? If you place the candy dish where a small child can reach it, then tell the child not to get into the candy, and he does anyway, who's fault is it? If you elect an anti-America crook to serve in government, and that crook assist in destroying this nation, who's fault is it that this country is coming apart at the seams? Place the blame where it rightfully belongs.

Only rich people who support the wealthy can afford to seek national office so we end up with scoundrels every time, real populists unsuccessfully run all the time, you people call then "socialists who hate business".

FYI - No one forces anyone to vote for the crooks. No one holds a gun to anyone's head and makes them vote the crooks into office. Every single voter has the right to write-in a candidate of their choice. Yes, the wealthy, the powerful, and the influential place the crooks on the ballots. But, it's the voters that play the game, and aids and abets them by voting them into office. The voters do exactly what the professional politicians want them to do. HINT: The most feared enemy of politicians is a united citizenry. As long as we're divided along party lines, they win, we lose. Nothing pleases professional more than to see and hear us taking sides for either Republicans or for Democrats.

OK first conservatives should quit demonizing populists and populism as a horrible communistic threat, we need some of that about now, been greasing the skids for billionaires and big business long enough.

 

[FA_Q2]

i supported the patriot act because it was needed after 911 to find terrorist and its powers aren't already found in other existing laws so I never understood the sometimes overly exaggerated complaints about it. With that being said the new powers were temporary because the law had to be renewed every few years. I thought out politicians would let it expire at some point but then they kept voting it back in. It now appeared that a temporary law was going to be a permanant thing in our government.

What does this have to do with "socialism"? I believe in road to serfdom the author makes an interesting observation on how hard it was to repeal laws in the 20th century. It was common for laws to be repealed before but now it seems politicians like to hold onto power and acquire more power along the way.

It just seems like that in every level of government it is impossible to diminish it in any way. We can't cut spending on any level even military spending can't be cut. Such a thing was possible during the 90s because bill Clinton did cut the size of the military and even bragged during the campaign of 1996 that he reduced government by 200,000 employees. It was his way of stealing conservative votes from bob dole. Now when there was talk of reducing the military in 2012 we couldn't do that. We can't even shut down bases left over from ww2. It just seems like our government doesn't want to let go of any power whatsoever. Not one drop of it and that should tell us that there is something wrong.

The PATRIOT Act (get the name right-- it's an acronym) is in no way "socialism" -- it's authoritarianism.

And your admission that you supported it tells us volumes about your own authoritarianism.

Authoritarianism. THAT was the term I was looking for. Much better than totalitarian which is, at least as I see it, a more specific term.