The patriot act shows how socialist our politicians have become

[FA_Q2]

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?

You can argue that socialism naturally goes with an authoritarian government but that does not make authoritarian concepts socialist concepts. They are different and the PA clearly is not socialistic in nature - it dies nothing at all for the 'people' or shift any resource/production to the ownership of the people. The PA ONLY deals with increasing governmental power at the expense of rights. That places it firmly in the authoritarian category. Not only that - it does so in the same tried and true method that authoritarians spread influence and remove rights - through fear.

Killed by terrorist is one of the least likely ways that you will die yet it is the driving force to remove any rights that you have in fear that they are going to take hold.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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

The Patriot Act is owned by Bush, Obama, and both parties.

I agree with Paul, and the new bill needs to cut it back more.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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

The Patriot Act is owned by Bush, Obama, and both parties.

I agree with Paul, and the new bill needs to cut it back more.

Thank you for that, Frank. Once the PA went into effect, we could see a year ahead and more the gear up for Iraq. The tip off was the government's reneging on the war crime treaties that previous admins had signed off on and had been approved the the Senate.

Bush and Obama and both parties have not cared for America and its core at all.

 

[Redfish]

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

The Patriot Act is owned by Bush, Obama, and both parties.

I agree with Paul, and the new bill needs to cut it back more.

the right to use blanket warrents to collect the phone records of all americans must be stricken from the PA. The rest of it is fine and may have saved YOUR life.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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

The Patriot Act is owned by Bush, Obama, and both parties.

I agree with Paul, and the new bill needs to cut it back more.

the right to use blanket warrents to collect the phone records of all americans must be stricken from the PA. The rest of it is fine and may have saved YOUR life.

I am not so sure about saving lives specifically, but the PA needs to reworked. But give us specific examples if I am wrong.

 

[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.

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.

Well said. For practical purposes it's a single political party that dresses its puppets in red or blue to give the illusion of contrast. The idea is that We the Unwashed should get lost in the puppet show and bicker about which one rocks. The last thing they want is for the People to look up at the puppetmasters, for we might then notice that their mannequins are all doing the same dance.

To paraphrase Henry Ford, you can have any candidate you want, so long as it's red or blue.

 

[JakeStarkey]

In 2015, the American public is a scary place, much like 1895.

 

[occupied]

I love it, that on this issue, we all seem to be in agreement. God bless Edward Snowden.

 

[FA_Q2]

I love it, that on this issue, we all seem to be in agreement. God bless Edward Snowden.

Not really a surprise.

Most that know anything about the damn law left or right are against it. The problem is that the politicians like the power and don't want to let it go.

 

[occupied]

I love it, that on this issue, we all seem to be in agreement. God bless Edward Snowden.

Not really a surprise.

Most that know anything about the damn law left or right are against it. The problem is that the politicians like the power and don't want to let it go.

It's not even the politicians, not really, it's mostly a bunch of anonymous suits and uniforms from the national security apparatus that really want this, those people are very good at frightening politicians. Every one of the congressmen in Washington knows this shit is a risk to privacy and freedom but let themselves be scared into covering their ass instead of doing the right and courageous thing. No one wants anything to happen on their watch, so they cave.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

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.

It is actually, they need the NSA to investigate every possible revenue source that people may be trying to conceal from the government, because they need to take from those by their ability and give it to those by their need.

 

[Dragonlady]

the right to use blanket warrents to collect the phone records of all americans must be stricken from the PA. The rest of it is fine and may have saved YOUR life.

The Patriot Act hasn't saved anybody's life. It hasn't prevent any terrorist attacks either. Lindsay Graham was on TV this morning saying that it helped confirm that the Boston Bombers were acting alone and that's it. Big whoop for that.

It's a total waste of time and resources and undermines constitutional rights. The PA is a piece of garbage which should never have been passed in the first place.

 

[Deleted member 53821]

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?

You can argue that socialism naturally goes with an authoritarian government but that does not make authoritarian concepts socialist concepts. They are different and the PA clearly is not socialistic in nature - it dies nothing at all for the 'people' or shift any resource/production to the ownership of the people. The PA ONLY deals with increasing governmental power at the expense of rights. That places it firmly in the authoritarian category. Not only that - it does so in the same tried and true method that authoritarians spread influence and remove rights - through fear.

Killed by terrorist is one of the least likely ways that you will die yet it is the driving force to remove any rights that you have in fear that they are going to take hold.

Here is a scenario that should make you realize that a large government infrastructure can only lead to an authoritarian system. Imagine a government so large as counted by the number of employees that a near 40 % of the population is employed by it. That means out of every ten people you meet 4 of them are employed by the government. We know the affect of being around police officers is. People automatically become less willing to do something that may appear illegal. It definitely has an affect on our behaviour that would otherwise wouldn't exist. Now imagine what the affect on our behaviour would be when 4 out of 10 people we meet are employed by the government. I just don't see how a large government can give us the feeling that we can move about freely without the fear of being harassed in some form by it.

 

[Deleted member 53821]

I totally agree that the patriot act should expire.

 

[FA_Q2]

the right to use blanket warrents to collect the phone records of all americans must be stricken from the PA. The rest of it is fine and may have saved YOUR life.

The Patriot Act hasn't saved anybody's life. It hasn't prevent any terrorist attacks either. Lindsay Graham was on TV this morning saying that it helped confirm that the Boston Bombers were acting alone and that's it. Big whoop for that.

It's a total waste of time and resources and undermines constitutional rights. The PA is a piece of garbage which should never have been passed in the first place.

It is but, IMHO, if it saves lives is really irrelevant. I don’t trade freedom for the perception that it might keep us slightly safer.
Outlawing motorcycles would also save lives – it is far more dangerous to drive a motor cycle than a car. That does not mean that we should limit that freedom though.
This is a FAR greater infringement on our freedoms and does virtually nothing. Even IF we give them the benefit of the doubt that it helps combat terrorism.

 

[FA_Q2]

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?

You can argue that socialism naturally goes with an authoritarian government but that does not make authoritarian concepts socialist concepts. They are different and the PA clearly is not socialistic in nature - it dies nothing at all for the 'people' or shift any resource/production to the ownership of the people. The PA ONLY deals with increasing governmental power at the expense of rights. That places it firmly in the authoritarian category. Not only that - it does so in the same tried and true method that authoritarians spread influence and remove rights - through fear.

Killed by terrorist is one of the least likely ways that you will die yet it is the driving force to remove any rights that you have in fear that they are going to take hold.

Here is a scenario that should make you realize that a large government infrastructure can only lead to an authoritarian system. Imagine a government so large as counted by the number of employees that a near 40 % of the population is employed by it. That means out of every ten people you meet 4 of them are employed by the government. We know the affect of being around police officers is. People automatically become less willing to do something that may appear illegal. It definitely has an affect on our behaviour that would otherwise wouldn't exist. Now imagine what the affect on our behaviour would be when 4 out of 10 people we meet are employed by the government. I just don't see how a large government can give us the feeling that we can move about freely without the fear of being harassed in some form by it.

And that has to do with what I said because?
Your monologue there is meaningless to anything I stated. The FACT is the PA is not a case of socialism, period. Any attempt to make it so is grossly misunderstanding what the term even means. What is the point of using a term if you do not understand what it means or is completely inaccurate to describe the situation.

 

[Misty]

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.

I do think the patriot act may have stopped some terrorist attacks but the shoe bomber the ford hood terrorist the boston marathon bombers were not stopped by the patriot act.

The TSA has been proven ineffective since they are frisking old ladies and kids so that's useless.

The best hope was and always will be the American people.

Watch look listen report.

 

[Contumacious]

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

Mr Dingle Berry, Sir:


Did I request , via the free market place, that the government spy on me?

No.


So then it is socialism.


The practice is found in all societies controlled by government supremacists regardless of what they choose to call themselves.


.

 

[Redfish]

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

The Patriot Act is owned by Bush, Obama, and both parties.

I agree with Paul, and the new bill needs to cut it back more.

the right to use blanket warrents to collect the phone records of all americans must be stricken from the PA. The rest of it is fine and may have saved YOUR life.

I am not so sure about saving lives specifically, but the PA needs to reworked. But give us specific examples if I am wrong.

why would they tell the general public (and would be terrorists) about the attacks that they stopped? Are you a complete moron?

 

[Redfish]

the right to use blanket warrents to collect the phone records of all americans must be stricken from the PA. The rest of it is fine and may have saved YOUR life.

The Patriot Act hasn't saved anybody's life. It hasn't prevent any terrorist attacks either. Lindsay Graham was on TV this morning saying that it helped confirm that the Boston Bombers were acting alone and that's it. Big whoop for that.

It's a total waste of time and resources and undermines constitutional rights. The PA is a piece of garbage which should never have been passed in the first place.

you have no way of knowing how many american lives it has saved, and thats as it should be.