Posted on 12/28/2003 11:26:16 AM PST by Agitate
I've noticed several threads where people say they will not vote for Bush if he supports certain causes. Some include:
Memogate:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1045476/posts
Broad Amnesty in immigration:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1046165/posts
(Please don't see this as an attack on those threads or any comments in them, it's not.)
While I agree with the conservative position on both of these threads, I don't understand how a person could not vote for Bush even if he does some things that are inexplicable from a conservative point of view.
My belief is nothing could be worse than a democrat in office in 2004. I know that is the lesser of two evils vote, but it is true.
Even if Bush gave amnesty to immigrants to pander to hispanics, which would be disgusting, is that reason enough to allow a democrat a greater chance to get in office? Wouldn't the dems likely do worse?
Got a flash for you, studly. Instead of being unhappy about it, as perhaps you might be, I am doing something about it. I do NOT intend to hand off to my kids and grandkids a country that is so much less free than we were handed by the founders. If your liberty means so little, all I can say is, "May your chains rest lightly and may posterity forget that you were one of my countrymen." Or, to steal someone's song: If you're happy and you know it, clank your chains...
If you have the links to the actual act, I'd like to see them.
Here is the link to the Thomas HTML version of the Act. When I printed out the Acrobat version, that is supposed to be the same as delivered to Congress, it was 267 pages.
Although Title III has received much of the media coverage and is where a large part of the problems can be found, it is far from being the only problem. Many provisions of Title II, for example, are clear violations of the 4th Amendment. Among other things, Title II contains roving warrant provisions (Sec. 206) that violate the 4th Amendment's requirement that warrants shall describe "the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." It also reverses over a century of SCOTUS rulings, that are further based upon many centuries of Common Law, upon which our laws are based, that require prompt owner notification of the execution of a search warrant (Sec. 213).
Title III deals almost exclusively with monitoring the financial transactions of US citizens and others, who use the US banking system, even though every federal agency that investigates such matters has reported, on numerous occasions, that not only do the terrorists NOT use our banking system to launder money, but they have no motivation to do so. That's because they have access to the Arabic banking system, which is a much more secure method of laundering money. Since Arabic banks have no central control (like the Fed) and operate on a cash settlement basis, it makes it impossible (not virtually impossible - impossible) for us to track their transactions.
What all of that boils down to is that the only remaining possible reason for the inclusion of Title III, was to make it easy to spy, not on terrorists, but on normal US citizens like you and me. That case against the club owner, out in Las Vegas, is a good example of the Title III abuses that I and many others warned of, only days after the act was signed into law.
If any lawmaking body leaves a gaping hole in a law, such as those that riddle the (ANTI)Patriot Act, you can bet that someone will take advantage of that hole, to abuse the spirit of the act. I always tell people that when you read the text of any proposed law or regulation, you should stop at the end of each paragraph and ask yourself, "How could hillary abuse this provision?" Interestingly, not only are there many provisions strewn throughout the (ANTI)Patriot Act that invite abuse by people like hillary, but Ashcroft has already availed himself of most of them. What does that say about Ashcroft or the man who allows him to stay in power, to continue to violate our Constitutional guarantees, in the false name of fighting terrorism?
If Title III of the (ANTI)Patriot Act had been left out, in its entirety, it would not have made the tiniest bit of difference in our ability to fight terrorism, because, as pointed out above, it does not apply to terrorists or their activities. Then, although about half of what's left, might have a temporary place in law, during this time of conflict, most of those "extraordinary powers" have no sunset provisions attached to them, meaning that it will take an act of Congress and Presidential signature to repeal them, rather than taking an act of Congress and Presidential signature to keep them alive. Both sides of the aisle prefer it that way, since it is much easier for lawmakers to justify taking no action, than to justify taking the wrong action. The few sunsets that are a part of the (ANTI)Patriot Act were bones that were thrown in, to pacify the dissenters and are tied only to the less onerous provisions.
There are some very good provisions that are part of the (ANTI)Patriot Act. But, all of those provisions comprise less than 50 pages of the 267 page document that is the (ANTI)Patriot Act. Then, to add insult to injury, part of Patriot II was recently enacted, that redefines the meaning of "Financial Institutions" to include travel agencies, airlines, insurance agencies, casinos, jewelry stores and car dealers. This very small redefinition has terrible impact on our privacy, when applied to the (ANTI)Patriot Act.
Watch those hot flashes...they cause intense whining.
Instead of being unhappy about it, as perhaps you might be, I am doing something about it.
Such as...?
I do NOT intend to hand off to my kids and grandkids a country that is so much less free than we were handed by the founders.
And...?
If your liberty means so little...
You have no clue about what liberty and freedom mean to me (or probably anyone else for that matter). I don't see any special insight or meaningful contributions coming out of you. Who do you think you are?
As to who am I... I am just a retired old mud Marine who swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution for the United States against ALL enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC. No one relieved me of that oath and I take it seriously indeed. Something I would hardly expect the likes of YOU to understand.
Yeah...and you have all the answers, and you are more patriotic than the rest of us, and you know it all, and you you you....it's all about you. How pathetic.
Everybody has core beliefs. Some are rigid and some are flexible. Some core beliefs are better than others. Some or all are cancelled out by others on election day. I respect other's core beliefs — until they impinge on my life, as would be the case if you helped to elect Democrats by the way you vote or don't vote based on your "core beliefs". Then your core beliefs become problematical for me and for many others. It ain't just about you. Clinton was elected by people with core beliefs...so was Hitler, I suspect.
Nope, it AIN'T about me. It's all about YOU. Your convenience. Not at all about liberty, freedom and the Constitutional repuiblic we were given. Not a bit... So you keep whining about being impinged on by people with principles and we will keep voting (or NOT VOTING) our consciences. Something you don't appear to be troubled with possessing.
If you come up with another method for me to use, I am all ears on making it happen. But it better be effective or I won't bother.
Here's another method: Vote Constitution Party. It sends a far more explicit message than not voting.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.