Step Two:
Use some degradable cleanser...I am not PC, don't use the Bio stuff:
Step Three:
Posted on 12/29/2003 10:21:03 AM PST by Semper Paratus
Well, according to a Washington Post article:
"Tad DeHaven, a budget researcher at the libertarian Cato Institute, published his version of the numbers a few days later. He found a 6.8 percent increase in the same categories (spending not related to the military or homeland security ) in 2002, an 8.3 percent increase last fiscal year and a 6.3 percent increase this year -- more than double Bush's 2004 number".
While "federal budget authority climbed 11 percent in 2002 and 15.3 percent in 2003".
However, the GDP was flat in recessionary 2002 thanks to Clinton.
What policies did Klinton enact that caused the recession?
Step Two:
Use some degradable cleanser...I am not PC, don't use the Bio stuff:
Step Three:
I think they check the logs and hours on the road also
Glock .. Do you know exactly what they do at the wieght stations?
Ridge voted for the AWB in Congress, and has led the administration's foot-dragging on arming pilots.
When Ridge was asked by a pilot about carrying a gun in the cockpit, he retorted "Where do you stop?" If pilots were allowed to carry weapons, railroad engineers and bus drivers would soon be asking to do the same"
So, using the more complete document, SPEEDING is not a violation of the act nor can it be considered anything but speeding unless you were planning mass destruction...like speeding into a building or a large group of people.
I reread section 802, and you're correct. However the phrase "appears to be intended to.... intimidate or influence" in paragraph B is intentionally vague, and as such, it's not too hard to think of many scenarios where it could be misused.
What specifically in the "sneak n peak" provisions concern you?
The fact that the gov't can come in and search your property without telling you. Prior to 9/11 they could do this, but only under exigent circumstances. The bar has been significantly lowered by the Patriot Act.
Furthermore, do you disagree with the idea that every electronic eavesdropping measure to be employed by the FBI, CIA, etc. should require a warrant?
Every domestic electronic eavesdropping measure should require a warrant. Exigent circumstances excluded.
If so, what are the ramifications to the effort to stop terrorism in this country?
Less than the ramifications of leaving the borders wide open to illegal immigrants.
The gov't had all the laws they needed to prevent 9/11.
What other "non-terrorism" cases have used the Patriot Act?
Drug cases, gambling cases, strip club cases. I even saw a thread here about how the Act was used in regards to Limbaugh, but I haven't read that thread yet.
3 states and 200 cities passed resolutions to do what? Furthermore, I thought you were against unnecessary government bureaucracy? Aren't these resolutions exactly that?
A resolution against a bill which eviscerates the Bill of Rights isn't "bureaucracy". It's one of the few legitimate things a gov't can do, since the primary purpose of gov't is to secure our Rights.
Furthermore, since you are an advocate of closed borders, certainly you wouldn't mind if the administration just decided to make it so and spend billions doing so, right?
It would certainly be better spent than what they are spending it on now.
While I would like to believe it would cost less to do so, I'd like to see some numbers
A few thousand troops, augmented by volunteers could do the job.
If you really wanted to go cheap, just put a bounty on the head of any male illegal immigrant over the age of 14.
Of course they. "Homeland Security" and the "Patriot Act" were things that Clinton could only dream of doing, and now the Republicans have implemented them.
I think that a better approach would be to have a few laws that the feds concentrate on instead of many laws that they have to divide their time to enforce.
As far as the dude with the waiting fire axe...."In the end; there can be ONLY one!"
You've got it exactly right. Weigh stations would do nothing to catch terrorists, unless the terrorists were stupid enough to overload their trailer. In fact, many shippers attach a seal to the trailer's latch in order to prevent entry. US Customs can break the seal, but I don't believe domestic law enforcement can do so absent reasonable cause (I could be wrong on that, though).
Is that what you see happening on this thread?
I'm just back from being out for several hours and am catching up on the thread. I have every confidence that you are wrong as can be, (no surprise), and I just have to wonder what on earth moves you to time and again make such baseless statements.
No matter, I just had to roll my eyes as I make my way to the part of the thread where I can find out what Ridge really said.
"Tad DeHaven, a budget researcher at the libertarian Cato Institute, published his version of the numbers a few days later. He found a 6.8 percent increase in the same categories (spending not related to the military or homeland security ) in 2002, an 8.3 percent increase last fiscal year and a 6.3 percent increase this year -- more than double Bush's 2004 number".
The articles I've seen from Cato about the discretionary 2002 budget include Homeland defense as nondefense, thus scewing of the numbers. You would have to show me differently with a link.
From the CBO, Link 2002 discretionary spending was 7.1% of GDP. Half of that discretionary spending was DOD. That takes non-DOD spending down to about 3.6% of GDP. Add to that the $19 billion for discretionary Homeland defense and you are down to about 3.3% of GDP. Compare that to Reagans discretionary first year budget of 1982 which was about 3.9% of GDP.
I have not seen the final numbers yet for 2003 but I believe they will come in a little above 3.3%. That, would not include the real increase in 2003, the $40 billion allocated for Homeland defense.
No, you are the one who needs to see. Right now you aren't seeing a damn thing. And before you wax rhapsodic over illegals, I am sitting pretty damn close to the border, so spare me what you consider your "superior" knowledge, because you clearly do not have a handle on what is going on.
Vagueness in law is actually a good thing and is very common -- not just in Section 802 of the PAT Act. Vagueness actually leaves more descretion to common law and the people of the jury in determining what is reasonable and what is not resonable than actually putting in hard firm guideless for what is an offense.
For example;
The man was accused of going 40mph in a 30 mph speed zone.
Or;
The man was accused of going 40mph in a "Do Not Drive Fast" speed zone.
Which of the two examples better leaves the verdict closer to common law and what is reasonable??
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.