>> Give ‘em time. Like I said. You trust government too much.
I read the same thing in DU rants about Bush/Cheney. Like I said ... paranoia abounds.
>> So, are there any limits to the police power?
Yes. This law does not exceed those limits.
>> There are many who would argue that these expanded powers violate that Constitution.
So? Then “many” are wrong. There are many people that believe abortion is a Constitutional right. That “many” believe something is not persuasive.
>> If they intended to defend the country, we’d have secured borders, not laws intended to further control citizens.
I’m with you on the border. But, since the Patriot Act was passed, I have noticed no additional government control over my actions, my speech, or the actions of anyone I’ve encountered. No rights have been breached.
SnakeDoc
“I read the same thing in DU rants about Bush/Cheney. Like I said ... paranoia abounds.”
Like I said: shove the “paranoia” bilge.
“Yes. This law does not exceed those limits.”
Actually, yes. “Sneak-n-peak”.
“I’m with you on the border. But, since the Patriot Act was passed, I have noticed no additional government control over my actions, my speech, or the actions of anyone I’ve encountered. No rights have been breached.”
Actually, you just haven’t noticed the increasing data they are now maintaining on you.
You are conflating "action" with "observation." You express a point of view whereby if you don't notice being observed, then no rights have been breached. Under that logic, you'd not object to a non-caught peeping Tom. Peeping Toms don't assert control over your actions, speech, etc.
If you have nothing to hide, no harm.