Posted on 10/27/2001 9:33:56 AM PDT by freedomnews
H.R.3162
Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001
To: Jolly Rodgers
"Do you not understand we are at war..."
"...I'm not saying I like the idea of losing protected rights
but before you criticise the actions taken,
have an answer to the problem.
How would you stop the terrorist?
# 89 by kempo
===============
I would stop the terrorist by inforcing existing laws.
Why does every new violation of law
require new laws to handle it?
We already have laws to handle terrorism.
It was done before, with no violation of our rights.
You do not understand, kempo.
We are not at war.
Hey! WWII is over, isn't it? Now tell me why the voluntary sacrifices made by Americans in WWII are still being extracted from us TODAY?
Doh. The bill was just signed yesterday. Give it time. Fact is, this law does authorize them to violate rights. Think they're not going to use that power? Think that you are somehow immune? Get real. Did you sleep through the 20th century?
Hey pinhead, it wasn't just poor people who fought WW 2. Most were middle class and above. And most were volunteers. Four of my uncles fought in the war, none were drafted, And I come from a large middle class family.
Yep. I'm supposed to sacrifice my rights, but these foreigners from a country that is a known enemy of the United States are untouchable while we train them to kill us.
This would NOT have stopped the attack. Ya know why? Because there are a bunch of incompetent boobs in the alphabet agencies who drop the ball time and time again. FYI there was no magic wand waved over the world that made them competent and trustworthy after the attack
"I'd like to inform you that my right to life is of greater value to both me and my country, than your right to any level of privacy."
How arrogant you are. Oh sure me keeping my rights is gonna kill you. Pathetic
"It is time for the government to get about the business of protecting me, and if you get hurt in the process, I could care less - actually it could be even worse than that; I could care about harm to you as much as you care about harm to me."
Yes it is time the government did the ONE job it is suppose too. Giving the FBI more money, power and your rights on a silver platter is not the answer you may think it is. I guess it does not matter anymore that these people you exptect to protect you, have also killed and jailed innocent people.
"If you don't want to participate in this country, I encourage you to hat up. Have no idea where you might go because they have countries everywhere - maybe you could join a tribe in the Federal Tribal Territory in Pakistan, or maybe down with a bunch of headhunters along the Amazon - it just won't be here. We have a war to win, and people to protect, and it's long overdue that the government get on with it"
You acquiesce with enthusiasm to a proven incompetents. That is not participation on your part. I am sick of people like you telling Americans to shut up, do what the government says or get out. It is despicable that any American would say that and especially one FReeper to another. This is just as much my country as it is yours. I know my rights and I want to keep them. If you don't like that then then you go to Pakistan.
Yes. You did. I also know where you are going with this. We fought WW 2 to get out of the depression. Of course Mussolini, Hitler and Hirohito had nothing to do with it. By the way I am no fan off big intrusive government, so don't go there.
Bart.
Of course not. We have never known such a wonderful peace in our lifetime. The view from under the sand is breathtaking, isn't it?
Louis XIV was the vision of the tyrant they sought to stop, and his focus was to murder people, almost all of whom were Protestants, who did not agree with his religious views - kind of like Osama Bin Laden if you think about it. Louis tried to fit everyone within the confines of his one state, one king and one religion.
Now, does that give me a "religious view" of the Constituion, or a recognition that the Constitution recognizes three integral rights in order to allow folks to have a "religious view" or to not have one at all? Most importantly, the US Constitution allows me or anyone else to be a Protestant of any type I wish - which currently is a right that does not exist yet in France, or Italy, or Germany, or just about anywhere else in Europe.
Frankly, I don't think it does create a situation where I am viewing the Constitution through a religious filter, and whether I do or do not have or not have a religious point of view is none of your business, nor is it the business of the state. Let me go further, the Constitution provides that I have a fundamental right to protect my right to have that point of view, whatever it might be, even against armed troops in the US Army that might be sent to live in my house. I have that right against the state and I have that right through the Second against individuals who might seek to coerce me.
Now, what was it you wanted to say? Bet you wanted to talk about the First Amendment alone - that's the one that says the government stays out of religion. It says the New York Times can print lies. It says the Washington Post can subvert public order and decency.
Folks who oppose that bill, whether they know it or not, are actually asking that enemy aliens who are actually plotting and planning mayhem in this country be given special protection.
That is preposterous.
And please read the bill that passed - not that mindless garbage that got spun out of the Jutice Department word processor.
I've noticed that you have tried to back away from this statement by saying that it doesn't mean what it inherently implies within the context of this thread's topic. Your arguement is basically that those who won't agree to sacrifice their Constitutional rights in order to gain security are "anti-American" and should be arrested and deported. One of our founding fathers, Benjamin Franklin, once said:
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety."
How does it feel to be scolded by ol' Ben? In my opinion, you should choose a new screen name, as it is obvious you know very little about Ronald Reagan, or our Constitution.
"When and where did I say that?"
Yes you did
"Those who don't want to make any sacrifices in order to help assure victory in the fight against terrorism are anti-American in my book.
Now since I know you probably still can not see it I will try to explain it this way
The posts on this thread have been about rights and how many are not willing to give them up. Even though those rights were taken, the only sacrifice I know of that has been asked for by our government up till now is to give up our rights. You say anyone who will not make sacrifices is Anti-American. You wrote it now live with it.
"I see reading comprehension isn't one of your strong"
Why the personal attack? Why do you lower yourself to those kinds of childish remarks? Was it necessary? No it was not. Was it rude? Yes it was and all to common lately around here.
It just seems to me there is a lot of whining going on. There were a lot of laws written during WWII, which were later rescinded. Why, because we no longer needed them.
I think people are getting all worked up over nothing. They're expecting the current administration (who have morals and integrity) to act the same way Clinton's goons acted (those lacking morals and integrity).
We made it through WWII and we'll make it through this too. People seem reluctant to trust or have faith. Our government isn't perfect, but it's the best we have to work with. And ... the most important thing we can do is get people out to VOTE!! All the whining in the world won't do us any good if we aren't willing to exercise the RIGHT TO VOTE.
This is your original statement. It implies that those of us who question what the government is doing are treasonous. That's a pretty big insult, I think.
max61, wcbtinman, native american female vet and I all tried to engage you, asking your opinion in how this bill is Constitutional. You did not respond to the first two people, you told the other gal she was confused and needed reading comprehension lessons. Your answers to me were to further point out how panic stricken I am.
I am not on a high horse, I do respect your opinion and the opinions of others. A good honest debate on the issues, sans the name calling, may not be educational for you but it is for me. Some people actually bring up some very good points, some have swayed me to change my mind or to at least think from their point of view. I am open minded enough to at least give it a listen.
I addressed the one post to you and MJY1288 both because you said you agreed with him. He/she stated that he trusted GWB and wanted to give this thing a chance. I respect that even though I do not agree. He/she managed to say it without calling me panic stricken or un-American.
Instead of debating me on the issues at hand, you chose to take some comments of mine completely out of context and post them to show everyone how hysterical I am. That's fine if that's, to use your words, what turns you on. But I think from now on, I shall attempt to debate someone who will discuss the subject at hand.
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.