Posted on 11/25/2002 2:26:52 PM PST by Jim Robinson
It's no secret. They don't like you and they will ban you whenever they catch you posting to their forums. Who cares? We ban them anytime they register here. It's a fact. Very few people here are interested in reading the DU style spin and regurgitated propaganda.
Those of you who want to rattle their cages are welcome to it, but please do not drag any of their garbage back to FR and please do not bother posting vanities about your experiences with them. It's not wanted here and will be deleted.
Thanks,
Jim
By the way, bain_sidhe, most of us over here are above the mutual antipathy thing and if you treat us with respect, that's what you'll get from us. And I'm all in favor of presenting a united front against the erosion of our civil liberties.
But to be perfectly honest, I know for a fact that the War on Drugs was eroding our civil liberties long before the War on Terrorism, and that the PATRIOT Act doesn't do any damage that wasn't done by the Supreme Court long ago with Illinois vs. Gates, US vs. Leon, and Alabama vs. White.
Then again, it might say more about my ability to respect the company I'm keeping. *G* If I went off on a DU-style rant about how GWB is the spawn of the Devil or Ashcroft is some kind of theocratic-fascist fanatic, I don't doubt I'd be banned right quick. But I don't do that here, just like I rarely get into some of my critiques of liberal incursions on civil liberties over there... (although, I have to say it's become somewhat easier to do so now that I can link them to matching incursions by Bush-Ashcroft)... it isn't welcome and I'm not interested in a fight to open closed minds. I'm interested in finding common ground where I can, and I work to make my comments appropriate to the forum I'm in. What good does it do to get off a few pot shots (even really good ones), if you just get banned? Maybe there a "watch how fast they kick me out" thrill to it for some, but not for me. I'm from the "it's your house" school of posting. I don't know what 1redshirt said on DU, I don't remember seeing the screen name at all. But in *their* house, they stay to the left side of the ... er ... room, to complete the metaphor. I don't agree with them on everything, but on the things I do agree with, I find good discussion and lots of information and ideas to take away from the discussions.
most of us over here are above the mutual antipathy thing and if you treat us with respect, that's what you'll get from us.
Um, have you read this thread?
And I'm all in favor of presenting a united front against the erosion of our civil liberties.
Great! Let's get to it.
I know for a fact that the War on Drugs was eroding our civil liberties long before the War on Terrorism, and that the PATRIOT Act doesn't do any damage that wasn't done by the Supreme Court long ago with Illinois vs. Gates, US vs. Leon, and Alabama vs. White.
I agree with you about the War on Drugs and that the erosion of our civil liberties has been going on for a long time - sometimes, in the name of "liberal" causes, sometimes in the name of "conservative" causes. But I disagree that the PATRIOT act hasn't increased the damage significantly - if only because of the ability for police to go to the FISA court for secret searches in criminal investigations - as long as terrorism is "a" purpose, of course - but with the broad definition of terrorism in that bill, attending a protest march could qualify. And, to make it relevant to at least some on this site, so could picketing an abortion clinic. Or, for that matter, protesting the PATRIOT act.
But, this probably isn't the thread to discuss that. I'll go see if I can find a current thread on the PATRIOT act. I think there was one about the ACLU lawsuit sometime in the last few days.
OK, for the millionth time...
OUR REPUBLIC IS FREE. THE WEBSITE IS NOT.
What about the patriot act bothers you so much?
Is it that the Fed can now go to court to request medical records?
Is it that certain purchases can be monitered?
I am pretty sure that they have done these things in the past and will continue to do them.
I would like to hear exactly what your problem with the patriot act is.
I am reading things right now from various sources(Left and right.) and they all seem to be in strong opposition to it without ever stating what it IS.
I am looking at a 100 page document as well by the architects of the act and can not see the big deal.
I am reviewing the changes to the FDA right now and they seem like measures are being taken that have long been ignored.
For everyone else, why not mention a specific part of the legislation that you do not like and perhaps I might agree with you.
Oh, and Bain Sidhe, make as many contrarian posts as you like. I enjoy them. I try to do it but since this is a Conservative Forum and I am a Conservative, it can be difficult. :D
I do argue against the anti-drug people quite often. However, Liberals are only pro-drug when it comes to illegal substances. The legal ones they despise. Cigarettes, Alcohol, etc. I know that some liberals smoke and drink but look at the anti-smoking crusades, the luxury taxes on beer(?) and other things. I know its not drugs but now they want to control how I eat!?!?!? No thanks.
You are in good company (such as David Horowitz).
Welcome to FreeRepublic !!
I am reading things right now from various sources(Left and right.) and they all seem to be in strong opposition to it without ever stating what it IS. ... For everyone else, why not mention a specific part of the legislation that you do not like and perhaps I might agree with you.
Part of the problem in doing that, for me, is that most of the PATRIOT act amends existing law. Therefore, reading the bill itself is not particularly illuminating because it simply refers to the section being amended and only states the words to be inserted (or deleted). So you have such gems as:
Sections 104(a)(7)(B) and section 303(a)(7)(B) (50 U.S.C. 1804(a)(7)(B) and 1823(a)(7)(B)) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 are each amended by striking `the purpose' and inserting `a significant purpose'.
... and this means...?????
(What it actually does mean, BTW, is that Federal authorities can get a FISA warrant for an investigation which might be essentially domestic in nature. The FISA warrant has a much lower standard, essentially requiring only that the gov't state that they need it, rather than the standard for getting a warrant for "domestic intelligence" which requires that they show "probable cause." Changing this law to say that they need to show the court that foreign intelligence is only "a significant" purpose instead of "the" purpose means that they can get a FISA warrant even if foreign intelligence isn't the primary purpose of the investigation, as long as they can call it "a significant" purpose. Oh, and as icing on the cake, they don't have to explain or justify that assertion, they just have to make it.)
That said, my "umbrella" concern is with the lack of accountability and judicial oversight for the government's actions thoughout the whole thing, but especially in Title II - the "enhanced surveillance procedures."
The ACLU has a pretty good series of "fact sheets" on the various sections of the law - most of which I agree with:
How the Anti-Terrorism Bill Puts Financial Privacy at Risk
How the Anti-Terrorism Bill Expands Law Enforcement "Sneak and Peek" Warrants
How the Anti-Terrorism Bill Permits Indefinite Detention of Immigrants
How the Anti-Terrorism Bill Puts CIA Back in the Business of Spying on Americans
How the Anti-Terrorism Bill Puts Student Privacy at Risk
How the Anti-Terrorism Bill Limits Judicial Oversight of Telephone and Internet Surveillance
You might also want to read the Electronic Frontier Foundation's analysis of the USAPA provisions relating to online activities.
P.S. You might be right about RICO - I don't know that much about it, but from what I do know, I suspect I might agree with you if I DID know more about it.
Okay, for the first time, I joined this website and it didn't cost me anything. I assume you mean that operating the site costs money, therefore it is not free.
Operating the military costs a bit more -- oh 350 Billion or so, and that military, backed by our ideals, is why the Republic is free.
If it doesn't seem a bit scary to you that this site purports to be about the free exchange of information and ideas, and we are going to blanketly ban DU members or their positings, you have an interesting view of "free." Which, by the way, you are free to have.
Listen, that DU stuff is mostly crap, but the exchange of ideas, and knowing the origins of DU philosophy on important subjects is useful to our discourse, IMHO. As I said earlier, this site certainly posts no shortage of silly posts and intellectually stunted ideas, but we seem to tolerate them as long as they are our idiots, and not theirs.
You don't see anything wrong with that?
I mean that this there is no right to "free speech" here at FR any more than there is at any other website that is privately owned. This is not USENET. I swore off the anarchic newsgroups to be here. I won't go back.
You don't see anything wrong with that?
As I am sure several have suggested in this thread (I haven't read every post), if you don't like this one, make your own. It's a free country. : ) Several people have, and given the choice, FR is still #1.
There must be a reason why.
I certainly agree with that. I am just wondering why we want to shut this speech out? How do we gain from that? Are we getting smarter, more informed, and more prepared to address liberal propaganda by listening to only our own voices?
I am pretty damn conservative, and I have run for office myself and put my ideas on the line in the ultimate public forum. I am just concerned that we get all worked-up listening to each other, and we don't stop to hear what the left is preaching. (Not that it has some great value, but that we gain value and insight from seeing what they think and using it for discussion points)
Mr. Robinson et al. can ban whomever they want, its their dime frankly. My point goes not to what one is able to do, but rather what is the merits of the decision. It seems your view is akin to the answer I give my children sometimes, "because I am your father, that's why." or "because I siad so." Those might be great answers to why do I have to clean up my room?, but they don't tell me a damn thing about why we don't want to discuss or post DU thoughts, ideas, etc.
That's a fair question. Only JimRob could answer that more completely than he already has, but I suspect that maybe he was sick of seeing DU increasingly become the main source of FR commentary.
BTW, did you know that the Juduciary posted BAIL to students who were on a mission to assassinate Col North. Now there is some first rate judicial oversight. Put known terrorist non-US citizens in the same class as US citizens. You can probably guess what happened to them, they fled.
Ok, student privacy is not a big issue to me. If illegal aliens cant stand being spied upon if they are associating with the wrong groups, such as fronts for Hezbollah, I have little or no sympathy for them.
That pretty much sums up my feelings on known associations. If I associate with whack-jobs, thats my problem. NO one seemed to care that the FBI did this to White Militia groups WITHOUT legal authority. So, would it be OK if we did this illegally?
In all due respect to the ACLU, I did not see a verbatim reproduction of the act itself, just selected phrases that were then commented on.
NOw, I may be wrong but what from I read, most of these "intelligence," ideas are merely cooperation between local Police and the Intelligence services.
Again, further glancing at the wording of the ACLU regarding immigrants and associations, they state that "The USA PATRIOT Act creates a very serious risk that truly innocent individuals could be deported for truly innocent association with political groups that the government later chooses to regard as terrorist organizations. There would be no notice."
Of course there is a risk. There is risk in everything. The question is, how GREAT is the risk and is it big enough to justify doing nothing.
It goes on further to say that the destruction of property shall be deemed a terrorist act so anti-abortion protestors could be prosecuted for destruction of property. Well, since they ALREADY are targeted as terrorists, I dont see the point... except to show that the ACLU is being inclusive and feigning concern over pro-life vigilantes. Yet the point is if they are aliens harassing abortion clinics and blowing up property, SHOULDNT they be viewed as Terrorists. A moot point because they already are.
The only change I see is that other groups may be classed as terrorists.
RICO just means that if a member of a suspected crime family is caught, all members of the family are guilty. Thats a simplistic explantion but it works. When Organized Crime sent thier minions out, the big guys would avoid prosecution because it could not be traced back to them. Now, the act basically meant that if the fed was of the opinion that someone worked for someone else, the suspected employers were as guilty as the ones who were caught.
This is blatantly unconstitutional but it did cripple Organized Crime. Now, did some innocents suffer, I would wager that they did.
My feelings are that if we can steamroll the MOb, then we can steamroll people who wish for and work for our annihilation. Against crime, we harassed American citizens. I really cant feel sorry for non-americans. What the ACLU is advocating is more protection for non-citizen suspected gangsters while US citizens had no such protection.
If and when the abuses occur that are foretold by the ACLU, then I will be the first in line fighting to repeal the Patriot Act. I mean wide-spread systematic abuse, not an isolated case.
The only thing I hear coming from the Dems is that we need to understand and appease terrorists. As one leader of the Hezbollah has said...
"We are not fighting with you so that you will offer us incentives, we are fighting to destroy you."
Unlike the Dems, I believe him. I wonder why they can not.
If and when the abuses occur that are foretold by the ACLU, then I will be the first in line fighting to repeal the Patriot Act. I mean wide-spread systematic abuse, not an isolated case.
========================================================
Very well stated. I have said on talk radio that if we do not do enough now to allow authorities to find the terrorist bastards on our soil, when a nuke goes off in this country we will not recognize the Constitution.
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.