Left Turn: Is the GOP conservative?

National Review ^ | July 23, 2003 issue | National Review Editorial Board

[Southack]

"Does this still not trouble you?"

Perhaps our posts crossed, as I covered this in #473.

Troubling is not at issue.

My dispute is with those who haven't read the actual Patriot Act legal text, yet criticize it as unConstitutional anyway.

I'd prefer to actually debate with someone who **has** read the actual legal text and yet comes to the opposite conclusion as myself. That would be a much more enjoyable debate.

But alas, the Big Lie persists, and I seem to get stuck with only the useful idiots (Lenin's term for those duped into pedling his propaganda, not my own).

[Southack]

"The smoke and mirrors used in the "Patriot" Act are the same ones employed in the IRC."

And what specific legal text do you claim constitutes those "smoke and mirrors"?

[Southack]

"Have you read Section 3103a of title 18, U.S. code?"

Would you like me to post the legal text of 3103a for you?

Do you have a specific Constitutional complaint with any part of it?

[goodseedhomeschool]

I am a Christian at heart.
I think this site may be fraudian to be sure.

[ApesForEvolution]

I have serious doubts that you ever read it other than sections I had to lead you by the nose to tonight.

As for the 'Big Lie' mularkey, the only 'Big Lie' is that the "Patriot" Act is anything but a MASSIVE usurpation of our Constitutional rights, allowing an ever growing Federocracy to basically stick their noses in whatever they wish, whenever they desire and as long as they deem fit.

It presents a big 'end-around' due process afforded Americans.

Let me know if you can't find a copy of the Field Guidance document.

[ApesForEvolution]

See post 485

[ApesForEvolution]

I've read it many times, marked up a couple copies, and I find it troubling. It is an issue. Why is it not troubling to you?

[Southack]

"As for the 'Big Lie' mularkey, the only 'Big Lie' is that the "Patriot" Act is anything but a MASSIVE usurpation of our Constitutional rights, allowing an ever growing Federocracy to basically stick their noses in whatever they wish, whenever they desire and as long as they deem fit."

Oh really?!

Please, do post the specific legal text with which **you** claim makes the Patriot Act usurp "our Constitutional rights".

This I've got to see.

[tpaine]

As I expected, my comment on -- "the actual words of our constitution, or its original principles", -- seems to have little interest to you.

Thanks.

[goodseedhomeschool]

You can go ahead and do what you do Jim Dear. I have learned more about my party (Republican) here and all the garbage that goes with it than I ever learned before I came here. Thanks to your site, I may consider changing my polital affiliation.
P.S. cancel my donation pledge that I made yesterday. I cannot support this liberal site one moment longer.
Thank you

[Southack]

"I've read it many times, marked up a couple copies, and I find it troubling. It is an issue. Why is it not troubling to you?"

I've neither claimed that it is or isn't "troubling", probably because "troubling" is a much lower standard than "unConstitutional".

My beef is with those who claim that the Patriot Act is unConstitutional, especially those who can't even post the specific legal text with which they have said issue.

[FreeReign]

"Have you read Section 3103a of title 18, U.S. code?"

Would you like me to post the legal text of 3103a for you? Do you have a specific Constitutional complaint with any part of it?

Thanks, I've seen 3103a?

Do you have a specific Constitutional complaint with any part of 3103a?

[Southack]

"As I expected, my comment on -- "the actual words of our constitution, or its original principles", -- seems to have little interest to you."

Please don't confuse an effort to avoid endless digression from a single-topic argument with that of something with "little interest to" me.

[ApesForEvolution]

"Troubling is not at issue"

Let me put it this way.

Section 213 changes the law as it applies to ALL government searches for material that "constitutes evidence of a criminal offense in violation of the laws of the United States" and is not limited to investigations of terrorist activity.

The prior law (2001) had authorized delayed notification of a search ONLY under a very small number of circumstances (such as surreptitious electronic surveillance).

The expansion of this extraordinary authority to all searches constitutes a radical departure from 4th Am. standards and, I believe, could result in routine surreptitious entries by LEOs.

You trust that Bush won't 'do it to you', but do you trust that Pres. Hillary won't?

[Southack]

"Do you have a specific Constitutional complaint with any part of 3103a?"

Not offhand.

Do you?

[tpaine]

the Big Lie persists, and I seem to get stuck with only the useful idiots (Lenin's term for those duped into pedling his propaganda, not my own).
-481-



The biggest propaganda lie, imo, is that there was a 'compellng reason' for the Patriot Act.

[ApesForEvolution]

"My beef is with those who claim that the Patriot Act is unConstitutional, especially those who can't even post the specific legal text with which they have said issue."

At which point has the 4th Am. been stretched to the point it's broken?

Recent USSC 'compelling governmental diversity interests' rulings - were they 'stretching' or did they 'break' the Constitution?

[ApesForEvolution]

BTW, I would like to see how you quote the thousands of pages of text known as the "Patriot" Act without your copy in front of you.

[Cultural Jihad]

I think this site may be fraudian to be sure.

No one is holding you down with chains, keeping you here against your will. Just send an email to Jim Robinson telling him to close your login ID, and you will be free of this site and we will be free of your fraud.

[Sir Gawain]

Hey Alan, where have you been?!

I'm not Alan. Just pointing out that whipping out that great list of accomplishments can be offset by whipping out another list of unconstitutional federal spending. That doesn't seem to bother you though.