Patriot Act To Be Made Permanent? (Trial balloon to gauge the public reaction?)

sierratimes ^ | 4/8/2003 | J.J. Johnson

[michaelje]

But, I will answer the question even though it wasnt posed to me: No, Bush is NOT a conservative republican and NO, it is improbable that a true conservative republican will ever be elected to the white house.

[Quick1]

You felt the need to reply to a question that wasn't posed to you, so why don't you answer it?

[michaelje]

I answered it, champ...

[Dane]

I don't know why any of us even bother to entertain the thought that you're capable of honest, logical debate. I certainly won't make the mistake of thinking it anymore

I agree, especially when debating with those that think a Hillary Presidency is a certainty in the future.

If you were honest about your soothsaying, you would actually might suggest a stock tip to prove your psychic accuracy, IMHO.

[Quick1]

Ok, let's rephrase then. Do you think that there will never be a person in power, who, given the chance, will abuse the powers given to them by this act? Let's say another Clinton is elected, and he wants to put cameras everywhere in people's homes, just to make sure they are not terrorists. Since you have nothing to hide, are you ok with the cameras watching you take a shower, or making love to your spouse?

[jmc813]

Ready for it again because my Howlin collection of lies is ready.

NO! Please not here! Look, I have no problem whatsoever with either of you two, but maybe you should consider starting a thread in the backroom for all correspondence between you. I hate wading through stuff I've read from a months-old feud when I'm trying to read a thread. Just a humble suggestion.

[TLBSHOW]

By the time this is done the hope is that it won't be true. As you see from the thread headline its a....

Patriot Act To Be Made Permanent? (????????)

(Trial balloon to gauge the public reaction?) (?????)

but then there is the Hatch history of supporting such things..........

So from those that tried for tips which was defeated to those that would try this and they will be defeated, and to (do or say nothing) is short of lunacy on the conservatives part. As I said in a earlier post here, I hope its not true but from past things it is true. Or is it? Like the old saying goes, better safe than sorry.

[Quick1]

Who said that a Hillary presidency is a certainty? We're just asking if you think it could be a possibility. It doesn't even have to be Hillary, it could be anyone from the "other side".

[truenospinzone]

Great, then, one more direct question:

When did I say or even imply that "a Hillary presidency is a certainty in the future"? For that matter, when, prior to this post, did I even mention the word "Hillary"?

Show me where I made that statement, or admit that you're making up the opposing viewpoint so that you don't have to enter into an honest debate.

[TLBSHOW]

Ok. I have better things to do like stop this from ever becoming permanent.

So I will tell it right now, if she wants to fight with me she can start a thread in the back room and we can do it there. Please Notice that I did not start this fight here with Howlin on this thread today or any day.

As I said Ok to you're request. (NO! Please not here! )

[Howlin]

Okay, Okay........I just like to remind everybody what he's really about, and he always obliges me by calling me a liar.......LOL.

Finis

[jmc813]

Dane, more terrorism in the future is not a certainty. Why the need for the Patriot Act?

[Howlin]

How did I know you would support this being permanant?

Sorry, you're not getting away with that. Nowhere on this thread did I say ANYTHING close to that.

[jmc813]

As I said Ok to you're request.

Appreciated.

[Windcatcher]

To Hatch:

NO, NO, A THOUSAND TIMES, NO!!!

To Rep. Curt Weldon (R-PA):

I've always voted for you in the past, but vote for this and and you'll never see a vote from me again.

[Dane]

Who said that a Hillary presidency is a certainty? We're just asking if you think it could be a possibility. It doesn't even have to be Hillary, it could be anyone from the "other side"

Yes there is a possibilty it could be from the "other side".

Although I would rather do the right thing and get rid of terrorists than rather worry about Hillary in 2008, at the present moment.

Also with the world situation as it is now(since 9/11), now is not the time to look at the past, IMO, but to look into the future and keep all our rights as proscribed by the Founders without the limitations of their 18th century physical world(i.e jets going into buildings and killing 3,000 people within an hour)

[TLBSHOW]

Thanks now to honor my word I will stay off this thread for awhile.

[jmc813]

Although I would rather do the right thing and get rid of terrorists than rather worry about Hillary in 2008, at the present moment.

So why do you not support the sunset clause? We still have the Patriot Act at the present moment.

keep all our rights as proscribed by the Founders without the limitations of their 18th century physical world

Careful, you're treading dangerously close to gun-grabber rhetoric there.

(i.e jets going into buildings and killing 3,000 people within an hour)

Arm all pilots and flight attendents and that will never happen again, with or without the Patriot Act.

[Jhoffa_]

Arm all pilots and flight attendents and that will never happen again, with or without the Patriot Act.

It's not going to happen now. I don't think it's possible to hijack a US airline post-9/11. Not with sky marshals and perceptions being what they are. Sure, you might just want a lift to Cuba, but you're never going to convince the passengers of that in the 15 seconds you have before being overrun.

PS: You're wasting your time. This isn't an honest debate about the Constitution, freedom, governmental abuse, the potential for same or anything of the sort.

[Dane]

Show me where I made that statement, or admit that you're making up the opposing viewpoint so that you don't have to enter into an honest debate

I never stated that you made the statement of the inevibilty of a Hillary presidency, but with your previous posts you imply it, especially this quote from your reply #231.

Do you honestly believe that only conservative Republicans will be in control of the Presidency and/or Congress for the next fifty years?

You are implying with the above italicized statement that you think that it is impossible for a conservative Republican to be in power for the next 50 years.

Yes that may be improbable but not impossible. But again, JMO, you seem to be with your rhetoric to be saying that a radical democrat like Hillary will be the democrat to win the Presidency.

Sorry but I disagree with your textbook cynical view. Pundits said that the Republicans would suffer great losses in 2002, and they were proven wrong.