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

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

[Dane]

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

What gungrabber rhetoric???? Please if you want to live in the 18th century where jets as weapons were not possible, that's fine with me. That's your right as an American.

But please don't use the late 20th century invention called the internet to prosthylitize your rhetoric like the islamic fascists.

[jmc813]

You're statement was ...

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

I was simply pointing out that many liberals claim that the second amendment only covers muskets and arms that were available in those days, and they could not have imagined, let's say for instance, semi-auto pistols.

We seem to be drifting from the original article. We obviously disagree on the Patriot Act in general, but the article dealt with the sunset clause. With it intact, we can use the Patriot Act to fight terrorism today, and then if it is no longer necessary in the future, we can get rid of it. I don't see why you would oppose this set-up.

[Dane]

We seem to be drifting from the original article. We obviously disagree on the Patriot Act in general, but the article dealt with the sunset clause. With it intact, we can use the Patriot Act to fight terrorism today, and then if it is no longer necessary in the future, we can get rid of it. I don't see why you would oppose this set-up

Unfortunately with such 21st century realities, such as the easy availiabilty of such agents such as anthrax and other biological and chemical weapons that can be used by whackos, the 18th century world many Constituional purists long for will never be again.

But we can fight the whackos and keep the rights perscribed by the Founders, IMO, and that is what GW Bush, Cheney, Rice, and Ashcroft are trying to do and the squealing is coming from Bush opponents such as the New York Times, the ACLU, and people on FR who are more than willing to listen to their squealing(mostly Libertarians).

Like I have stated many times on this thread, I am going to trust the current administration and not the New York Times.

[jmc813]

Like I have stated many times on this thread, I am going to trust the current administration and not the New York Times.

Understood, but please realize that this administration put forward the Patriot Act WITH the sunset clause, and now people from outside of the administration are attempting to get rid of it.

[Dane]

Understood, but please realize that this administration put forward the Patriot Act WITH the sunset clause, and now people from outside of the administration are attempting to get rid of it.

I understand it, I read the article, but it seems that those who did not like the Patriot act(i.e Bush administration) in the first place(New York Times, Libertarians, TLBshow and other fringers) used this New York Times article to basically have an orgiastic bash against Bush and his administration over a rumor.

The agenda has been exposed, IMO.

Oh BTW, I am pasting my first post to this thread below to prove my above point.

looks like Drudge has now linked to the times story and its on his site(TLBshow)

Interesting that you left out the preface New York "to the times story", in your above italicized passage.

The New York Times is certainly no friend of conservatives and is trying to get some conservatives up in and arms and why am I not surprised you took the bait, TLB.

46 posted on 04/09/2003 10:31 AM PDT by Dane [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies | Report Abuse

[jmc813]

looks like Drudge has now linked to the times story and its on his site(TLBshow) Interesting that you left out the preface New York "to the times story", in your above italicized passage.

For what it's worth, I noticed that TLBSHOW is from New York. I live about 30 miles from Manhattan. In these parts, when someone is referring to the New York Times, we simply say "the Times", so I would chalk that up to an oversight.

[MatthewViti]

get a life

[jmc813]

but it seems that those who did not like the Patriot act(i.e Bush administration)

Also, there are many people who like the Bush Admin, but think the Patriot Act stinks, including many on this thread.

[Dane]

For what it's worth, I noticed that TLBSHOW is from New York. I live about 30 miles from Manhattan. In these parts, when someone is referring to the New York Times, we simply say "the Times", so I would chalk that up to an oversight.

"Local" colloquialisms are no excuse for hidng an agenda, IMHO. And in this case of a person on FR(TLBSHOW) and an always paranoid source(Sierra Times) using a rumor trumped up by an adversary of conservatives, The New York Times, to further their own agenda has been exposed.

Like I said before I will trust Bush, Cheney, and Ashcroft.

You can trust anyone you want, and in this case you and TLB want to trust the New York Times. I will advise you though, IMO, that the New York Times is 99.9% of the time is wrong, but you will have to find that out for yourself.

[Bella_Bru]

I am not discussing this act. I'll get to it on a day when I can put some time into verifying whether what is said in this article is even true.

There is nothing wrong with that. There is also nothing wrong with discussing the possibilities. Best to keep one eye open and watch what the government (no matter which party is in control) is doing.

[jmc813]

Like I said before I will trust Bush, Cheney, and Ashcroft.

Then why do you not trust the Act they helped develop, and instead trust Orrin Hatch who thinks they were wrong for inclucing sunset clauses?

You can trust anyone you want, and in this case you and TLB want to trust the New York Times. I will advise you though, IMO, that the New York Times is 99.9% of the time is wrong, but you will have to find that out for yourself.

I realize the Times is EXTREMEY left-leaning, we don't call it the Slimes for nothing, BUT point out where this particular article is factually wrong.

[Byron_the_Aussie]

[Byron_the_Aussie]

..like I said before I will trust Bush, Cheney, and Ashcroft....

It's not them we're worried about.

It's what President Rodham will do with the Patriot Act that's sparking concern.

[tpaine]

Too lazy to check my profile?
250 -michaele-


What good does checking do?
Obviously you are not 'staunchly' pro-gun. Your own early posts on this thread belie that stance.

-- The only other clear impression I got from all your blather, was that you wanted attention. Destroying your own credibility is a hell of a way to get it, - but whatever....

[tpaine]

It's not them we're worried about.
-btaus-

Our prune Dane-ish knows that. - Like michelle, he just craves attention, and he gets it by playing the fool.

[Rome2000]

I honestly have no idea what your point is.

My point is that with the amount of information the Government already coerces from you, its way too late to start worrying about the provisions of the Patriot Act, whose effect on 99.9% of Americans will be nil.

The need to be able to identify, penetrate, and neutralize enemies of the state trumps whatever "freedoms" you think you'll be losing.

People who have no problem telling the IRS their life story every April 15th seem pretty silly opposing a law meant to keep us safe.

[tpaine]

The IRS is supposedly forbidden to give their info to other snoops, so at least it can't be used in court.
The Patriot Act 'authorises' such unconstitutional snooping. Big difference.

[Rome2000]

The IRS is supposedly forbidden to give their info to other snoops, so at least it can't be used in court.

The FBI, CIA and NSA all use IRS info, as welll as banks, credit reporting agencies, utility companies, whatever it takes to catch a national security threat.

[Rome2000]

All this act does is to take away the ability of stupid whacked out liberal or socialist judges to interfere in an investigation of terrorists.

When is the last time you ever heard of a GOP appointee judge refusing a request from law enforcement for a wiretap or search?

If the subjects are Americans they will still get a trial and legal representation.

If they're not American citizens and they're suspected of no good, they should be checked out and deported if clean , if dirty held as long as necessary.

[tpaine]

Do the violations of our constitution by governmental agencies bother you at all?
Do you really think that our allowing these violations is a good thing?