House Votes To Curb Patriot Act

[AdmRose]

The Patriot Act is akin to a long night of binge drinking then waking up in the morning wondering what the heck you did.

[Ripsnort]

One thing is certain, the next attack people will be asking why the Gov't didn't prevent it.  Some will say the Patriot act wasn't strict enough...and garanteed the critizism will come from the left side of the isle...

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Toad
So? What is a "town meeting" other than a political ad? Please don't pretend the the other side of the aisle solicits, promotes and features opposition speakers at their rallies. Can you give me an example of a town meeting for say Kerry or Clinton where an "opposition" speaker was courteously given the floor for a few minutes while he made his point with respectful silence from the crowd?
[/B]

During an election okay... but Bush won. He is the president for ALL of us, not just the people who voted for him.

[AdmRose]

Originally posted by Sandman
During an election okay... but Bush won. He is the president for ALL of us, not just the people who voted for him.

Must you remind me?

[Toad]

Sandman,

Where are the rules on Presidential Town Meetings? Are they supposed to be "open" by law?

I have no idea; educate me please.

[Sandman]

Oh... I doubt if he's breaking the law. Nevertheless, it's questionable ethics for a public servant.

[6GunUSMC]

Odd that the "Patriot Act" did nothing to improve the security of our borders.  I say the act should be repealed and enforce tighter contols on legal immigration, more checks before they come in particularly those from hostile states, and ELIMINATE the border jumping all together.

[Toad]

So, what's the solution.

Open the meetings and have him deal with the hecklers continually?

It'd be one thing if one could expect polite questions from the opposition but that's not what we usually see and not what we've come to expect is it?

What you usually get is a small group chanting some slogan and the rest of the crowd trying to shout them down. This would improve the Town Meetings?

Again, I doubt anyone would try to make the case that opposing opinion to anything Bush expresses in his Town Meetings just isn't being heard.

Look at his Social Security plan. He's pushed that in a bunch of town meetings. Can anyone with a TV or a quarter for a newspaper really claim he has been unable to find opposing views?

Given the nature of the Bushies, if they had to deal with rude, interrupting opposition at every Town Hall, they'd just find a different "closed" forum. TV address to the nation, for example? Remember Carter wearing a sweater?

It'd be the same for a Prez from the other side. If the venue they choose doesn't allow for them to get the message out, they'll just find a different venue.

I think we focus too much on a small aspect here. The Town Meeting is a stage show and everyone knows that.

[Karnak]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
One thing is certain, the next attack people will be asking why the Gov't didn't prevent it.  Some will say the Patriot act wasn't strict enough...and garanteed the critizism will come from the left side of the isle...

I hope we never see that guess put to the test, but I would point out that last time the howls didn't come from left or right, but simply by people from both sides prone to over reacting and wallowing in their fears.

I, generally a member of the "Left", never felt that way after 9/11 and I cannot imagine myself responding that way to a future event.  It is an irrational response in my opinion, driven by the emotions of fear (it might happen again) and anger (we'll make dang sure it doesn't happen again) and emotional people are prone to making poor decisions.


Toad,

Certainly hecklers should be removed as they do not increase dialog, but they have also removed people who politely asked questions critical of his propsed policies.

[Sandman]

All excellent points, Toad.

What's the solution? Get a president that can think and speak on his feet.

Certainly, hecklers could be a problem, so they must be removed. I'd like to see people ask critical questions of the president and then hear his response.

Sure, the journalists point out flaws and ask questions, but there's no direct dialogue. There's just spin.


And I agree... the Town Hall Meetings are little more than show, but you and I are paying for it. I wonder what the budget is for presidential propaganda.

[AKS\/\/ulfe]

The thing about those town meetings is that, while you are right about allowing in those who would rather disrupt than put together a well constructed challenge to the president's policies, there is a greater majority of people who praise his the policies and will find no fault of it so we don't get an accurate view of what he really plans do to or to see how much he is truly behind the ideas he puts forth.

If he can't combat someone that is antagonizing in the questions, then that can go a long way to showing a person's true colors. If he faulters and stutters when confronted with a different view than his own and can't put together a reasonable retort, then it shows just how sound and thought out his ideas are.
-SW

[Toad]

Originally posted by Karnak
Certainly hecklers should be removed as they do not increase dialog, but they have also removed people who politely asked questions critical of his propsed policies.

I understand. Personally, I'd like to see him answer those. I'd like to see ALL politicians have to answer the tough questions. Doesn't happen enough. Even in the debates, there were a lot of "softball" questions.

But it still comes down to... it's his show. He's not a guy that speaks at all well and has trouble communicating ideas. His handlers obviously protect him.

I'm personally glad they HAVE to find another choice in 2008. I can only hope both sides will find someone that can tell us all what he is FOR rather than against and explain how he intends to achieve what he is FOR.

I really don't care if politicians wear boxers or briefs. I don't care to see them sling mud over a war nearly 40 years ago. I want to hear where we will be led and how we will get there if "XXX" is elected.

[Momus--]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
here is one they're are hunting in the UK and US:
http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/09/19/walq19.xml

Given the role of Pakistani intelligence in creating the Islamist menace such as it is I would be suspicious of anything they say. In this case I would appear to be right, since Abu Faraj al Libbi is nowhere near as important as they are claiming. Source . I guess it helped the ISI look like they were at least trying though.

As for the case of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, that was 3 years ago, and given that he was also arrested in Pakistan, it doesn't really prove or disprove the benefits of US or UK anti-terrorist legislation. Also, I'm not aware of any convincing cases of sleeper cells being convicted or even charged in the West as a result of that arrest, so whatever evidence that resulted can't have been that compelling.

[Karnak]

Sorry Toad. I can't argue with any of that.

I just really wish that there was a sign of any decent candidate for 2008.

Hillary Clinton vs Bill Frist?  Shoot me now please.



And oh, to have debates like Lincoln vs Douglas again.  Not that any modern pol will submit to that sort of risk to their image.  Bah.  Wimps hiding behind "yes" men.

[rpm]

Originally posted by Toad
The idea that all potential Bush jurists mirror Bush's Patriot Act-type beliefs isn't a credible threat to me.

I think what he's looking for rather and has nominated are "strict constructionist" judges, which I view as antithetical to the Patriot Act.

In short, I think the judges he's nominated are more likely to limit PA-type powers than to encourage them.

We had this discussion a week or so ago and I think you understood where I was coming from then. My point is we need a balance, especially in the SCOTUS. Can you name me one non-strict constructionist judge he has nominated? Again, we need balance.

I'm not prepared to condemn it all. There may be parts that we acutally need in this world situation. I'm certain there are parts we don't need and I feel confident the legislators will remove those.

I agree there are sections that may be nessessary in today's situation. I hope Congress will live up to your expectations.

What is a "town meeting" other than a political ad? Please don't pretend the the other side of the aisle solicits, promotes and features opposition speakers at their rallies. Can you give me an example of a town meeting for say Kerry or Clinton where an "opposition" speaker was courteously given the floor for a few minutes while he made his point with respectful silence from the crowd?

A "town meeting" should be exactly that. A meeting of the represenative population, not a fan club pep rally. While I can't name you specific dates I do believe Clinton took quite a bit of heat and some tough questions during them. The crowd wasn't purely composed of fanbois. Kerry is irrelevent in this discussion.

Yeah, the Bushies "rig" their audiences. It's hardly the Soviet Union as we have a myriad of newsies to dissect every line, tell us what he meant, where he was right, where he was wrong, ad nauseaum. You can't believe that Bush's town meetings are protected from challenge; point/counterpoint is immediately available on TV, Radio and after a short delay, Print.

If he only wants his friends actually at the meeting.... blah. Who cares. What he said is still subjected to intense scrutiny and rebuttal, just as it should be.

YOU should care. If nobody asks the tough questions, you won't hear his answers. The only time that anything close to this happened came during the elections when the RNC wasn't in charge of admission.

What you have to prove to validate that statement is that Bush has anything approaching absolute power.

I was referring to the way in which he conducts his "town meetings" in that no differing opinion is allowed to participate. In that situation he does have absolute power. I was also talking about a completely conservative SCOTUS from the paragraph prior to the one you quoted. If it is comprised of a majority of conservatives they will always rule in their opinion.  A completely liberal SCOTUS would be just as bad. History has proven that absolute power in any government leads to corruption and eventual ruin. Balance is the important thing here.

I'd love to go back and forth for hours with you on this, but I have to get ready for work.