Author Topic: Patriot Act Redux (Read 689 times)

Gunslinger · « **Reply #30 on:** March 08, 2006, 03:05:50 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by john9001
i don't understand, the govt is now going to start arresting felons?

Yes and it's a violation of criminals right's. How dare that big bad evil federal govt use this to fight crime and terrorism.

Stringer · « **Reply #31 on:** March 08, 2006, 03:15:44 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Gunslinger
Yes and it's a violation of criminals right's. How dare that big bad evil federal govt use this to fight crime and terrorism.

Doesn't the government already have the agencies and abilities to do this?

Stringer · « **Reply #32 on:** March 08, 2006, 03:29:59 PM »

Mav,
I understand the mechanics of it now. Thanks.

I don't agree with adding this to the Secret Service as I believe we have agencies already in place that have this ability.

Toad · « **Reply #33 on:** March 08, 2006, 06:17:41 PM »

So, is it bi-partisan or not?

That's the question.

Seems to me if ~75% of the Democratic Senators voted for it, that's pretty bi-partisan support.

Gunslinger · « **Reply #34 on:** March 08, 2006, 06:27:31 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Stringer
Doesn't the government already have the agencies and abilities to do this?

Well obviously not if they couldn't "connect the dots" prior to Sept 10th

Hangtime · « **Reply #35 on:** March 08, 2006, 08:35:19 PM »

..there's too many dots.

no, wait; that was a 'thousand points of light', 'kinder, gentler' & 'new world order'.

tuff to stay focused on just what in hell they're trying to distract.. err.. 'warn' us about.

Stringer · « **Reply #36 on:** March 08, 2006, 08:44:28 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Gunslinger
Well obviously not if they couldn't "connect the dots" prior to Sept 10th

Bull**** Grun (typo on purpose)

So we create a new agency because the one that existed didn't do the job it is already tasked to do?

The existing government agencies had the info before Sept. 11th and blew it, plain and simple. Yet in our "no accountability" society we say "hey it's not their fault they didn't do the job they were designed to do, so let's create a whole new level of beuacracy to solve the problem, instead of holding the agency already in place and who was responsible in the first damn place" responsible.

Yeah, great frickin' plan.

You keep drinking the koolaid there Grun.

BTW, we have plenty of agencies already tasked with fighting crime. And terrorism is a crime.

And just because they didn't "connect the dots" as you say doesn't mean we need a new agency.....it could mean we need to clean up some existing ones and make sure they work as they were designed to do. It could mean they were just enough inept not to stop 9/11. Or it could mean that 9/11 would have happened irrespective of a Homeland Security Act, because at that time, we were still naive of the level of hatred that our enemy was capable of.......Crap...that's sounds too sensible.......you're right...create more layers, that usually works really, really super!!

Stringer · « **Reply #37 on:** March 08, 2006, 08:53:57 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
So, is it bi-partisan or not?

That's the question.

Seems to me if ~75% of the Democratic Senators voted for it, that's pretty bi-partisan support.

That's not the relevant question to me, Toad. And I suspect it's not all that relevant to you either.

Why play their game? Bi-partisan...yeah right, different sides of the same coin is all it is.

But you already know that.

Hey, it was Bi-partisan when they sang God Bless America on the Capital steps on the evening of Sept 11th or 12th wasn't it? A fat-lot of good that did the country. Oh yeah, we got the Patriot Act out of it as well.....hey that deserves another rousing chorus of God Bless America....nah..they can save that for the next attack, and it will happen....Patriot Act or no Patriot Act.

I would like us to hold accountable the agencies that were tasked with protecting our country in the first place. Now that's a new thought....that whole accountability thing ole Dubya spouted.

Toad · « **Reply #38 on:** March 08, 2006, 09:48:47 PM »

Just tired of hearing that the PA is all Bush, all the time.

Those that don't like it need to remember it basically sailed through the Senate which is... supposedly... the more Senior and astute chamber of our legislative branch.

~75% of the Democratic Senators supported it... so can we all agree, whether we like it, are ambivalent to it or hate it, it is the product of BOTH parties?

Senators voting "no": Akaka (D-HI), Bingaman (D-NM), Byrd (D-WV), Feingold (D-WI), Harkin (D-IA), Jeffords (I-VT), Leahy (D-VT), Levin (D-MI), Murray (D-WA) and Wyden (D-OR).

Note the absence of the theoretical Democratic frontrunner for the next Presidential election. Ted, the guy that put the "mass" in Massachusetts, isn't on that list either. In fact, for the most part, these are "no-name" Senators; none of the big fish swam against the tide, did they? Things that make you go "hmmmmmmmmmm".

I prefer this stuff to have definite "sunset" provisions. While I haven't been able to find much exact info on that, it does appear Specter managed the compromise by including some sunset provisions and promising to sponsor a companion bill "to push for further civil liberty protections".

Is it perfect? Nope. The end of life as we know it? Not unless the SC rolls over completely. I don't think it will.

Rolex · « **Reply #39 on:** March 08, 2006, 09:53:43 PM »

Okay, Toad. I'll take the bait. The House vote was not bi-partisan. Democrats voted 2:1 against the measure.

There. Now we can open the secret passageway to the next level.

Added: Oops, you posted while I was replying...

Stringer · « **Reply #40 on:** March 08, 2006, 10:04:56 PM »

No, I don't think it's the end of life as we know it......as a matter of fact, it is life exactly as we know it......Existing Agency failed at task already given to it, so create another layer......same record, just flipped to the "B" side.

But Toad, why are you even playing that game? The names may change...yesterday Clinton, today Bush, tomorrow.....????, but the game is always the same. Both parties work hard TOGETHER to ensure that.

And Ted Kennedy as the bogeyman??? Maybe once, but he's long in the tooth and shown how irrelevent he has become during the latest confirmation hearings.

Hell, it makes you long for the days of Tip O'Neil and Bob Dole, at least those guys had standing.

BluKitty · « **Reply #41 on:** March 09, 2006, 08:28:37 AM »

"Jeffords (I-VT), Leahy (D-VT)"

At least we know what we are doing

Here's some voter reforms we tried .... seemed to work well.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0308-02.htm

Maine is trying some intresting reforms as well-attempting to take the private money out of politics. They offer anyone (who can get a primary ballot petition or something) 1 million in tax dollars to campaign.....

It's an option, but one you can tell the voters you took. Many 'corprately funded' politicians have quickly fallen out of style I've heard.

However I don't see Maine voteing aginst this....

But you need to at least try to reform a broken system before things go from bad to worse.