You were calling me stupid for my belief in government restriction. I don't think believing the government should be restricted and watched is being stupid, nor demanding that improper legislation be removed as an act of ignorance as you wanted to claim. Just giving back a little of what you were dishing out.
No, I was not calling you stupid. You really need to get it through your head that one can believe that ones OPINION is stupid without believing the PERSON is stupid. I think your OPINION that the ENTIRE Patriot Act needs to be removed is stupid and based on either your ignorance of the true facts about it or based on an inconsistant view on how the government should function.
It's one of the most widely used excuses for the PA.
Well and good. Show me where I used it.
Yet you do disagree with me. The PA has parts which are bad, they aren't restricted enough and allow too much leeway. Considering what it is that the PA concerns itself with, particularly when it comes to defense against charges laid by the government; something that could prove so catastrophically dangerous should be done away with. The vast majority of the proper functionality of the PA could be handled through different means. The overall existence of the PA is a danger, and thus must be done away with. Further laws need to note this and if we are going to grant additional power to the federal government, it must be severely and clearly restricted.
Yes, I do disagree with you. I disagree with you that the ENTIRE ACT needs to be stripped. What I don't disagree with you about is that there are PORTIONS that are bad.
No, the "vast majority" of what the Patriot Act does can not be done effectively and without massive loopholes and nebulus places for abuse, that unlike the Patriot Act ones wouldn't be so cut and dry, without it.
The overall existance of the PA is in no way, shape, or form a "danger".
Didn't you bitch in this very post about me misrepresenting you? And then you do it to me again? Interesting.
I bitched that you completely and utterly misrepresented me.
"But it's stupid to watch out for that, huh? Idiotic and ignorant to lay blame towards the government when it abuses power...right? Don't question the government, it's here for us; Zyphlin would disagree with that. "
No, Zyphlin would not disagree with that and nothing Zyphlin typed in this thread stated a disagreement with that, indeed thigns Zyphlin stated in this thread actually agreed with it.
You specifically and blatantly lied about what my stance was.
What I did was illustrate the absurditity of your argument by providing an analogy that, for you to be consistant, would need to be true. In no way shape or form did I believe or imply it was what you actually do think about the FDA.
There is legitimate reason for the FDA to exist, and properly restricted it can benefit many. I see it as too floppy right now and needs better regulation and control. But it's also not going to take away habeas corpus from you either; the threat levels of the government institutions and benefit derived from it are different.
There are legitimate reasons for the Patriot Act to exist, and properly restircted it can benefit many. It has issues right now that are potentially damaging and needs further refining and oversight. However, abuses were present in the intelligence and law enforcement fields prior to it coming into being and much like a gun doesn't kill people, repealing the entire Patriot Act isn't going to magically make people not abuse things.
The government has abused much before the PA. I just don't think we should be making it easier for them.
Yes. The government has abused NUMEROUS laws before, but I don't see you screaming for them being repealed.
Again, I urge you, justify how you next to never ever touch FISA or TITLE III which also deal with giving the government the ability to use survelliance on people and has been abused before yet are routinely going after the Patriot Act?
I agree, we shouldn't make it easier for the government to abuse the Patriot Act. We should continue putting in safe guards, editing out dangerous portions of it, having further oversight, and having it challlenged in court. ABSOLUTELY.
We just shouldn't scrap the entire thing.
I don't like their classification of terrorist being mostly up to them and the repercussions of government labeling one as terrorist with no ability to fight or defend yourself against the claim. The PA is in general too vague and overall unnecessary.
I agree COMPLETELy about your view on the classification of terrorist. Hell, I said pretty much EXACTLY THAT in this thread. However, that is one portion of a large bill that would be more logical and efficient to edit out with one small new law rather than scrap the entire thing and try to create numerous large new laws to replace the good that was just destroyed.
Its funny you keep talking about the "vagueness" of the Patriot Act becuase you've still yet to produce even a single specific section you have an issue with.
I certainly hope you're not such a blatant hypocrite that you would then later in this post bitch about me misrepresenting you. Especially if you claim I'm MASSIVELY misrepresenting you. Cause hell, that's all this is. And you were doing it earlier too. But you're not that blatant a hypocrite, right?
As already explained, there is a difference with flat out stating what I "disagree with" something and me stating that if you are making an argument that if X happens than Y must happen then you need to be consistant and apply that all across the board.
That last part is a lie. You've done nothing but misrepresent me, from the moment you insulted me. I just fed back some of what you had dished out. If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
I've not insulted you, I've insulted your position.
And I've not misrepresented you at all. You've stated that if the government is abusing a piece of legislation than that is reason to remove the entire legislation? Is that not what you said? Your own words:
"The PA is NOT a good bill OBVIOUSLY because it can and has been abused."
Is that not saying that because it was abused the whole thing must go and is bad?
"That makes it not a good bill on the whole. Once it is abused, it must be taken away."
is that not saying that because it was abused than the whole thing is bad?
Is that NOT what you said.
See, that's your issue. You flat out said that, so I used hyperbole to say that if you agree with that how can you not apply it to the rest of the government.
You however have to completely and utterly ignore entire segments of my posts to come up with your comments. I actually said earlier in this thread:
"And, as I already acknowledged in my initial point, there likely IS an issue with the Patriot Act here and
if it ends up being the case I hope these guys win and I hope that section of it is stricken down, as it should be."
Now see, no matter what hyperbolic length you take that to it is in no way able to made out to be anywhere near this:
"Don't question the government, it's here for us; Zyphlin would disagree with that. "
Because thats pretty clearly me stating that they NEED to question the government and that I hoped they WIN in doing so if he was wronged and things would change.
You can keep trying to play it off like what I'm doing with your statements and what you did with my stances is the same, but they're simply not. You're completely ignoring things I stated and making up my position from square one. I've taken things you've said and putting forth analogy's to show how inconsistant that view is.
Mmmm, condescension. I like how you expect to be treated fairly and with respect, but don't give it out to others.
Sarcasm actually. Yes, long winded rants that generally don't apply to me can tickle my sarcastic bone rather well.