• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

USA using Patriot Act against its own citizens

How exactly has the Patriot Act had a real positive impact on the nation? I agree that it does contain useful laws that should be keep, but what exactly is so important about it that we should accept its suppression of civil rights? Being able to hold U.S. citizens without trial is far more dangerous than the minor benefits that the patriot act brings.

You're not thinking about the potential terrorists it could nab. :roll:

One of my friend's fathers has been in jail for 5 years because of this. No trial, and they still haven't told him what they're charging him with. He is a naturalized citizen in this country.. being denied the rights he earned by coming here legally. :(
 
On a related note, when are the democrats going to repeal the patriot act? Something I would actually congratualte them for. I keep hearing "The republicans! The republicans! Bush and the republicans! Oh Christ! Bloody MURDUR!" Ok, I get it, like I haven't heard that for last 8 years :roll: . Are you dems going to quit your whining actually do something about the PA? OH yea, that's right, you guys don't dominate the House and the Senate and have the presidency. Oh, oops, yea you do. It's been 100 days, are you dems going to repeal it or no? And if so, when?
 
On a related note, when are the democrats going to repeal the patriot act? Something I would actually congratualte them for. I keep hearing "The republicans! The republicans! Bush and the republicans! Oh Christ! Bloody MURDUR!" Ok, I get it, like I haven't heard that for last 8 years :roll: . Are you dems going to quit your whining actually do something about the PA? OH yea, that's right, you guys don't dominate the House and the Senate and have the presidency. Oh, oops, yea you do. It's been 100 days, are you dems going to repeal it or no? And if so, when?

The Patriot act has to be reauthorized by congress every so many years. It was reauthorized in 2005 by both the house and senate. Senator Obama voted to reauthorize it.
 
Could democrats not be attempting to scrap the entire thing of it because even an extremely well known liberal such as Fiengold has come out and said publicly that the vast majority, 90%, of the act is solid, useful, needed law and this was years ago before some of the questionable things have been taken out of it.

The democrats failure is not pushing harder to strip out pieces of it that are problematic, not scrapping the whole thing.
 
It would be idiotic to scrap the entire Patriot. Absolutely patently idiotic. The ONLY way I could even remotely agree with that was if:

There was a 95% likely chance that the 90%+ of it that is good, necessary, useful updates to the intelligence laws on the books would be voted back in immediately

OR

People pushing for it ALSO are pushing for the entire FISA legislation to be overturned and scrapped AND that TITLE III of the OMNIBUS Crime Control and Safe Streets Act is also over turned and scraped.

Its foolish and absolutely fool hearty to try and use FOURTY year old intelligence law to try to determine how law enforcement should go forward with such things in a world with technology that wasn't even DREAMED of by most people at that point in time. The amount of loop holes and grey areas in the law at that time that could be manipulated by BOTH sides was FAR to large.

This idiotic notion that we need to scrap a law because there's a potential for abuse with a portion of it is beyond me. Shall we get rid of the entire federal law enforcement completely? Because having it opens us up to abuse. Get rid of it. All of it. Right? I'm sure you're for that ikari? Actually, get rid of the military why we're at it. The military can be open to abuse by the government so we should get rid of it. If the FBI, without the Patriot, did this would you say "Scrap the FBI"? How do you pick and choose what emotional over reacting scape goat you want to choose Ikari?

This idiotic ignorant scare tacting on the part of most people, especially people who 9 out of 10 times do NOTHING but parrot talking points from whatever political websites and sources they choose that are directly in line with their thinking without EVER giving a legitimate attempt to view the information from the other side and get actual REALISTIC fact, is more offensive to me than the act itself by a large margin as its people acting purely and fully off faulty or extremely biased information and emotion and nothing more.

How things are working with the Patriot Act is the correct way it should be done, is the best way it should be done, and is how it should continue. The only change I would suggest would be to possibly push for it to go faster which would mean pressure for people on their members of Congress to push for them to pass laws editing the questionable portions. But what Ikari is suggesting is the political equivalent of removing an entire arm because there's a problem with the tip of the finger.

I get it, I'm an idiot. Thanks for that great, insightful, and insult laden post. It did a lot to further the debate. Maybe I should retort with nothing but personal insults as well.

Here's the thing. The PA needs to be scrapped in total. If you think there are good parts that need to be established, make a new damned bill. But the PA in its form is not good, it's too open, and apparently can and will be abused. Abused legislation must be taken away from the government. The government isn't this benevolent institution out there looking to bring us smiles and rainbows. It's a bureaucracy full of people who want to further their own power and because it wields the power and soveriegnty of the People, it must necessarily be constrained, restricted, and subject to multiple review. I'm not saying get rid of the arm because of the "tip of the finger" crap. I'm saying once government gets power it will abuse that power. If we excuse the abuse because "most of the bill is good" blah blah blah then we do nothing more than encourage that abuse. The PA is NOT a good bill OBVIOUSLY because it can and has been abused. That makes it not a good bill on the whole. Once it is abused, it must be taken away. Anything which must be given to the government can be given to it with severe restrictions and warnings attached.

Furthermore, the majority of the proper functionality which came from the PA could be accomplished without the PA. There are many things which could be done. I'm not saying we do nothing, no matter what you'd like to distort my argument into to make yours easier. I'm saying we can only take proper action, however. And that we must be CAREFUL in what we allow the government to do and with the degrees of freedom we allow it to do it with. But that's idiotic, huh? Stupid according to you. Watch the government. BAH! Nothing but fear rhetoric, right? Cutting off the nose to spite the face. Blah blah blah, whatever you can say to deflect from the issue. Forget that the PA HAS BEEN ABUSED, it's ok; keep it. How is that intelligent? What needed to be done could have easily been done without the PA. All the PA did was to authorize government with power it wasn't supposed to have; and that's far more dangerous than any terrorist could ever be. You want to know the idiotic ignorant scare tacting on the part of most people, especially people who 9 out of 10 times do NOTHING but parrot talking points from whatever political websites and sources they choose that are directly in line with their thinking without EVER giving a legitimate attempt to view the information from the other side and get actual REALISTIC fact is? It's this "terrorists are going to get us" line. It's "accept the expansion of government and the usurpation of your power as sovereigns because the terrorists are coming". That's the real source of ignorance in this Republic. People who think we have so much to fear from terrorists that we have to let government expand and take more and more power, excusing the abuses the entire way because "part of it is good". That's true ignorance right there.

We had wiretaps which were abused by the FBI, that's measured. The audit showed in both pure number and percentage the sample having well too much abuse. The PA has been used at least once against its own citizen and that's too much. 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. They'll protect us, and their usurpation of power shouldn't bother us. Move along, nothing to see here. What's idiotic is ignoring the warnings of the founders. What's stupid is absolute trust in the government. What's ignorant is the abdication of the duties and responsibilities of freemen, the abandonment of the never ending battle of freedom, and tuning one's back to the Republic in favor of oligopoly. Weak individuals who can't accept the responsibilities and consequences of freedom and liberty. Pathetic.
 
1 - I searched the CNN site for news or video of this and got nothing. You did not see it on CNN

2 - the story as reported by the local station contained almost no information. It was badly reported, badly written and badly sourced.

3 - If this was a real story, the mainstream media would be all over it, despite your conspiratorial belief that they would "hide" it.

4 - the Patriot Act was cooked up by Republicans, and I didn't hear the right whining about it when Bush was president

5 - When I am "trying to be witty" I will send you an PM to alert you.

While I agree with 3 of your 4 points, this one is interesting:

4 - the Patriot Act was cooked up by Republicans, and I didn't hear the right whining about it when Bush was president

The Patriot Act was an act that had strong support on BOTH sides of the aisle with Democrat sponsors. I just wanted to correct the PARTISAN assumption that this was PURELY a partisan Republican act.
 
Zyphilin, I have a question.

I have been informed that, under the Patriot Act:
1. The President or Atty Gen can, by signing the appropriate form, declare an individual to be an "enemy combatant". No evidence is required, just that signature on that form.
2. Having been so declared, the individual (even if a US citizen) may be taken into custody, held without charges, without a lawyer, without phone calls, etc indefinately.

Is this correct?

G.

I believe that US citizens cannot be held under the Patriot Act in violation of their Constitutional rights. I believe the Patriot Act is geared towards non-citizens within and outside of the USA.

It is highly unlikely that ANY case against a US citizen would correctly fall under this act, there are no cases where any US citizen has been detained under this act in the credible real world and you cannot be denied your rights regardless of the act as a US citizen.

Now if you are NOT a US citizen, the gloves are off. However, due process is always the case when residing within the USA.

I am always amused by the paranoia exhibited by people like Ikari over these perceived dangers; and yet, Ikari has a better chance getting the Ebola Virus than he does losing any of his Civil Rights.

I know a few on this thread have made the CLAIM, like this distraught mother, that they have been detained under the Patriot Act, but there is no credible source to substantiate this.

The reason this story can ONLY be found on YOUTUBE is because it is NOT newsworthy and is merely hyperbole for paranoid citizens who continually make the false claim that their Civil Rights are being denied.

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act]USA PATRIOT Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

USA PATRIOT Act (H.R. 3162)

MANDATORY DETENTION OF SUSPECTED TERRORISTS; HABEAS CORPUS; JUDICIAL REVIEW
`SEC. 236A. (a) DETENTION OF TERRORIST ALIENS-
`(1) CUSTODY- The Attorney General shall take into custody any alien who is certified under paragraph (3).

`(2) RELEASE- Except as provided in paragraphs (5) and (6), the Attorney General shall maintain custody of such an alien until the alien is removed from the United States. Except as provided in paragraph (6), such custody shall be maintained irrespective of any relief from removal for which the alien may be eligible, or any relief from removal granted the alien, until the Attorney General determines that the alien is no longer an alien who may be certified under paragraph (3). If the alien is finally determined not to be removable, detention pursuant to this subsection shall terminate.
`(3) CERTIFICATION- The Attorney General may certify an alien under this paragraph if the Attorney General has reasonable grounds to believe that the alien--
`(A) is described in section 212(a)(3)(A)(i), 212(a)(3)(A)(iii), 212(a)(3)(B), 237(a)(4)(A)(i), 237(a)(4)(A)(iii), or 237(a)(4)(B); or
`(B) is engaged in any other activity that endangers the national security of the United States.

`(4) NONDELEGATION- The Attorney General may delegate the authority provided under paragraph (3) only to the Deputy Attorney General. The Deputy Attorney General may not delegate such authority.

`(5) COMMENCEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS- The Attorney General shall place an alien detained under paragraph (1) in removal proceedings, or shall charge the alien with a criminal offense, not later than 7 days after the commencement of such detention. If the requirement of the preceding sentence is not satisfied, the Attorney General shall release the alien.

`(6) LIMITATION ON INDEFINITE DETENTION- An alien detained solely under paragraph (1) who has not been removed under section 241(a)(1)(A), and whose removal is unlikely in the reasonably foreseeable future, may be detained for additional periods of up to six months only if the release of the alien will threaten the national security of the United States or the safety of the community or any person.

`(7) REVIEW OF CERTIFICATION- The Attorney General shall review the certification made under paragraph (3) every 6 months. If the Attorney General determines, in the Attorney General's discretion, that the certification should be revoked, the alien may be released on such conditions as the Attorney General deems appropriate, unless such release is otherwise prohibited by law. The alien may request each 6 months in writing that the Attorney General reconsider the certification and may submit documents or other evidence in support of that request.
`(b) HABEAS CORPUS AND JUDICIAL REVIEW-
`(1) IN GENERAL- Judicial review of any action or decision relating to this section (including judicial review of the merits of a determination made under subsection (a)(3) or (a)(6)) is available exclusively in habeas corpus proceedings consistent with this subsection. Except as provided in the preceding sentence, no court shall have jurisdiction to review, by habeas corpus petition or otherwise, any such action or decision.

`(2) APPLICATION-
`(A) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, including section 2241(a) of title 28, United States Code, habeas corpus proceedings described in paragraph (1) may be initiated only by an application filed with--
`(i) the Supreme Court;
`(ii) any justice of the Supreme Court;
`(iii) any circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit; or
`(iv) any district court otherwise having jurisdiction to entertain it.
`(B) APPLICATION TRANSFER- Section 2241(b) of title 28, United States Code, shall apply to an application for a writ of habeas corpus described in subparagraph (A).

`(3) APPEALS- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, including section 2253 of title 28, in habeas corpus proceedings described in paragraph (1) before a circuit or district judge, the final order shall be subject to review, on appeal, by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. There shall be no right of appeal in such proceedings to any other circuit court of appeals.

`(4) RULE OF DECISION- The law applied by the Supreme Court and the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit shall be regarded as the rule of decision in habeas corpus proceedings described in paragraph (1).
`(c) STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION- The provisions of this section shall not be applicable to any other provision of this Act.'.
(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of contents of the Immigration and Nationality Act is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 236 the following:
`Sec. 236A. Mandatory detention of suspected terrorist; habeas corpus; judicial review.'.
(c) REPORTS- Not later than 6 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, and every 6 months thereafter, the Attorney General shall submit a report to the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate, with respect to the reporting period, on--
(1) the number of aliens certified under section 236A(a)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as added by subsection (a);
(2) the grounds for such certifications;
(3) the nationalities of the aliens so certified;
(4) the length of the detention for each alien so certified; and
(5) the number of aliens so certified who--
(A) were granted any form of relief from removal;
(B) were removed;
(C) the Attorney General has determined are no longer aliens who may be so certified; or
(D) were released from detention.
 
YouTube - USA using Patriot Act against its own citizens

Youtube vid of a news report. It's kinda crazy, apparently nothing was found but the kid is still in jail. Actually, I was trying to find follow ups to see if anything else has come of this just yet or not. Regardless, the use of the PA against our citizens, it may not be "common place" as far as we know now, but it does seem the government will use it against us if it suits their cause. Scary stuff.

How is this breaking news? Is YOUTUBE a valid news source; another epoch fail on your part. :roll:
 
This kid was NOT charged under the Patriot Act. Most of the popular perception of this case is entirely wrong

Source [US Department of Justice | JUVENILE INFORMATION FILED] (Press Release)

Hammond, IN—The United States Attorney for the Northern District of Indiana previously announced that a juvenile was arrested pursuant to a federal warrant. The arrest stems from a false bomb threat directed to Purdue University on February 15 and similar threats directed to other schools. The FBI, the Purdue University Police Department and the Tippecanoe County Prosecutor's Office, conducted an extensive investigation into this matter, resulting in that arrest.



Over recent days several media sources have reported information that is incorrect. Accordingly, the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Indiana wishes to further announce that a juvenile information has been filed and is pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana. That charge alleges a violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 844(e), which prohibits sending false information about an attempt to kill, injure or intimidate any individual or to unlawfully to damage any building through an instrument of interstate commerce. This charge is unrelated to the Patriot Act.



The juvenile has appeared in court on three occasions, once in North Carolina for an initial hearing and a detention hearing, and twice in Indiana for a continued initial hearing and a status hearing. At each hearing, the juvenile was represented by counsel. The government has filed a motion with the Court seeking to transfer the juvenile to adult status for prosecution pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 5032; that motion is pending before the Court and is scheduled for a hearing during the month of May. The juvenile is presently housed in a juvenile facility in the Northern District of Indiana where he does not have contact with adult offenders. His mother has been apprised of each court appearance and has attended the hearing in North Carolina; she did not appear at either of the hearings in Indiana. The juvenile facility where he is housed permits family visits.



Because the statutes governing juvenile proceedings limit public disclosure of information related to a juvenile case, the United States Attorney declines any further comment.



The United States Attorney emphasizes that the filing of a complaint or juvenile information is merely a charge and that all persons are presumed innocent unless proven guilty in a court of law.

The mother basically made the whole Patriot Act thing up - the media still takes some of the blame for inflating the claims as much as they did

Source [Wired Threat Level | Bloggers, TV, Go Nuts Over Misleading ‘Patriot Act’ Arrest Claim]

It’s the false TV news report heard ’round the world. Raleigh, North Carolina’s WRAL-5 reported last week that a 16-year-old bomb hoax suspect was hauled out of his mother’s home by federal agents, and is now being held without any legal rights on the authority of the 2001 USA PATRIOT Act, which “supersedes the Constitution.”

[...]

The arrest of the teenager is real enough. FBI agents investigating a February 15 bomb hoax that evacuated the mechanical engineering building at Purdue University traced the phone call to the juvenile’s Oxford, North Carolina home, served his mother with a search warrant and arrested the teen. They issued a press release about it, omitting the suspect’s name. That was on March 5, and he’s been held without bail in Indiana ever since.

The claim that the boy is a victim of USA PATRIOT, though, appears to have been cut from whole cloth. While there’s plenty to criticize in that post-9/11 law, it doesn’t contain any provision that abrogates a defendant’s right to a trial. It’s also not responsible for making it illegal to phone in a bomb threat. That’s been a federal crime since 1939.

The boy’s mother, Annette Lundeby, has even acknowledged in interviews that her son has been formally charged, has a court-appointed attorney, and has already made appearances in front of a judge. No military tribunals here. On Alex Jones, Lundeby seemed to more-or-less admit that the USA PATRIOT connection was something she dreamed up on her own.

Jones: And they said they are charging him under the Patriot Act, so –

Lundeby: They’re not saying that, but that’s exactly what they’re doing.

Jones: Well, it’s in the newspaper.

Lundeby: All their actions point towards that. But they don’t deny it either.
 
Last edited:
I am always amused by the paranoia exhibited by people like Ikari over these perceived dangers; and yet, Ikari has a better chance getting the Ebola Virus than he does losing any of his Civil Rights.

I have a better chance of being hit by a car than being taken out by a terrorist as well...do you want to get into probabilities?
 
Last edited:
How is this breaking news? Is YOUTUBE a valid news source; another epoch fail on your part. :roll:

Blah blah blah blah

I posted the news report to. Try reading.
 
Yet this very thread has a news report of an American Citizen being stripped of their rights and being held under the PA. So obviously through measured fact, everything you just said was bull****.

What profound irony based on what I and Kernel posted, the only one spewing paranoid BS on the forum is.......tada; YOU. :2wave:
 
What profound irony based on what I and Kernel posted, the only one spewing paranoid BS on the forum is.......tada; YOU. :2wave:

You post BS, Kernel posted something valid.
 
This kid was NOT charged under the Patriot Act. Most of the popular perception of this case is entirely wrong

Source [US Department of Justice | JUVENILE INFORMATION FILED] (Press Release)



The mother basically made the whole Patriot Act thing up - the media still takes some of the blame for inflating the claims as much as they did

Source [Wired Threat Level | Bloggers, TV, Go Nuts Over Misleading ‘Patriot Act’ Arrest Claim]

Thanks for the info, I was wondering if there would be follow up. Hopefully it's all true. I still believe the PA to be a very bad piece of legislation, backed only by Statists. But at the very least, this boy wasn't caught up in it, or so it seems.
 
I get it, I'm an idiot.

Not at all, in general I think you're an extremely intelligent person. In regards to the Patriot Act however in ALL my experience with you've I've found you to be extremely ignorant about the Act, knowing generalities that are stereotypes put out generally by those that think identically to you. I think you've made a choice on this from day one and you refuse to acknowledge anything or think of anything outside of your world view on it. Its not a critique on your general intelligence, its not calling you an idiot, but on THIS ISSUE I feel in all my dealings with you that you are incredibly uninformed or misinformed.

Thanks for that great, insightful, and insult laden post. It did a lot to further the debate. Maybe I should retort with nothing but personal insults as well.

Please, if you want to insult my VIEW and the reasons for my view and the way I present my view go about it. I expect it in a debate. If my view is so incorrect, if its so disgustingly opposite of yours, then you should be going after my view.

Here's the thing. The PA needs to be scrapped in total. If you think there are good parts that need to be established, make a new damned bill.

And as I said, if I believed it was likely in this political climate that the gigantic large needed portions of the bill would be repassed in expeditious fashion I would be all for it.

However, at this point I believe that POLITICS would get in the way and it wouldn't be voted back in not because it wasn't SOUND or NEEDED but because of POLITICS.

But the PA in its form is not good, it's too open, and apparently can and will be abused. Abused legislation must be taken away from the government

Which the same could be said for FISA even if we strip away the PATRIOT Act. Are you also calling for its complete removal? The same can be said for TITLE III, are you calling for its complete removal? Are you trying to actually imply that there were no survelliance and investigative misdeeds by the federal government PRIOR to the Patriot Act? And, if that's not what you're implying, why is all your venom and animosity targeted solely at the Patriot Act?

This is like saying you're hiring a construction company as a contracter. They are doing everything perfect, going above and beyond what you need, save for its found out one employee is bumping up the price of materials and pocketing the cash. YOU seemingly would fire the entire company, scrapping it all, and gambling on the fact you'll be able to find another company that can do it as good or even nearly as good as the company you just fired, instead of simply going to that company and saying "This person needs to be fired and I want to be re-imbursed".

Its illogical, inefficient, and petulent.

The government isn't this benevolent institution out there looking to bring us smiles and rainbows. It's a bureaucracy full of people who want to further their own power and because it wields the power and soveriegnty of the People, it must necessarily be constrained, restricted, and subject to multiple review. I'm not saying get rid of the arm because of the "tip of the finger" crap. I'm saying once government gets power it will abuse that power.

YES! That's EXACTLY what you're doing. Sit here and tell me ALL of the Patriot Act is rife for abuse. Tell me that even 90% of it is rife for abuse. Please, tell me that to my face. At least then I can believe you actually realisticly believe that that's not what you're doing. However, its also an incredibly ignorant statement in regards to the Act and ANY rational review of it to say that the vast majority of it is rife for abuse unless you're EQUALLY calling for the repeal of FISA and TITLE III yet you NEVER speak with such venom and spit towards them because they're not the hot topic libertarian flag waving piece right now that you've read all your one sided information on.

If we excuse the abuse because "most of the bill is good" blah blah blah then we do nothing more than encourage that abuse.The PA is NOT a good bill OBVIOUSLY because it can and has been abused. That makes it not a good bill on the whole. Once it is abused, it must be taken away. Anything which must be given to the government can be given to it with severe restrictions and warnings attached.

You've got to be joking with me. Hmm, the government, specifically the justice administration lets say, is the one that abused the Patriot Act. That obviously means we need to get rid of the Department of Agriculture and the Department of State because if one part of the government is not good becuase its doing abuse than OBVIOUSLY all of government is not good and needs to be removed because it can and has been abused.

Again, where's the cry to get rid of FISA and Title III? Where's your call to get rid of EVERY SINGLE GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION and every single bit of law governing them because every single one of them has had corruption and abuse happen before.

Unless you're calling for Anarchy your logic DOES NOT WORK.

Furthermore, the majority of the proper functionality which came from the PA could be accomplished without the PA.

Yes, it could. Depending on the judge in question, the agency in question, the boss at the time in question. There were loopholes big enough to drive a Mac Truck through both for ABUSE by government and to ESCAPE from Government due to new technologies and fourty year old law.

There are many things which could be done. I'm not saying we do nothing, no matter what you'd like to distort my argument into to make yours easier.

No, you're not saying do nothing because you don't have to. You're not a stupid person. You know that in this political climate there is no way any kind of major rework of intelligence laws is going to get passed through congress no matter how sound proof it is for abuse. You're not dumb. So you don't HAVE to say it because it allows you to put up this act of "They could just pass things to replace it" to try and cover your tracks on it.

I'm saying we can only take proper action, however. And that we must be CAREFUL in what we allow the government to do and with the degrees of freedom we allow it to do it with. But that's idiotic, huh? Stupid according to you.

Not at all, which you'd realize if you read what I wrote but no surprise you seem to not have. Please, show me where I say we should leave the Patriot Act completely unchanced.

I'll wait.

.

.

.

Hmm, wait, you won't be able to find it because I NEVER SAID IT OR SUGGESTED IT so I shouldn't waste my time waiting.

I could do the same thing waiting for you to find where I said the Patriot Act doesn't have problematic parts.

There ARE issues with the Patriot Act, and there are MULTIPLE avenues to fix it without removing the entire act:

1. Pass laws that edit the powers deliniated within it.
2. Don't vote to re-up a provision when it reaches its sunset
3. Challenge it in court to get it over turned

Let me spell it out, reallllllllly simple for you

I AM FOR ALL OF THOSE THINGS.

I am for changing the Patriot Act. I'm for removing any problematic part in it. I'm for having heightened oversight for it. I'm for having pieces of it completely being stripped out.

The ONLY thing I'm against is chucking the ENTIRE ACT due to a tiny portion of it being problematic when there are OTHER options.

If there were no other options I'd agree with you completely, but that's not the CASE.

Now, you can CONTINUE if you wish to misrepresent my argument. Its not going to surprise me; you've done it throughout by accusing me of attacking you personally when I'm attacking your stances or your argument and you've done it in regards to my stance on oversight of the government. But the FACT is I'm FOR watching the government, I'm FOR correcting the problems of the act, I'm FOR individual liberties. However, I'm for it due to things based on REALITY and objective research from all sides instead of a mindless one sided non-objective constant drumbeat in one direction.

What needed to be done could have easily been done without the PA. All the PA did was to authorize government with power it wasn't supposed to have; and that's far more dangerous than any terrorist could ever be.

And this is why I said you're ignorant of the Patriot Act. No, it did not. Not unless you're equally screaming from the heavens that FISA and TITLE III needs to be removed and frankly I've not seen a single god damn thread from you about EITHER one of those things. Why? My guess is because there's not nearly as much paranoid over the top hugely one sided misinformation filled libertarian hogwash about those as there are about the Patriot Act.
 
You want to know the idiotic ignorant scare tacting on the part of most people, especially people who 9 out of 10 times do NOTHING but parrot talking points from whatever political websites and sources they choose that are directly in line with their thinking without EVER giving a legitimate attempt to view the information from the other side and get actual REALISTIC fact is? It's this "terrorists are going to get us" line. It's "accept the expansion of government and the usurpation of your power as sovereigns because the terrorists are coming". That's the real source of ignorance in this Republic. People who think we have so much to fear from terrorists that we have to let government expand and take more and more power, excusing the abuses the entire way because "part of it is good". That's true ignorance right there.

:clap:

Wonderful little rant there. Alex Jones would be proud. However, gotta ask.

What the **** does that have to do with anything I said?

Please, again, point me to where I said the Patriot Act needs to stay in place "because terrorists are coming" or because "the terrorists are going to get me". I know I'm not one of those in the 9 out of 10 range unless the ACLU and EPIC are somehow pro-patriot Act and I just missed it.

Yes, there ARE ignorant people on BOTH sides of the Patriot Act spectrum. Those that try to say the act is 100% lock tite, everything is great about it, and nothing needs to be removed are JUST as wrong and I'll argue against them JUST as much when they come out and say it. I'm not sure why you're ranting about it in this response because I don't disagree with you.

We had wiretaps which were abused by the FBI, that's measured.

Yep, that's the government abusing something. We need to get rid of the FDA cause naturally since they're government they will also abuse, chop it all off.

And, are you telling me Ikari that we never had any wiretap abuses prior to the Patriot Act? And, if we did, how exactly is it the ENTIRE Patriot Acts fault because the government did the same thing it did previous to it, abused power at times.

The audit showed in both pure number and percentage the sample having well too much abuse.

Indeed, and I'm likely all in favor of restricting back that power.

By the way, which power is it exactly? Could you provide me a reference point in the Act to which power specifically you have issue with or is this just some nebulus "issue"? Perhaps that's why you hate the entire act, because everything you read just frames it...much like this news story you posted...as "The Patriot Act" because god forbid someone actually do some research to find out specifics.

The PA has been used at least once against its own citizen and that's too much.

Yep, so has the FBI. Remove it. CIA. Remove it. They turned the Military against private citizens once. Remove it. Wait, the President of the United States of America perpetrated abuse against its own citizens once under Nixon....we need to remove the position of President of the United States of America.

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.

Actually, I wouldn't. Actually, in my posts IN THIS VERY THREAD I even stated there were abuses and they needed to be changed. But go ahead, continue to just blatantly misrepresent me, its kind of funny.

They'll protect us, and their usurpation of power shouldn't bother us. Move along, nothing to see here. What's idiotic is ignoring the warnings of the founders.

Ahh, here comes the libertarian version of Godwin's law. Yes Ikari, yes, channel the founders. Let them flow through you. I'm sure you're got the spirit of jefferson and washington speaking right in your ears, let it out.

What's stupid is absolute trust in the government. What's ignorant is the abdication of the duties and responsibilities of freemen, the abandonment of the never ending battle of freedom, and tuning one's back to the Republic in favor of oligopoly. Weak individuals who can't accept the responsibilities and consequences of freedom and liberty. Pathetic.

Well, glad I don't have absolute trust in the government. Wow glad I'm not abdicating duties and responsabilities or abandoning the battle for freedom. Glad I've not turned my back on things. Glad I'm not just being a hyperly paranoid person parroting the standard hyper libertarian talking points while giving out no specifics and acting hysterical about the big bad government while at the same time being absolutely inconsistant as I MASSIVELY misrepresent the viewpoint of the person disagreeing with me.

Phew, for a moment there I thought your little rant was actually going to apply to me.
 
How is this breaking news? Is YOUTUBE a valid news source; another epoch fail on your part. :roll:

To be fair, while generally YouTube videos aren't legitimate sources it was a video of an actual news cast and was later backed up with the print story.

This kid was NOT charged under the Patriot Act. Most of the popular perception of this case is entirely wrong

Source [US Department of Justice | JUVENILE INFORMATION FILED] (Press Release)

The mother basically made the whole Patriot Act thing up - the media still takes some of the blame for inflating the claims as much as they did

Source [Wired Threat Level | Bloggers, TV, Go Nuts Over Misleading ‘Patriot Act’ Arrest Claim]

OMG! You're kidding me? You mean a lawyer with an agenda and a woman who likely got fed worthless information by hyper paranoid people decided to trump up the evil scary word "Patriot Act" and then a news organization decided that instead of doing legitimate reporting or having any actual integrity they'd run a sensational story that typical "OMG the Patriot Act the embodyment of evvvvvvvil" folks then run around with as if its some kind of giant damning evidence?

Wow, I'd never have imagined that was the case.

And wait, you mean the "ODD" reason that it wasn't picked up by any major outlets or even any real blog sites WASN'T because the government was being so super duper uber secretive and letting anything out......but because there was no story?

Well my god, what kind of complete flippin idiot that MUST be a mindless drone of the government that walks along like a zombie going "U.S.A is all good, can do no bad, brains brains!" could EVER had suggested that........
 
You post BS, Kernel posted something valid.

Yeah, posting a link to the actual ACT and definition of what it entails is BS.

Let me summarize this for you:

You post a BS YouTube video as "breaking news", make uninformed paranoid statements about an act you OBVIOUSLY haven’t bothered to read and know little to nothing about, then claim OTHERS are full of BS when they post a link to the actual act?

I can’t find a better definition for closed minded petty arrogance combined with a lot of denial and paranoia.
 
Wonderful little rant there. Alex Jones would be proud. However, gotta ask.

What the **** does that have to do with anything I said?

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.

Please, again, point me to where I said the Patriot Act needs to stay in place "because terrorists are coming" or because "the terrorists are going to get me". I know I'm not one of those in the 9 out of 10 range unless the ACLU and EPIC are somehow pro-patriot Act and I just missed it.

It's one of the most widely used excuses for the PA.

Yes, there ARE ignorant people on BOTH sides of the Patriot Act spectrum. Those that try to say the act is 100% lock tite, everything is great about it, and nothing needs to be removed are JUST as wrong and I'll argue against them JUST as much when they come out and say it. I'm not sure why you're ranting about it in this response because I don't disagree with you.

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.

Yep, that's the government abusing something. We need to get rid of the FDA cause naturally since they're government they will also abuse, chop it all off.

Didn't you bitch in this very post about me misrepresenting you? And then you do it to me again? Interesting.

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.

And, are you telling me Ikari that we never had any wiretap abuses prior to the Patriot Act? And, if we did, how exactly is it the ENTIRE Patriot Acts fault because the government did the same thing it did previous to it, abused power at times.

The government has abused much before the PA. I just don't think we should be making it easier for them.

Indeed, and I'm likely all in favor of restricting back that power.

By the way, which power is it exactly? Could you provide me a reference point in the Act to which power specifically you have issue with or is this just some nebulus "issue"? Perhaps that's why you hate the entire act, because everything you read just frames it...much like this news story you posted...as "The Patriot Act" because god forbid someone actually do some research to find out specifics.

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.

Yep, so has the FBI. Remove it. CIA. Remove it. They turned the Military against private citizens once. Remove it. Wait, the President of the United States of America perpetrated abuse against its own citizens once under Nixon....we need to remove the position of President of the United States of America.

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?

Actually, I wouldn't. Actually, in my posts IN THIS VERY THREAD I even stated there were abuses and they needed to be changed. But go ahead, continue to just blatantly misrepresent me, its kind of funny.

Oh snap!

Ahh, here comes the libertarian version of Godwin's law. Yes Ikari, yes, channel the founders. Let them flow through you. I'm sure you're got the spirit of jefferson and washington speaking right in your ears, let it out.

I know, I totally have to Madam Cleo it because the founders certainly didn't write anything, did they? I mean that's preposterous. Thinking there's something like the Federalist Papers or Anti-Federalist Papers, or collections of communications and essays, newspapers, etc. Certainly the founders never used anything like this to put into words their philosophies. Never in a million years. So we totally have to guess at what they wanted...damned their shortsightedness. If only they had written down their thoughts, we could glimpse at what they believed were dangers and virtues.

Well, glad I don't have absolute trust in the government. Wow glad I'm not abdicating duties and responsabilities or abandoning the battle for freedom. Glad I've not turned my back on things. Glad I'm not just being a hyperly paranoid person parroting the standard hyper libertarian talking points while giving out no specifics and acting hysterical about the big bad government while at the same time being absolutely inconsistant as I MASSIVELY misrepresent the viewpoint of the person disagreeing with me.

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.

Phew, for a moment there I thought your little rant was actually going to apply to me.

Mmmm, condescension. I like how you expect to be treated fairly and with respect, but don't give it out to others.
 
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.
 
Yeah, posting a link to the actual ACT and definition of what it entails is BS.

Let me summarize this for you:

You post a BS YouTube video as "breaking news", make uninformed paranoid statements about an act you OBVIOUSLY haven’t bothered to read and know little to nothing about, then claim OTHERS are full of BS when they post a link to the actual act?

I can’t find a better definition for closed minded petty arrogance combined with a lot of denial and paranoia.

It was a news broadcast. Jesus. That's breaking news, is it not. I also linked the printed version too if you care to even read anything.
You merely posted the PA, but you offered nothing in connection to the story. So what you said was BS. Other people contributed and added to the debate, you did nothing.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Enough about the accusations of it not being breaking news. As already stated, the youtube video was to a legitiamte news affiliate doing an actual reporting story, not an opinion piece, and was backed up later with the physical article.
 
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.

Please, you misrepresented my position from the get go. You also called me Alex Jones. I don't know what to say, you were being extremely condescending to me from the beginning because I take great exception to things like the PA and the Real ID Act and the Military Commissions Act. There's a long list of things I'd personally get rid of because I don't think the federal government has business in them. But whatever, you say you didn't mean it than fine. I apologize and consider it dropped.

Well and good. Show me where I used it.

To be fair, I never said you used it. I said it was ignorant.

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.

Because of what is ruled over in the PA, if it can be abused it must be done away with. There are fundamental liberties at stake and abuse of the fundamental leads to very bad things. The whole of it should be scrapped because the potential for damage is huge. And who can say if it hasn't been abused. This case wasn't substantiated in the end, but that doesn't mean there hasn't been abuse or there won't be. The level at which the breakdown can occur is such that we can't rightfully let it go. If something of the order of the PA is needed, draft a new bill with explicit restrictions and regulations and go from there. I don't think there's a necessity for it at all.

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".

It is an overall danger because it can remove from you all ability to defend yourself against charges laid by the government. Is that not danger? I certainly would classify it as such. Attacks against the fundamental should be removed as soon as possible.

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. "

I merely took your wording and reorganized some things. You've been trying to portray me as basically an anarchist and misrepresenting the type of control I wish installed in the government from the get go. So you can bitch about being misrepresented, but those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

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.

But there isn't, you're mostly waiting around for a violation before you do anything. I'm saying the violation would be so grave as to not be permitable in the first place.

You specifically and blatantly lied about what my stance was.

Well you know the old saying "Let he who is without sin..."

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.

No you didn't. The type of threat posed by the FDA and that by the PA are different leagues. And then you went off the deep end saying that I pretty much think the CIA, FBI, etc should all be abolished. But I never said any of that. They should be restricted, but government agencies and legislation which lends additional power to the government are different things. You purposefully used hyperbole and distortion to try to cast my arguments in a negative light as to make your arguments easier to make. Again, I merely returned to you the favor.

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.

I see no reason for the PA to exist. I see no benefit from it. Abuses have been present before the PA and will be present after, and they must be punished. I don't see how it behooves us to say these things happened, and go about making it easier for it to happen again.

Yes. The government has abused NUMEROUS laws before, but I don't see you screaming for them being repealed.

I think the vast majority of laws should be repealed, but this was about the PA; not how many laws I think should be taken off the books.

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?

This wasn't about FISA or Title III. I'm not sure how constitutional FISA is, it doesn't sound like it reports to the Supreme Court or is under its review. I don't like the idea of secret courts either, nor warrantless searches, nor knockless entry, nor confiscation of private property which is standard in many drug cases, nor subsidies, nor the Department of Education, nor the ATFE agents, nor the War on Drugs. I mean...how much do you want here? We were talking about the PA, but I'm against a great number of government agencies...especially the NSA. I can't help but think those guys are up to no good all the time. No way you need all those PhD level mathematicians and aren't up to anything fishy. I also can't stand the Office of Information Awareness...crazy crap right there. And to be perfectly frank, I don't like the Department of Homeland Security. I think we had everything we needed without adding another government agency. We can side track all day if you want, but it doesn't really add anything because we're talking about the PA.

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.

We should scrap the entire thing. Instead of waiting for something bad to happen, we should head it off at the pass. If what you claim is true, then make new legislation with proper restriction. But as it exists, there is too much danger from it and it needs to be done away with. If the worst it could do was to limit beer purchases on Sunday, I may be more inclined to say work with it and revise it. But it's not, it's much more ruthless than that; and because of that it needs to be thrown out. Start over if you must, chances are I won't agree with that either, but at least then you'd prevent the abuse and can start with something more restrictive in nature.

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.

That one portion of a large bill makes it so dangerous that it shouldn't be allowed to exist. The rest of the bill authorizes some pretty bad things, and if you get mislabeled because that's what's best for the government at the time; you're ****ed. That can't be allowed to happen.

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 already told you, it's right above in fact.
 
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.

Nein, because what you were doing wasn't that. You were trying to apply the arguments made against organizations and misrepresent what I think is proper government action and what is reserved for the People and the States. Taking my stance on abusive legislation and applying it to branches of the government as well. I think maybe you went so far as to insinuate I was an anarchist, which is right out. So again, those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

I've not insulted you, I've insulted your position.

You've done both in reality.

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."

that's an argument against the PA. What the PA authorizes is extreme and because it can and has (though that may have to be augmented, because the "has" was based off the article) been abused it must be done away with. It can be generalized to other acts of legislation as well. There are lots of abusive laws out there, most of those should be done away with, and depending on what they deal with affects the urgency by which they should be done away with. You may be able to get away with augmenting legislation to avoid the abuse, but abusive laws in general should probably be thrown on the chopping block.

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.

It is what I said. I didn't say to get rid of the FBI or the government itself as you have tried to state. Abusive law most likely needs to be done away with. The PA specifically definitely needs to be done away with. I wouldn't scrap government agencies as I would scrap abusive law. I would take away the abusive law so the government agency can not act improperly. That's where your whole distortion comes in. You are applying my arguments on wrongful law and legislation to government agency and the government itself. I'm not an anarchist, there is proper role for government and we must have it for those roles. You can construct rightful and just legislation and law to fulfill those roles. You can also construct treasonous and abusive legislation which go beyond those roles. That doesn't say get rid of the government, that says get rid of the law. But you are trying to use my argument against the actual federal agencies themselves. Make no bones about it, there are definitely government agencies I wouldn't mind seeing go the way of the dinosaur, but my argument against abusive legislation doesn't necessarily speak to that.

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.

I apply it to the rest of law. The government will abuse power, thus you have to take that power away once abused. you don't take the government away, you take away the abusive legislation. You forbid the government from abusing that power again. You are trying to say that I should want to get rid of the government in general, and that's where the lies and distortion come in. I do not want to get rid of the government in general, I would like to get rid of abusive and treasonous laws in general.

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:

Says the pot to the kettle.

"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."

But you'd wait for the abuse to occur, and considering the scope of this abuse with the PA; I don't think it's permissible. So you wouldn't dissent until something bad happened. I'll dissent before we're ****ed.

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. "

Nor is anything I said indicative of me wishing to scrap the whole of the government.

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.

As well it might. But my dissent against the PA and other unrightful legislation is not indicative of some overall anarchist belief either. If you want to insinuate that, then understand you'll get the same treatment back.

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.

It is the same. My dissent against abuse and improper legislation at no point says I want to end the government.

Sarcasm actually. Yes, long winded rants that generally don't apply to me can tickle my sarcastic bone rather well.

It was condescending, like the majority of the attitude you copped against me this thread.
 
Back
Top Bottom