Harry Reid - "We cannot let the PATRIOT act expire"
69 replies, posted
[QUOTE=analrapist;30051111]Deal with it, cock goblin. :v:
Magic Mormon underwear:
[img]http://www.psychographicmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/Magic-Underwear1.jpg[/img][/QUOTE]
Make me, douchemiester :v:
It's hard to take Reid seriously when you imagine that he's wearing secret, almost full body underwear.
[QUOTE=analrapist;30050913]Democrat President Obama extended the USAPATRIOT Act,[/QUOTE]
Yeah because he personally did that, right?
[QUOTE=analrapist;30050913]extended the wars,[/QUOTE]
Backing out now would've been a horrible idea.
[QUOTE=analrapist;30050913]chickenshitted out on health care,[/QUOTE]
More the cause of Republican gutting due to forced compromise.
[QUOTE=analrapist;30050913]and has generally done the exact same things as Republican President George W. Bush.[/QUOTE]
Other than the ones you just mentioned, what else?
Posted this in another thread, and I'm going to post it again.
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;30051433]Yeah because he personally did that, right?
[/quote]
He advocated for extending it.
[quote]
Backing out now would've been a horrible idea.
[/quote]
No.
[quote]
More the cause of Republican gutting due to forced compromise.
[/quote]
Democrats had a majority in Congress and could have passed it if they wanted.
[quote]
Other than the ones you just mentioned, what else?[/QUOTE]
How about not closing Guantanomo bay? Or refusing to go after Bush and Cheney for war crimes. And tax cuts for the rich.
[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;30051503]He advocated for extending it.
No.
Democrats had a majority in Congress and could have passed it if they wanted.
How about not closing Guantanomo bay? Or refusing to go after Bush and Cheney for war crimes. And tax cuts for the rich.[/QUOTE]
:swoon: Thank you.
Not to mention ending "Don't Ask Don't Tell"
[QUOTE=analrapist;30051804]:swoon: Thank you.
Not to mention ending "Don't Ask Don't Tell"[/QUOTE]
Well Obama did advocate for and accomplish that, so what's the point in mentioning this?
[editline]25th May 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;30051503]He advocated for extending it.[/quote]
Fair enough.
[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;30051503]No.[/quote]
Pulling out of Afghanistan would be detrimental at this point, but Iraq's winding down, so I'd say get out of Iraq, and lessen troop numbers in Afghanistan.
[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;30051503]How about not closing Guantanomo bay? Or refusing to go after Bush and Cheney for war crimes. And tax cuts for the rich.[/QUOTE]
If we closed Guantanamo Bay, where would we put the prisoners and how would we try them? Going after Bush and Cheney for war crimes would go nowhere, I assure you, and Obama didn't support extending the Bush tax cuts, but not vetoing something doesn't mean he supported it.
He need to choose, he can either have the patriot act or the cowboy poetry festival. He can't have both.
I do have to say though, if Obama had passed the patriot act it would get allot more support on Facepunch.
but its named the patriot act it has to be good for you!
[QUOTE='[sluggo];30052542']I do have to say though, if Obama had passed the patriot act it would get allot more support on Facepunch.[/QUOTE]
Doubtful. A bad idea is a bad idea no matter who it's coming from.
[QUOTE='[sluggo];30052542']He need to choose, he can either have the patriot act or the cowboy poetry festival. He can't have both.
I do have to say though, if Obama had passed the patriot act it would get allot more support on Facepunch.[/QUOTE]
Man I do love me some cowboy poetry.
[QUOTE=Edthefirst;30051473]Posted this in another thread, and I'm going to post it again.
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin[/QUOTE]
Just so we're clear, that quote gets shoveled around every political thread, it is phrased a different way every time, and the individual credited for it is different half the time. More importantly, that quote means all of exactly dick. Its just extreme rhetoric no different from anything else said. There has to be a balance between security and liberty. You cannot have too much of either or too little of either. You have to sacrifice some freedom for some security, and you have to sacrifice some security for some freedom. Its just the way shit works. You cannot rely on an extreme situation to create a functioning society, it just will not work.
That being said, we do need to get rid of the patriot act. While some of the ideas are good, the implementation is horrible. There is zero accountability and zero due process and zero transparency.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;30052481]Well Obama did advocate for and accomplish that, so what's the point in mentioning this?[/QUOTE]
Don't Ask Don't Tell is still legal, pending appeal.
It will probably get revoked upon appeal, but it's going to be the law of the land for at least another year or more because Obama pussyfooted around and refused to address the issue for two years.
And Obama's final health care bill - the one that passed - is IDENTICAL TO WHAT JOHN McCAIN PROPOSED.
They had enough votes to ram through single payer health care and get us something like what they have in Canada or England, and they fucking pussied out and gave us the Republican plan instead.
Like the OP's article says it'll essentially be rubber stamped through anyways. Some legislators might take positions against it in order to highlight their "distinctiveness" from the political "norm" in Congress currently and use that for their political purposes, like Rand Paul there.
When it comes to matters of the state all politicians- regardless of their claimed differences, will vote together on the matter. There's really been little exploration of the PATRIOT Act, no where near as "in depth" as the media was doing with the healthcare reform at least. IMO the PATRIOT Act had more questionable provisions for "personal liberty" or better yet, so-called "big government", yet the debate that began over that aspect in the Healthcare debate never appeared when the PATRIOT Act was first presented and passed.
That being said I think the second article's hope for a public debate that would some how enlighten this and get support against the PATRIOT Act is too optimistic. I really doubt it would build opposition to it- we've had exploration and exposition of the PATRIOT Act since it was first passed and people still don't really seem to understand what it entails- much less by people who do it for free, unlike Rand who'll get paid regardless of what he says. A "public debate" in either house of Congress would do little to change that.
[QUOTE=analrapist;30053033]Don't Ask Don't Tell is still legal, pending appeal.
It will probably get revoked upon appeal, but it's going to be the law of the land for at least another year or more because Obama pussyfooted around and refused to address the issue for two years.
And Obama's final health care bill - the one that passed - is IDENTICAL TO WHAT JOHN McCAIN PROPOSED.
They had enough votes to ram through single payer health care and get us something like what they have in Canada or England, and they fucking pussied out and gave us the Republican plan instead.[/QUOTE]
I remember them being one senator short of a majority or whatever.
butt its esential too are safty
[QUOTE='[sluggo];30052542']He need to choose, he can either have the patriot act or the cowboy poetry festival. He can't have both.
I do have to say though, if Obama had passed the patriot act it would get allot more support on Facepunch.[/QUOTE]
Yeah...
about that...
Not at all, not even a little bit.
I have my own rational as to why don't ask don't goes against what the nation was founded on. The Founders when revolting against the British argued "no taxation without representation" in that any forced payment to an entity must entitle you to be able to represent whoever is imposing the payment. Any and all public position must be available to all members of society. For this not to be the case would mean there would be taxation without representation. The only instance where I would say someone is not eligible is when there is something that would have a direct impact on their ability to perform, and that this impact would be doctor supported. No doctor would suggest that schizophrenia couldn't have an impact on a person's job in the military.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;30052481]Pulling out of Afghanistan would be detrimental at this point, but Iraq's winding down, so I'd say get out of Iraq, and lessen troop numbers in Afghanistan.[/QUOTE]
It would only be detrimental to the military industrial complex and the federal reserve because they are making a bucket full of money off this.
[QUOTE=Zeddy;30052747]Just so we're clear, that quote gets shoveled around every political thread, it is phrased a different way every time, and the individual credited for it is different half the time. More importantly, that quote means all of exactly dick. Its just extreme rhetoric no different from anything else said. There has to be a balance between security and liberty. You cannot have too much of either or too little of either. You have to sacrifice some freedom for some security, and you have to sacrifice some security for some freedom. Its just the way shit works. You cannot rely on an extreme situation to create a functioning society, it just will not work.[/QUOTE]
I will challenge you on that very notion. Sacrificing any liberty for any perceived form of safety is never justified. The only benefit is a false sense of security, and history has shown that any government who employs such power tends to continue down that road. The British Empire, the Soviet Union, far too many African nations, Germany, and more. Any liberty taken by the state are always subject to abuse, always subject to new provisions being enacted that give more power, and always lead to a nation lead by the military.
To provide further insight, liberty is being used in the context of natural rights. Every natural right has been discussed and justified to its extreme. In order to prove your point, give an example of when restricting the liberties of the people has provided any good.
[QUOTE=Pepin;30054335]It would only be detrimental to the military industrial complex and [b]the federal reserve[/b] because they are making a bucket full of money off this.[/QUOTE]
Explain. Especially the bold.
[QUOTE=lulzbocksV2;30054972]Explain. Especially the bold.[/QUOTE]
Federal Reserve loans the government money with no backing, which is the same as printing it out from your desktop. They then charge the government real money on interest and to pay it back.
[QUOTE=Zeddy;30052747]Just so we're clear, that quote gets shoveled around every political thread, it is phrased a different way every time, and the individual credited for it is different half the time. More importantly, that quote means all of exactly dick. Its just extreme rhetoric no different from anything else said. There has to be a balance between security and liberty. You cannot have too much of either or too little of either. You have to sacrifice some freedom for some security, and you have to sacrifice some security for some freedom. Its just the way shit works. You cannot rely on an extreme situation to create a functioning society, it just will not work.
That being said, we do need to get rid of the patriot act. While some of the ideas are good, the implementation is horrible. There is zero accountability and zero due process and zero transparency.[/QUOTE]
I actually did research on it, and Ben Franklin is considered the father of the quote. Although there is no firsthand source.
Secondly, I quoted it using the idea of [i]essential[/i] liberty. Yes some freedoms must be given up in order to achieve safety, but essential liberty, such as the right to privacy in one's own home, should never be given up for temporary safety. That's exactly what the Patriot Act does, provide temporary safety. It plays off of the fears of the public, and it's why it's still in effect years after it was supposed to sunset.
Understandably the quote is used and misused, but I sincerely believe it applies in this case.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;30052481]If we closed Guantanamo Bay, where would we put the prisoners[/QUOTE]
On a rocket, into the sun.
[QUOTE=lulzbocksV2;30054972]Explain. Especially the bold.[/QUOTE]
The Federal Reserve is a private bank that makes the US's currency. It was authorized to do so in 1913. The Federal Reserve works in a bit of confusing way and I can recommend some documentaries on it, but essentially, the Federal Reserve is run by all of the big banks in the US, loans out currency at interest to the US and other banks. A central bank creates a debt based money system because all money is loaned at interest. The way banks make money is off interest, and this is why most banks try to make as many loans as they can. Of course you make the most money when you are loaning a lot out, and the Fed makes a lot of money off wars, because wars are very expensive. History has actually shown that relatively peaceful countries start getting into all these wars after establishing a central bank. I feel like I'm trying to cram a lot here...
The Fed does not make a lot of money during peaceful times because there isn't nearly as much money loaned out. During war times, a lot of money gets loaned out, and they make big profits off it. They made 81 billion dollars in profit last year by creating capital from thin air.
I think the military industrial complex is an easy one to explain. During peaceful times they make little money because there is little demand for weapons. But during war times they make a ton because there is a high demand for weapons and military gear. They are the one part of the economy that is soaring.
[editline]25th May 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Ridge;30055183]Federal Reserve loans the government money with no backing, which is the same as printing it out from your desktop. They then charge the government real money on interest and to pay it back.[/QUOTE]
The issue with explaining it is that people can't think it is that simple, but it is. Well, to be honest, it is a bit more complex, but that is really the best way of explaining it at face value.
Here are some videos that gives more detail, but I recommend long documentaries.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIxhsF6JLEA&NR[/media]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3_Q1SiRN-A[/media]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99DYh8Zpkpw[/media]
I hate how Reid was the only alternative to [i]Sharron Angle[/i].
Such is life in the United States I guess :/
[QUOTE=Ridge;30055194]On a rocket, into the sun.[/QUOTE]
Nah we'll just put them in the united states.
maybe ohio, it could use some color
Is it ironic that the people who support things like this for 'national security' are usually more harmful to said security due to incompetence?
Yeah! Rights are for fags, and God hates fags, so make sure to vote for the Patriot Act today!
[QUOTE=Zeddy;30052747]Just so we're clear, that quote gets shoveled around every political thread, it is phrased a different way every time, and the individual credited for it is different half the time. More importantly, that quote means all of exactly dick. Its just extreme rhetoric no different from anything else said. There has to be a balance between security and liberty.[/QUOTE]
[quote]"Those who would give up [b]Essential[/b] Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."[/quote]
Without the bolded part your statement makes sense, however it is there and so it doesn't.
The PATRIOT act had [b]no[/b] good ideas, it was completely fucking stupid and almost the entire reason for it's existence was zero due process.
It was passed amidst panic (when all the most fucked up horrible laws are passed, next time a tragedy happens try to step back and analyze things), it is right up there with the Alien and Sedition Acts as one of the most horrible pieces of legislation in American history.
Please do elaborate on the "good" ideas.
To me, a "good" idea is to stop supporting Israel and invading places, giving people a reason to bomb us in the first place. That would completely destroy any supposed benefits of the PATRIOT act. The alternative (and what is much more likely scenario) is that we keep down the road we're on and for every inevitable tragedy comes more rights-destroying legislation.
I'd like to be amuse your moderate views on the situation, but it isn't worthy of it. People of any principle on both sides hate this law and always will, in any form and under any name, whether they realize it or not.
[QUOTE=analrapist;30050913]Yep.
Democrat President Obama extended the USAPATRIOT Act, extended the wars, chickenshitted out on health care, and has generally done the exact same things as Republican President George W. Bush.
Mormon = Moron
And I don't trust Mormons no matter what their political party is.[/QUOTE]
mormonism is satanism
google it
that's why you don't trust em
you know they're evil
hence polygamy
[QUOTE=Ridge;30055194]On a rocket, into the sun.[/QUOTE]
So how is that borderline psychotic state of mind called "republican" working out for you?
[QUOTE=SickJits;30058108]mormonism is satanism
google it
that's why you don't trust em
you know they're evil
hence polygamy[/QUOTE]
Polygamy is pretty cool though.
I think Joseph Smith is a pretty cool guy. eh has 30 wifes and doesnt afraid of anything.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.