Why I Now Support the Patriot Act

2008-03-04 12:05:23

#126

fadedsteve: GOP Sympathizer; +266|6782|Menlo Park, CA

lowing wrote:
Turquoise wrote:
I watched a Dispatches episode that went undercover at Green Lane Mosque in the U.K. and saw how extremism is infecting mainstream Islam, and I couldn't help but wonder what exactly is going on in the Muslim community here. Saudi Arabia has an insidious influence on Islam through its promotion of Wahhabism that I now believe makes it necessary for the government to observe and apprehend certain Muslims for the safety of our country.

I only wish that the U.K. would be more aggressive in its attitude toward Muslims, since what appears to be a good portion of them is preaching intolerance, hate, and the overthrow of secular democracy. I now also believe that it may be necessary to restrict the flow of Muslims into this country.

Unfortunately, the Patriot Act would now appear to be a necessity in dealing with this subtle issue. I never thought I'd actually side with this atrocious piece of legislation, but I guess we don't have much choice....

What do you guys think?
Wow, he finally gets it, and all it took was an piano to fall on his head.

LOL! Good for you Turquoise you are finally seeing the way of the dark side!!

The Patriot Act saves lives! Appeasement liberalism "run a muck" doesnt!!

2008-03-04 12:23:35

#127

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6702|'Murka

SineNomine wrote:
http://mysite.verizon.net/ress3yvb/endt … id108.html

i hope that shows my point

No, it shows unsubstantiated claims by an individual. Read the text of the Patriot Act and other applicable law (ie, Ch 36 Title 50, USC) and then see if the sky is really falling.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2008-03-04 12:26:53

#128

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6702|'Murka

oug wrote:
FEOS wrote:
Read the content of both the Ermachtigungsgesetz and the Patriot Act. Then come back and try to tell me they are even remotely comparable.
If I understand correct, you claim to know the differences. So I was hoping you would share your thoughts.

See my above post.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2008-03-04 12:32:45

#129

SineNomine: Panzerblitz; +37|7014|SPARTA

FEOS wrote:
SineNomine wrote:
http://mysite.verizon.net/ress3yvb/endt … id108.html

i hope that shows my point
No, it shows unsubstantiated claims by an individual. Read the text of the Patriot Act and other applicable law (ie, Ch 36 Title 50, USC) and then see if the sky is really falling.

hey, if it's ok for you, that you can be arrested without any accusation, just for being a possible threat in the eyes of some people, than it's ok for me, you have to live in that country. i just say 'look and learn' for we in germany didn't know either in the beginning. it's so easy.
and yes i personally read the patriot act and i can clearly see parallels, not exactly the same of course, but similarities that are disturbing.

2008-03-04 12:55:51

#130

(T)eflon(S)hadow: R.I.P. Neda; +456|7120|Grapevine, TX

SineNomine wrote:
FEOS wrote:
SineNomine wrote:
http://mysite.verizon.net/ress3yvb/endt … id108.html

i hope that shows my point
No, it shows unsubstantiated claims by an individual. Read the text of the Patriot Act and other applicable law (ie, Ch 36 Title 50, USC) and then see if the sky is really falling.
hey, if it's ok for you, that you can be arrested without any accusation, just for being a possible threat in the eyes of some people, than it's ok for me, you have to live in that country. i just say 'look and learn' for we in Germany didn't know either in the beginning. it's so easy.
and yes i personally read the patriot act and i can clearly see parallels, not exactly the same of course, but similarities that are disturbing.

Liberalism is in the eye of the beholder.

Other than misinformation and urban myths, no one can show one case documented that the US Patriot Act has infringed upon one US Citizen.

So what are we discussing here? Oh yeah, thats right, how the US Patriot Act is doing what is was designed to do. Protect US Citizens from internation al terrorists operating on US soil from being able to operate under the radar. /done

https://freesound.iua.upf.edu/data/32/images/32244__digifishmusic__Cricket_Chirp_3600Hz.png

2008-03-04 13:23:06

#131

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6702|'Murka

SineNomine wrote:
FEOS wrote:
SineNomine wrote:
http://mysite.verizon.net/ress3yvb/endt … id108.html

i hope that shows my point
No, it shows unsubstantiated claims by an individual. Read the text of the Patriot Act and other applicable law (ie, Ch 36 Title 50, USC) and then see if the sky is really falling.
hey, if it's ok for you, that you can be arrested without any accusation, just for being a possible threat in the eyes of some people, than it's ok for me, you have to live in that country. i just say 'look and learn' for we in germany didn't know either in the beginning. it's so easy.
and yes i personally read the patriot act and i can clearly see parallels, not exactly the same of course, but similarities that are disturbing.

Where do you get that as an American citizen, I can be arrested without any accusation? Simply not the case. Citizens of other countries? Absolutely, if they are suspected of terrorism or supporting WMD proliferation.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2008-03-04 13:28:48

#132

Ty: Mass Media Casualty; +2,398|7066|Noizyland

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

- Benjamin Franklin.

[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon

2008-03-04 14:20:44

#133

usmarine: Banned; +2,785|7053

Ty wrote:
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

- Benjamin Franklin.

Says the man who owned slaves.

2008-03-04 14:31:36

#134

Spearhead: Gulf coast redneck hippy; +731|6981|Tampa Bay Florida

usmarine wrote:
Ty wrote:
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

- Benjamin Franklin.
Says the man who owned slaves.

So did every other rich person at the time?

So either you made a fucking retarded, irrelevant comment, or you're saying our country is bullshit?

2008-03-04 15:00:17

#135

Ajax_the_Great1: Dropped on request; +206|6938

Spearhead wrote:
usmarine wrote:
Ty wrote:
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

- Benjamin Franklin.
Says the man who owned slaves.
So did every other rich person at the time?

So either you made a fucking retarded, irrelevant comment, or you're saying our country is bullshit?

Ben Franklin lived over 200 years ago. Times change. His comment is less revelant in todays modern world.

Oh, he was also a patriot. Meaning he would have supported the patriot act.

Last edited by Ajax_the_Great1 (2008-03-04 15:01:42)

2008-03-04 17:02:25

#136

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6696|North Carolina

Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
Spearhead wrote:
usmarine wrote:

Says the man who owned slaves.
So did every other rich person at the time?

So either you made a fucking retarded, irrelevant comment, or you're saying our country is bullshit?
Ben Franklin lived over 200 years ago. Times change. His comment is less revelant in todays modern world.

Oh, he was also a patriot. Meaning he would have supported the patriot act.

Now wait just a minute. I said I support the Patriot Act, but don't mistake it for patriotism. The Patriot Act was only named that way because it helps distract people from the slippery slope it moves us down. I'm only supporting it because of the conditions we currently face, but I'm pretty sure Franklin would be disgusted by it.

Still, times do change, and at this point, safety is only temporary to begin with. Liberty is a relative term, since it depends entirely on order, as Iraq has shown us.

Without order, there is anarchy and very little freedom for most people. With order, there can be a great deal of freedom, but it is still limited with respect to maintaining order.

2008-03-04 17:02:57

#137

Spearhead: Gulf coast redneck hippy; +731|6981|Tampa Bay Florida

(this comment was directed at Ajax)

Well don't you just know everything.

The only thing that could make that comment more elitist would be a winking smiley.

Last edited by Spearhead (2008-03-04 17:03:29)

2008-03-04 17:59:29

#138

usmarine: Banned; +2,785|7053

Spearhead wrote:
usmarine wrote:
Ty wrote:
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

- Benjamin Franklin.
Says the man who owned slaves.
So did every other rich person at the time?

So either you made a fucking retarded, irrelevant comment, or you're saying our country is bullshit?

The comment is relevant to the quote fucktard.

2008-03-04 18:01:10

#139

clogar: damn ain't it great to be a laxer; +32|6247|Minnesota

why i support the patriot act: i keep my hands warm with it.

2008-03-04 19:31:22

#140

RAIMIUS: You with the face!; +244|7006|US

Turquoise wrote:
Without order, there is anarchy and very little freedom for most people. With order, there can be a great deal of freedom, but it is still limited with respect to maintaining order.

I disagree. In anarchy, nearly everything is left to personal choices. That is the greatest deal of "freedom" you can have, in that only you decide your actions. However, it is not a very good situation, because if someone else decides to violate your human rights, there is little to stop them...darwinism in the extreme...and very often horrible crime results. Anarchy has the whole Heart of Darkness/Lord of the Flies aspect.

I think Franklin's quote is just as relevant today, as it was when he said it. Liberty and security do not change over time. Our interpretations over acceptible amounts may change, but the ideas do not.

2008-03-04 19:52:09

#141

Ajax_the_Great1: Dropped on request; +206|6938

Spearhead wrote:
(this comment was directed at Ajax)

Well don't you just know everything.

The only thing that could make that comment more elitist would be a winking smiley.

That comment about Franklin supporting the patriot act was a joke.

In fact, the only part of the patriot act that does bother me is the manipulative name. Laws should be labeled accordingly. They shouldn't attempt to pull on the heart-strings of the average joe.

2008-03-04 21:57:51

#142

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6696|North Carolina

RAIMIUS wrote:
Turquoise wrote:
Without order, there is anarchy and very little freedom for most people. With order, there can be a great deal of freedom, but it is still limited with respect to maintaining order.
I disagree. In anarchy, nearly everything is left to personal choices. That is the greatest deal of "freedom" you can have, in that only you decide your actions. However, it is not a very good situation, because if someone else decides to violate your human rights, there is little to stop them...darwinism in the extreme...and very often horrible crime results. Anarchy has the whole Heart of Darkness/Lord of the Flies aspect.

I would argue that the oppression that anarchy engenders makes it quite the opposite of freedom. Because of human nature, we are the least free when we are without order. Nevertheless, this is a philosophical and semantic argument.

RAIMIUS wrote:
I think Franklin's quote is just as relevant today, as it was when he said it. Liberty and security do not change over time. Our interpretations over acceptible amounts may change, but the ideas do not.

Again, this is semantics. The platonic ideals of liberty and security may remain constant, but their applications to our everchanging reality are amorphous. Security is a fleeting thing when you look at how easy it is to contaminate a drinking water supply or strategically detonate a bomb in a highly crowded area. By the same token, liberty is only as available as order allows it to be.

2008-03-05 05:05:22

#143

oug: Calmer than you are.; +380|6810|Πάϊ

FEOS wrote:
oug wrote:
FEOS wrote:
Read the content of both the Ermachtigungsgesetz and the Patriot Act. Then come back and try to tell me they are even remotely comparable.
If I understand correct, you claim to know the differences. So I was hoping you would share your thoughts.
See my above post.

I'll have to get back to you on this one. Lack of time you see... (and I still think it would be easier if you just answered the question but alas...)

_ƒ³

2008-03-05 05:12:50

#144

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6702|'Murka

oug wrote:
FEOS wrote:
oug wrote:
If I understand correct, you claim to know the differences. So I was hoping you would share your thoughts.
See my above post.
I'll have to get back to you on this one. Lack of time you see... (and I still think it would be easier if you just answered the question but alas...)

Lack of time to cut/paste and lay out the comparison, you see...

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2008-03-05 05:30:44

#145

B.Schuss: I'm back, baby... ( sort of ); +664|7132|Cologne, Germany

Now, I am not an american citizen, but if I was, the thought that my e-mails might be scanned, or telephone conversations wiretapped, or my house searched without a proper court order, that sure is troubling.

Ironic that one would call this biggest erosion of privacy laws in the history of the US "patriot act"

It implies that anyone who is against it, must be unpatriotic. And who wants to be labelled like that ?

2008-03-05 07:07:46

#146

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6702|'Murka

I fully agree that aspects of it are troubling, although the checks in place (although after the fact) do provide some level of oversight of actions taken under the auspices of the Act. But to compare it to the German law that gave dictatorial power to the Nazis (which the Patriot Act does not do), is reactionary and flawed.

And, while it's unpopular to point out, there is no specified right to privacy in the US Constitution or Bill of Rights. It is certainly implied/inferred by many in the Bill of Rights, but it is not specified. The primary laws addressing citizen's privacy with regard to the government are The Privacy Act of 1974 and HIPAA. Activities authorized under the Patriot Act seem to be in line with both of these.

Last edited by FEOS (2008-03-05 07:09:22)

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2008-03-05 07:10:44

#147

Stingray24: Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy; +1,060|6736|The Land of Scott Walker

B.Schuss wrote:
Now, I am not an american citizen, but if I was, the thought that my e-mails might be scanned, or telephone conversations wiretapped, or my house searched without a proper court order, that sure is troubling.

Ironic that one would call this biggest erosion of privacy laws in the history of the US "patriot act"

It implies that anyone who is against it, must be unpatriotic. And who wants to be labelled like that ?

It's an acronym. Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act

2008-03-05 18:11:20

#148

RAIMIUS: You with the face!; +244|7006|US

FEOS wrote:
And, while it's unpopular to point out, there is no specified right to privacy in the US Constitution or Bill of Rights.

Many of the founding fathers did not want a Bill of Rights at all. They feared that listing some protected rights would give the impression that the government had control over the others. Others feared that without specific guaranteed rights, none would be safe. The compromise produced the 9th and 10th Amendments. That is why courts recognize the right to privacy.

Stingray24 wrote:
It's an acronym. Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act

...a rather well chosen acronym, if they wanted support...

Last edited by RAIMIUS (2008-03-05 18:12:48)

2008-03-06 03:27:38

#149

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6702|'Murka

RAIMIUS wrote:
FEOS wrote:
And, while it's unpopular to point out, there is no specified right to privacy in the US Constitution or Bill of Rights.
Many of the founding fathers did not want a Bill of Rights at all. They feared that listing some protected rights would give the impression that the government had control over the others. Others feared that without specific guaranteed rights, none would be safe. The compromise produced the 9th and 10th Amendments. That is why courts recognize the right to privacy.

Actually, the courts recognize SOME right to privacy, but not an all-inclusive right to privacy. While it is customary to err on the side of privacy in nearly all cases, there is nothing in the Constitution that guarantees it in all cases. That is what the follow-on laws mentioned earlier were for...to guarantee rights to privacy in certain situations.

I realize some of the Founders (Hamilton in particular) did not want a Bill of Rights and that there were some rights not included in the Bill. However, that is neither here nor there, as we DO have a Bill of Rights.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2008-03-06 15:06:30

#150

RAIMIUS: You with the face!; +244|7006|US

True on all accounts.

The Bill of Rights was meant to secure certain liberties that the founding fathers thought most important...as a restriction on the government.

BF2S Forums Why I Now Support the Patriot Act

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

SineNomine wrote:

oug wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

SineNomine wrote:

SineNomine wrote:

FEOS wrote:

SineNomine wrote:

SineNomine wrote:

FEOS wrote:

SineNomine wrote:

Ty wrote:

usmarine wrote:

Ty wrote:

Spearhead wrote:

usmarine wrote:

Ty wrote:

Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:

Spearhead wrote:

usmarine wrote:

Spearhead wrote:

usmarine wrote:

Ty wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Spearhead wrote:

RAIMIUS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

RAIMIUS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

oug wrote:

FEOS wrote:

oug wrote:

FEOS wrote:

oug wrote:

B.Schuss wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

RAIMIUS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Board footer