Slashdot Mirror
Anti-Patriot Act Movement Expands
MFS! writes "Mount Shasta, California has become the latest city where the USA PATRIOT act is creating a controversy. This story at the Record-Searchlight describes petitioning by a local citizens' rights committee to order police to defy the PATRIOT act. To date, 3 states and 130 cities have passed legislation forbidding local authorities from cooperating with federal PATRIOT requests, not to mention the numerous businesses who are taking pains to hamper the Act's coverage."
First you make laws and then you tell people not to obey them...
Well, not my cup of tea, but makes me wonder the sanity... oh the sanity...
-Is the meaning of life vanity, or is vanity the meaning of life?
Supreme Court by now, it goes against the constitution, then again there an outnumbering amount of Republicans, well we should balence that next election.
Ok, so three states have passed anti-PA legislation?
What about California's (and others) medical pot legislations? Do the federal drug agents care when they storm into these people's "gardens" and prosecute them to the full extent of FEDERAL law?
Hell, do the Federal agents care when they destroy the Native American's HEMP fields (which were allowed under a law in the late 1800s?)
NO.
State's rights (which should be more important) aren't shit. Remember that.
How can anyone possibly be against an act thats sole purpose is to protect us from terrorists. What do these people have to hide?
Or is this what patrioticism(sp?) is about?
I hope this rebellion that these states and cities shake up the US administration. From an outsiders point of view (I'm from the Netherlands) I find the actions taking by the US Administration very shocking. These movements taken by internal states and cities hopefully do them some good.
-- Cliff Albert
The text of the Act is here, and there are explanations in regular English here and here.
I produce electronic music and write little games. Have a look.
Both parties do the same things.. they only call it something different.
Same net result in either case: Fewer rights, higher taxes, more invasions.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
To date, 3 states and 130 cities have passed legislation forbidding local authorities from cooperating with federal PATRIOT requests, not to mention the numerous businesses who are taking pains to hamper the Act's coverage
How about mentioning some of the loudest critics- librarians. Most are madder than hell about the Patriot Act, and politicians are finding that going up against librarians(which are seen as by the public as incredibly smart, among other things) isn't very popular. From some of our youngest years, librarians have earned a place of respect as wise, intelligent, helpful, kind people.
Most libraries now display signs at checkout desks and computer workstations warning you they can be forced to turn over information about what you check out etc....and most also now destroy those records on a daily basis, paper or electronic.
And, as Peter Jennings pointed out with a smile on his face, your local library is a great place to sit down and read a copy of the Patriot Act. The librarians will be more than happy to assist.
Folks- libraries across the country are suffering from budget cutbacks just like everyone else. If you think it's awesome that librarians are on your side against the Patriot Act, might I suggest helping them back by volunteering? Think outside the (computer) box too- help reshelf books, read to kids in the children's library, etc...
Please help metamoderate.
Or is that only the case for the constitution, and ammendments thereof?
For example let's say that Tennessee passed anti-DMCA legislation, and I get caught with mplayer/Xine/libcss on my my iBook. Could the MPAA still prosecute me under federal law? Would they have to extradite me to another state?
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
Here in philly, the constitution roughed up our mayor and senator, missed our governor and tried to decapitate a supreme. I would give it what it wants before things get ugly.
Is a 10th Amendment movement. Too bad most states have sold out like whores for "federal" money.
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
Doesn't the words Anti-Patriot scare the shit out of you?
How small a thought it takes to fill a whole life
Was I the only one that noticed the fact that in the original version of this Slashdot story, California was a CITY, not a state?
Stupidity is indeed our greatest wealth...
Americans have constantly disobeyed laws they viewed as unjust. Starting in revolutionary times with the Boston Tea Party, then moving forward to Henry David Thoreau, prohibition, Eugene Debs running for president from jail in defiance of the Espionage Act, and more recently the civil rights movement (M. L. King,). In this view, disobedience of the Patriot Act is not unique but continuation of this theme in American history
I have nothing to fear from this law... because I am not breaking it.
What, exactly, is YOUR problem? You cant even say can you.
Right down to the doublespeak name.
The Patriot Act is a symptom of a sick government
We need to play the knee-jerk public reaction game at least as well as the administration to have hope of fighting them. Calling their unconstitutional act the "Patriot Act" is simply brilliant. Calling efforts to protect the Bill of Rights "Anti-Patriot Act efforts" is so dumb that only a /. editor would do so ;)
read here: google search: nullification crisis
...by the same people that were responsible for the PATRIOT act. Or is it? It's certainly possible that, by posting sentiments of dissent here, one could attract an extra bit of attention from the people that monitor internet communications. Hope you aren't in the habit of downloading "questionable content"...
Losers choose to abuse the use of "loose".
Come on. This is not a time for partisan politics. It is a time for unity.
if taxation without representation was cheaper.
(As a minor, that's essentially what I have.)
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
Amen to that!
No harrsion ford
Or, at least, that's what I hear.
Watching Cowboy Bebop in my jammies, eating a bowl of Shreddies.
The US government is trying to spread fear about terroism in order to gain support for such coercive acts, and then tries to pass them under a very sugarcoated and propaganda-ish name - "patriot", when there is nothing patriotic about it.
You'd think with the massive social connections of the Internet, we'd be seeing massive protest and rebellion of unpopular laws (like the DMCA).
But with the Internet comes a price--jaded apathy!
If people could just get their act together, like all those people on Slashdot who have their little boycotts that never go anywhere. I don't think I've ever heard of an Internet boycott or protest that actually got the momentum to do anything. Anyone know of any?
"Sufferin' succotash."
I'm not affiliated with the video or site, but this video does give some great facts on the patriot act as well as other conspiracy theories.
www.copvcia.com for more info, the video isn't worth buying but it is worth watching, try downloading it somewhere.
-mlr
How many of them passed laws forbidding the Feds from running over their citizens in tanks after 80 people were slaughtered in Waco?
Even if the local laws are easily overruled by federal mandates, a city-wide and state-wide act of civil disobedience sends a powerful message to the elected federal officials.
Keep in mind, most national senate/house members are profoundly out of touch with the communities they are supposed to represent. If, all of a sudden, the majority of your constituents demonstrate that they do not want the oppressive law you enacted to remain on the books, you might consider proposing a revocation, if you wish to be re-elected.
This is important. Even though the ill-concieved act was passed by a fear/power mad congress, it's critical to continue to publicly voice opposition to it, for as long as it takes to return the American fed to a sane level of checks and balance of power. If you are a freedom-loving American, it is your patriotic duty to publicly protest this foolish act before it does significant harm to our country and our culture.
Kremvax - Citizen, Patriot.
--- Little Atomo - The Amazing Thinking Robot from Atomocom! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIP9KisHi4k
Understandably people are taking a closer look at the provisions under the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT) Act now that the initial shock of 9/11 has worn off. The reaction to "do something" is not being governed by the climate of fear and the urgent feeling for a rapid response that followed the attacks, which also meant that many legislators didn't read or understand the entire bill. The fear of political opponents using a vote against a bill with the name "PATRIOT" didn't help.
Obviously many of those who are taking a sober second thought about the provisions don't like what they see, and this may be the start of a movement to let the sunset clause on the act take effect. It is set to expire at midnight (0h00) January 1, 2006.
Librarians are at the forefront of the movement and the American Library Association's USA PATRIOT Act campaign is one of many legislative and privacy issues that they address.
The July 4th weekend may be a good time to think about the USA PATRIOT act, argues the SJMC. Declan McCullagh offers his thoughts on the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003 AKA PATRIOT Act II. You can also read EPIC's view of the DSEA 2003 and the original USA PATRIOT Act. They also have links to the text of the legislation and other info.
What is it americans like saying to people from other countries again?
Something like:
If you don't like the god-dam laws of your god-dam country get the hell out.
An invigorating article on the same topic from Jim Lobe at Oneworld.net United States:
WASHINGTON, D.C., July 4 (OneWorld) - More than 130 communities with a combined population of more than 16 million people in 26 states have passed resolutions directing local police to refrain from using racial profiling, enforcing immigration laws, or participating in federal investigations that violate civil liberties, according to a new report released on the eve of this year's Fourth of July celebrations by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).
The 23-page report credits Ann Arbor, Michigan, with adopting the first resolution opposing key provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act, thus setting off a trend that shows no sign of abating.
"In my conversations with people from across the political spectrum, I hear one refrain over and over," says Laura Murphy, who heads the ACLU's Washington, D.C. legislative office. "If we give up our freedoms in the name of national security, we will have lost the war on terrorism."
"As this year's Fourth of July rolls around, we hope that this report will demonstrate to the White House, the Justice Department and Congress that we must be both safe and free."
The ACLU, whose local offices played a major role in support of dozens of resolutions around the country, stressed that among the jurisdications that have taken action are a number of traditionally conservative areas of the country, such as Oklahoma City, Missoula, Montana; and Falgstaff, Arizona.
Some of the larger cities include Denver, Colorado; Oakland and San Francisco, California; Seattle, Washington; Detroit, Michigan; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and Baltimore, Maryland. Three states have also adopted measures that call for strict respect for constitutional rights: Hawaii, Alaska, and Vermont.
The report, 'Independence Day 2003: Main Street Fights the Federal Government's Insatiable Appetite for New Powers in the Post 9/11 Era,' says the burgeoning grassroots movement was launched after demands by Attorney General John Aschroft were agreed to by Congress, which, it charges, "encouraged an atmosphere of hysteria," by approving the USA PATRIOT Act in late October 2001 with little debate and few dissenting votes.
The Act included a number of controversial provisions that, in the ACLU's view, upset the balance between the citizen's privacy and political rights and the state's responsibility to ensure the security of the country.
Some of those provisions included expanding the power of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act; approval of "sneak and peek" warrants which allow federal agents to enter private homes without notifying the owner until much later; weakening the standards for intelligence wiretaps by permitting them to be used for criminal invstigations under some circumstances; and making it easier for federal agents to obtain highly personal "business records," such as library loan records, of possible terrorist suspects.
The Act itself was followed up with a flurry of executive orders, regulations, policies and practices, such as denying the right to a fair trial for citizens and non-citizens labeled "enemy combatants" and establishing military commissions that fall short of minimum due process standards, which further eroded civil liberties protection, according to the ACLU.
On January 7, 2002, Ann Arbor became the first city in the country to pass a resolution in direct response to the PATRIOT Act and new federal policies. "We're very concerned about civil rights and the about the potential discrimination," City Councilwoman Heidi Herrell told ABC News at the time. "We spent a lot of time since September 11 making sure that the Muslim members of our community felt safe."
Denver became the second city to approve a resolution after the ACLU there discovered the existence of 3,400 secret files on social activists that had been collected by the Denver Police over severa
How about "I wish this post wasn't funny, but it is."
That said, it was incredibly funny. Good show.
Eugene Debs as some sort of heroic figure? He was a nasty agent of an enemy foreign power who fought to try to impose a totalitarian economic system in the United States.
Yes, he did write to his master Lenin to tell him not to kill people so fast, however, he was in full approval of Lenin's overthrowing a democratic government and instituting his hellhole of a "worker's paradise".
He should have been deported to Moscow rather than jailed in the United States. People like him are not heroic figures like Martin Luther King Jr: they worked to make the United States a much worse place, and if they had had their way.....
"I have nothing to fear from this law... because I am not breaking it"
It might be OK as long as we have a non-abusive president who acts in the public interest such as Bush in office, but imagine the mischief that can be wrought once there is a President Hillary.
This act gives the government too much power, and that can be abused.
When the government fears the people, its democracy.
When the people fear the government, its tyrrany.
"Some fight for law. Some fight for justice. What will you fight for? One day, you will see."
If it gets much whackier over here, I'm getting the hell out, and the Netherlands is on my short list. So start figuring out how to recover some more of that floodland, cuz I'm not the only one. :)
(And on an only-vaguely related note, any fellow American afraid of repealing our drug laws should spend a week in Amsterdam. You'll wish -your- city was that nice.)
I didn't pay attention to politics until my country started to scare me. Recently.
Measure Number: H.R. 3162 (Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001 )
i sts/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1& vote=00313
Vote Counts:
YEAs 98
NAYs 1
Not Voting 1
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_l
If people really oppose this then I expect to see EVERY INCUMBENT SENATOR LOSE THEIR SEAT.
Is not PATRIOT II, as many here seem to think.
It's actually the JINGOISM ACT, proposed as a secret law by Ashcroft. Since secret laws are a provision of the PATRIOT act, you will never hear of the JINGOSIM ACT until after you're arrested.
How small a thought it takes to fill a whole life
"(And on an only-vaguely related note, any fellow American afraid of repealing our drug laws should spend a week in Amsterdam. You'll wish -your- city was that nice.)"
I'm full aware of the Netherland's pro-drug-abuse policy resulting in dope-fiends all over the place. Much worse. If you like that kind of thing, good riddance to you.
I used [Megabank]'s services to pay my tuition bills at [esteemed UK university]. Today, I was called by [megabank] and was told that if I didn't tell them where the funds were coming from that I used to pay my tuition came from, that my accounts would be closed and my case referred to the federal government. While "my personal savings" was a good enough answer for them, good god, what shite.
In defense of [Megabank], they didn't seem to happy to have to make these phone calls, but told me that they were required to by the patriot act. in fact, the woman even spoke frankly that the company saw this as a waste of time and money too.
The anti-PATRIOT movement is and will only be very small.
Even when it does bad things (such as make librarians give over records), it has a good result: it is making librarians not keep these records in the first place, and they never should have.
I'm not a terrorist, so this Act does not bother me at all.
If one group commits crimes more frequently than another group, you'd better damn well bet I'd pull them over and throw them in jail.
7 You have to tipe commands 21 The above parent can not spell, tipe is not a word, unless its a fancy way of spelling tip, then how much would you tip a command, 10% or 15%, what if you do a LFS installation, its kind of a like a buffet, so 5%?
"1) avoid the draft"
Despite the efforts of the American left (Charlie Rangel), the draft is long gone.
"2) get access to reproductive health care"
Might as well make thay ANY health care. Stay here as well: if you go to Canada, soon enough you will be on a bus south to escape their inferior system.
Yes.
The states can still leave the Union when they want. I wonder if any legislators remember this part of the Constitution?
Good Grief. - Charles Brown
You mean you don't like any of the following:
Howard "Saddam" Dean, who distinguished himself a few months ago with his impassioned support of Saddam's regime?
Senator Ketchup.... the look like Kennedy and Lincoln at the same time and have JFK initials strategy?
That guy from Florida who looks like a televangelist?
"Mister Charisma", Senator Lieberman (ever see him in the same room as Teller of Penn and Teller at the same time), who detests the first amendment, and participated in Gore's attempt to overthrow an election?
The man with 33 pounds of hair mousse?
The former senator from Illinois, who has probably forgotten where Washington is?
Yee hah! We have a bunch of winners here!
There are no constitutional rights to privacy.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
-------------
However, in 1819, the Supreme Court ruled in McCollough vs. Maryland that federal laws supercede state laws. More information can be found here.
The ruling states
The States have no power, by taxation or otherwise, to retard, impede, burthen, or in any manner control the operations of the constitutional laws enacted by Congress to carry into effect the powers vested in the national Government.
Think about what this means, people -- we are living under a law that is too conservativer FOR CHINKS and every member of congress voted for it.
Wasn't this one of the causes of the civil war??
Anyone know of any organizations that are actively fighting to get rid of the Patriot Act that one could donate time/money to? Other than the obvious ACLU...
Only requirement for good karma: be pedantic as much and as often as possible.
It is set to expire at midnight (0h00) January 1, 2006.
I have long had--perhaps undeservedly--a deep and abiding faith in the genius of the American people.
But you can expect a PR campaign unlike any seen since The Matrix Reloaded's when this date comes nigh. There will be strenuous efforts to illustrate to the American people "all the lives that have been saved" because of the Patriot Act's existence.
The only interesting question is who will be in power at that point? As it seems clear to me that _this_ (that is, who is *behind* the act) is the determining factor as to whether or not Republicans will support it.
There is NO way on God's good earth that if Gore had won '00 and the PATRIOT Act had been born under his tutelage that conservatives wouldn't have been shouting from sea to shining sea about the encroachment to privacy this act represents.
That was one of the first moments I understood the difference between conservative and Republican.
By a wide margin, I identify more readily with the former than the latter (and in fact it's sad to me to see folks [including conservative commentators], even folks such as Ashcroft, who *so* abhorred the encroachment on liberty such measures represented now turning heel and supporting the same--merely b/c they are the ones holding the purse strings & the power).
Will the American public be reluctant to be snow-jobbed by this inevitable PR campaign? Or will there be a linger of distrust--especially if WMDs are never found in Iraq? Will common sense prevail?
Stay tuned.
"Remember that the Supreme Court essentially put Bushie in office, led by the three black-shirted, er, robed justices (Scalia, Rehnquist, and Clarence Tom)"
The Supreme Court did NOT put Bush in office. This is a popular but false urban legend. Bush had already won the vote in Florida. The Supreme Court merely shut down a ballot-tampering attempt by the Gore camp that Gore hoped would put him on top (and it turned out that Gore lost the count he demanded when all was said and done).
"They ended the Florida recount and effectively appointed him "winner" of the 2000 election."
No, the votes had already been counted. They did not appoint anyone: they let the winner stay the winner.
"This is why it is so important for the Senate to keep Bushie's judicial appointments bottled up-- he wants to pack the courts with like-minded people."
That is every president's right.
Seriously, though, both parties have shit for candidates. If I haven't fled to Canada by 2004, my vote will probably be a write-in for Jesse Ventura.
"the crimes of R.M. Nixon stand as facts" ...and the at least as bad crimes of Clinton stand as facts.
Hey! Put that Ann Coulter book down and pay attention: you have been hoodwinked, bamboozled!
The system has failed you, don't fail yourself. --Billy Bragg
Internal deterioration is always the least destructive way to dissolve the latest, greatest world empire.
Hi
William Mandel was in fact an agent of an enemy foreign government by his own admission. He actually joined Stalin's government organization.
The HUAC did many things wrong, but they certainly did not harm this man's reputation: he had already ruined it himself with his hateful and traitorous actions.
Ask me for personal information, and I'll give it to you... I'll give you the logs printed with --highly-verbose onto hollerith cards. Don't worry, I'm sure you'll be able to find a machine that can read them in a few months. Oh, and you'll also need to manually sort them. Those kids are always marking out the card ID numbers!
You are better off reading Ann Coulter. She points out and opposes the destructive foreces in politics and society.
Bill Bragg merely celebrates the worst in politics (such as socialism) and wants to make things worse.
"Uh-huh. Sure. Good luck with that. What 'crimes' did Clinton commit again"
Since Clinton is a left-winger on your side, you are willing to overlook his many felonies and worse.
Nixon, as a Republican, deserves full derision. But not your man.
Your statement is about the same as " What "crimes" did Nixon commit? He was never convicted!!!!"
My Canadian friends are happy to live close to the border: they have to cross it to get health care. The Canadian system of universal misery has ridiculous waiting lists (much longer than in the US) and many other service denials does not serve them.
These friends have a special-needs child, and the Canadian system is especially harsh on her compared to the US system.
Hatfield has brought this all on himself.
Richard Jewell brought it all on himself too (ignore the frivolous lawsuit against the government): he did this with his theft of evidence from the bombing scene, which he kept in his resident as trophies.
Richard, if you don't want to be investigated in a bombing case, don't commit crimes at the scene of the bombing!!!!
Only in America ( thank goodness). In how many other countries could something like this to happen, and still be a part of the governmantal process? All REAL Republicans should ban together to undo this anti American legislation. It is contrary to the historic philosophy of the party. When Republican leadership starts running around acting like Demoncrats, its time to change the leadership.
"Just say no to Republicans."
As long as you vote only for them, I don't care a bit what you say to them.
The votes were counted correctly multiple times. The only way for Gore to win in Florida is to count ballots that did not have any Gore votes on them as having Gore votes.
The Gore camp attempted to steal the election by saying "Let's ignore the counts where we lost. Let's find a count where we win, and insist that this is the only count".
By the way, Bush is not "King George II" (as he is not king; just an elected president. The first George was rather insistent on this situation). If anything, he would be President George III (you must count both George's as predecessors)
I'm pretty damn conservative, you know, and I *know* that Jesus was a Jew.
BTW I am a Bible thumper in the extreme.
YFI
-uso.
Dreams, dreams, don't doubt dreams, dreaming children's dreaming dreams. Sailor Moon SS
"You're lying. You have no such 'friend'. What your spewing is all that horseshit about the Canadian health system"
The only horseshit being discussed here is the Canadian anti-healthcare system. Or health-abandonment system.
I'm looking forward to the day when Canada finally progresses enough to privatize and get out of an industry that government has no business controlling.
(The friend in question exists, and is in Vancouver. I can get more specific if you want)
""Our government has a checks and balances system," Pieruccini said. "While sometimes it moves slowly, these cases . . . are going to find their way up to the Supreme Court."
So this means that as long as the Bush Administration can pass civil liberty eroding laws faster than the Supreme Court can hear them our society will move towards being a suppressive, totalitarian type of government.
The Bush administration has done more to destroy our way of life than any group of terrorists ever could. And the funny think is, is that the Republican party put Mr. Bush in power, not through the election process alone but in large part through litigation.
It seems to me that our laws are more and more being held hostage as tools for special interest groups.
If we want to reverse this trend we have to ensure that in next few elections we place people of integrity and intelligence into office. Something that this Administration is apparently lacking.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
What else is there to download? If I want anything else I can go to the library.
"And the funny think is, is that the Republican party put Mr. Bush in power, not through the election process alone but in large part through litigation."
That is known as revisionism. Alternate history. The truth is that the voters put Bush in power through the exact Constitutional process that Clinton and the other predecessors had won under: win enough states to get enough electoral votes.
And, it was less the Republicans than you think: Bush managed to win the independents, that was what made him win. Clinton had them for 2 elections.
"If we want to reverse this trend we have to ensure that in next few elections we place people of integrity and intelligence into office"
We did in 2000. We can do it again with Bush in 2004. I do not know about after that, however.
It looks like a joke to me, morons.
To get a better word, we might look at current policies which amount to "let them eat cake", and use the appropriate word.
chauvinism
If the government controled teacher, ministers, preists, etc. have never taught this word to you, look it up.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
"The kind of rhetoric coming out of Washington, asking for an unthinking fanatical devotion to the country, and maybe even to a single person, is very different from the democratic ideal of a intelligent, thoughtful populous."
If supporting Bush's for the most part excellent policies (as the result of careful thought) makes me a patriot, so be it. If siding with Michael Moore, who hates the country and its freedoms, makes one an anti-patriot, so be it.
a very accurate quote indeed.
Deserves to be modded up.
And unless the Republikan's have him assasinated, (which wouldn't surprise me), he'll kick George Bush's ass. Oh wait, I forgot that Repbulikan's like to rig elections too.
"Clinton not telling the truth in a civil case totally unrelated to carrying out the duties of the office of President pales in comparison to Nixon's crimes"
...list of Nixon crimes...
Totally unrelated? He ordered employees in his office to lie in court for him. He had his employees lie to the public about the case, all on the public dime. It was quite related.
"Bushie"
You are just a partisan hack, not looking at anything objectively: you can't even get his name right. Do you see us saying Slick Willie? No.
We know he did that. And we know Clinton did many similar things (except for the burglary.... wait! there was Hillary's B&E theft of Foster evidence) to each thing mentioned in your list.
"Clinton's mistakes in his private life are his own"
Who is discussing these? Certainly not us.
"That they ever became grounds for impeachment is totally ludicrous"
Nothing ludicrouse: the president used his office to commit crimes. The only ludicrous thing is that Democrats (and a couple of Republicans) decided crime in the white house was OK.
Nixon was bad. Clinton was bad. Only a blind partisan would deny either. Description sure fits you.
No government has /any/ rights whatsoever.
/limited/ powers granted to the government for the promotion of the good of the nation. Granted /by the people/.
The only thing that Government has is a mandate from the people--certain,
Say it again--the Government Has No Rights. No Government, Anywhere.
DJ
"Anti-Patriot" has taken on a new meaning lately. It used to be an English phrase, and it meant antipathy or disobedience toward one's country. Now, "anti-patriot" and "anti-patriotic" are Newspeak phrases. They merely imply that. According to current usage, they refer to disagreement with or opposition to the Bush Administration and its political allies.
There have been a lot of scary people asserting themselves as being the only "patriots", so no, "anti-patriot" no longer scares me. Once you realize how people have been playing games with the language you were taught in grade school, you realize how much the things you learned about patriotism when you were growing up no longer apply.
"Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism." How stupid are we to swallow this shit? I'm sure they could have made an acronym to spell "QUISLING" or "TRAITOR" if they wanted, but smart traitors know to drape the flag around themselves and everything they do. When they introduce the anti-subversion bill, it's going to have an acronym like "MOM" or "APPLEPIE".
Just say no to politicians. It's tile to start electing real people.
This post is paid for by the friends of FooGoo.
Please vote for FooGoo as the next governor of California.
People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them
I found a site on indymedia that had an interview with him, and his history. He was a member of the Soviet ruling apparatus party (CP) until the mid 1950s.
Being a dissident is one thing. Throwing your lot in with Stalin is another.
As a testiment to the poor quality of the education system in California the previous post should read "it's time to start electing real people".
I'LL BE BAHK!
People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them
Has anyone else wondered where all these terrorists are that we are fearing? I mean, all this has been a reaction to a single event. Granted 911 was horrible, but nothing has happened since. The United States has changed our laws, and our way of life, over what may have been a one time event.
"When the Government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the Government there is tyranny" - Thomas Jefferson
I found that here
"Down here in good old redneck Alabama, when my doctor decided I needed an MRI on my hip, I got it the very next day. If I were Canadian, I'd still be waiting (read: suffering). "
Forget the testing, what of the treatment? In Canada you can wait many months for hip surgery that in the US can happen in days. That is, if they even allow it: they have rules set up to deny such care to the "wrong" sorts of people.
Dude, there's a reason children don't have the right to vote. I also think 18 is a a little older than they should be allowed (I'd be more in favor of 16) but it's still way ahead of much of the "civilized" world. Some places you can't even have sex until you're 21, fer chrissake - or at all, unless you're married in a muslim ceremony.
Could things be better? Sure... but they could be much worse, too. Children in the US are eligible for free medical care and food under WIC; the government helps parents who cannot care for their children. But do you really want "the government" treating children "better?" We are already to the point children are routinely yanked from their homes with very little (zero) evidence of abuse. Beyond providing free food, medicine and even housing, what else would you have "the government" do? Perhaps all newborns should just become wards of the state so we don't have those nasty parents fucking up their lives? Federal orphanages for "bringing up baby" right? I'm sure the corporations making Billions building and managing prisons would just love that business expansion opportunity...
And what is to stop the next gov. from attaining the sad state of affairs we currently have? And the next one? Yeah, "the price of freedom is eternal vigilance". That sounds like eternal slavery to me. Given that the Constitution was written in a very different frame of reference then we are currently in, it might be a good idea to start re-evaluating the Constitution, and chart a new direction entirely. Given that armed militias don't really have the resources to combat a limited nuclear exchange (humor) or implement the best technologies, or the abuses shown by corporations; a strong federal government is going to be an evil necessity. Don't want them Canadians getting ideas. But the terms of that arrangement should be renegotiated. I still like trying public servants who abuse their position for treason. Flat tax, strong State's rights, and perhaps even the right to cede from the Union should the entanglements become too much to bear (if you join an organization, you should have the right to unjoin, as it were, or the Gov. is nothing better than an armed gang. Even the Mafia has better terms). I digress. Anyway, the point is (without sounding to Pollyanna) we already have most of the ideas and knowledge to make the US a better place than it currently is. We lack political will. It becomes a question of do you want to sacrifice now for something better, or continue the sacrifices you're currently making for...
Bwaaahahahahah! Thank you, your comment *totally* made my day! (Yes, I am saddened to report that I *agree* with you. Now if only we could get flat taxes...)
C|N>K
"(see, the death penalty is considered barbaric in most of the civilized world)"
....as shown there, your ignorance of history. The US tends to overthrow dictators.
Yet, France has no problems executing Greenpeace activists.
"... fascist wannabe (who have done more to take away your rights"
Bush is much less fascist than Clinton. Racial aspects is one part of it: Clinton had a divide and conquer policy, while Bush asks for fair treatment for all regardless of race.
"(who, incidentally, would be much more likely to be friendly to Americans"
They would be more friendly to Americans if they didn't get all their information from government-controlled media. The hatred is mostly a result of ignorance (although some of the hatred of the US is a result of mean-spiritedness. For example, hatred of Jews is rampant in the Middle East, and many hate the US for standing up for the rights of people who happen to be Jewish)
"if US governments didn't keep on installing and overthrowing murderous dictators on a regular basis, depending on who they prefer today)"
" in the White house than trying to police the rest of the world "
Sure beats letting the bad guys run loose.
Keep in mind the worrying number of Americans who do believe that WMDs HAVE been found, even if it isn't the case. And the even scarier amount of people who even believe that Iraq USED WMDs in the war....
If that many believe WMDs have been found, how many can be tricked into accepting fantasies about how the war "forced" Hussein into destroying them quickly and other bullshit to counteract any distrust? The same survey referred to in the link above also point out how high the support still was for the war at that point.
It might be possible to prevent the Patriot act from being extended, but not if one relies on the distrust of the public - it will take MASSIVE work to get people to understand what's at stake.
I still can't see what's so bad about the Patriot act. It's there to protect us. Perhaps the opposition to it is a Liberal/Democrat sort of thing.
No data, no cry
No kidding. Thank god for the Democrats, I was really impressed with the way they all stood up to Bush and voted against the Patriot Act.
Oh. Wait. Nevermind.
I agree with you on all of these things except for one:
"The Army was sent into New York City during the 1863 draft riots to put them down"
I find nothing wrong with this action of is. Something had to be done to stop this race riot.
"Carter and Bush were willing to do what was good for the country rather than what was good for them, at the costs of their future election."
Bush I blew it too: he broke his "no new taxes" policy and clobbered the economy, causing a recession.
That may be just as unhealthy as the number of American politicians who got voted out of office with lead slugs.
Tech Public Policy stuff
Well, sounds almost like in Hong Kong. The "Chinese" government would like to put in laws that allow anyone/anybody/any company that is deemed to be "subversive" or "threat to national security" in jail first, ask questions later.
Next you know, over half a MILLION people are demonstrating in the streets against it (official government figures put it at 500,000 people, but more realistic figures at 600-700,000 people at least).
With a population of only 6.5 million people to start with, you're looking at a _HUGE_ number of people demonstrating.
And if this law is put in place, people will RIOT in the streets against it.
Now tell me... if CHINESE people are willing to stand up for their rights and freedoms (and risk so much in doing so), how come USA people cannot do the same now?
**FREE** Track and view your phone's via CellID and/or WIFI and/or GPS
"3 states and 130 cities have passed legislation forbidding local local authorities from cooperating with federal PATRIOT requests"
Cite one reputable news organization reporting that information. To my knowledge, only *1* city (Arcata, California) has passed an anti-Patriot Act law. The numbers you cite are cities and states expressing their displeasure with the Patriot Act. Those cities have said, "We don't like the Patriot Act." Arcata has said, "It is illegal for you to comply with the Patriot Act." BIG DIFFERENCE.
Arcata City Council passes "Anti-Patriot Act" ordinance
Repressive anti-freedom legilation has its roots in liberal philosophy. America is strong because the people are empowered, not the federal government. A government only becomes strong at the expense of the people. This has always and will always be true. A strong Federal government results in a week America.
As a Libertarian leaning Republican, I strongly appose the PATRIOT Act. One only need to study the history of the events leading up to WWII and the subsequent invasion of France, to understand the problem with it.
Civil liberties in the US are under fire now than perhaps any point since the McCarthy era. The Patriot Act serves as a frightening visage of what power-hungry legislators may serve up to placate scared populations. What frightens me more, and what I have not seen mentioned here yet, is the precedent such an act sets. This precedent is carried into this new Domestic Security Enhancement Act which would allow for government-controlled wiretapping, secret arrests, and DNA bank construction on ordinary US citizens without our permission!
The balance between security and freedom is a tenuous one, with increased freedom permitting greater criminal activity and increased security quashing intellectual exploration and constructive criticism. Any criticism of our government is branded un-patriotic in many places (and even unofficially in the press) and may cause arguments or fights. Would the Patriot Act II, or DSEA, allow for political opposition to become targets of investigation by the ruling party? Our intellectual freedom is one of our strengths but what will happen to American society if we start to strangle it?
There are even those who get incensed about questioning the leadership of respective parties, whether G W Bush or H R Clinton is concerned. The actions of our government of late have divided this nation moreso than any I can ever remember. We have factionalized over new attempts of the current leadership in the federal government to expand their powers to those normally resevred for wartime status. However, without a Congressional declaration of war, can these be justified? Would US citizens be forced to turn to military courts under the new DSEA legislation where appeals may not exist and due process is a formality at best?
The first Patriot Act nearly bankrupted several states and forced reductions in education, law enforcement, education, and other areas. Another one may well bankrupt these states and damage the financial strength behind many others. Kentucky released 600 prisoners, while other states have taken more drastic measures. Thus, financially, socially, legally, and intellectually, we can ill afford this new legislation.
If the federal government is going to continue to impose on the rights of the people and states behind them, it sets up some of the same fears and mentality that lead to the Civil War. Any government that instills fear in its own people while being unable to properly manage its resources inevitably collapses, like the USSR. We appear to be on track to a similar fate if we enact these bills so blindly. Even the original Patriot Act divides local governments to the points that the police chiefs are willing to buck the local government to answer to the federal one. There must be better ways to protect the people of the US from the (rare) terrorist event without subjecting us to such loss of liberty and rights.
As long as there is a Second Amendment, there will always be a First Amendment.
What a Vague article. Obviously written by a liberal. It did not cite specific actions of the Patriot act as worded in the ratified bill. I know the democrats are, in general, not patriotic however; I know there are certian mandates in this bill that do violate our privacy as well as interferes with businesses, especially the ISPs. This law should be amended, but not by democrats or replublicans, because both are trying to create to powerful of a governmnent against the people and not for the people. California ,with its virtually impeached governer, wants ILLEGAL aliens to have a legal drivers license. WHAT THE HELL. I'm done with both of them. I'm going Libertarian although the Replubicans are the lesser of the 2 evils.
"If that many believe WMDs have been found, how many can be tricked into accepting fantasies about how the war "forced" Hussein into destroying them quickly and other bullshit to counteract any distrust? "
And what do you know ?
Really, what do you know motherfucker ? Do you have acess to US or other nations intelligence information about Iraq ?
Just because you read a self-proclaimed " Progressive Community" site you think you know better than others ?
Or are you just another stupid US-hating motherfucker pissing off his opinion all over the internet ?
"it will take MASSIVE work to get people to understand what's at stake. "
And how the fuck are you so sure you are the one that knows what's at stake ?
Again, you read it on indimedia.org ?
Another fucking prophet who thinks his fucking missions is to enlighten the masses...
that make Washington a bad person?
he was a man of his times just like any person is of theirs. heck, Washington was out of office before England freed thier black slaves.
it is improper to judge people in history with the laws and norms of your time. ask any historian.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
The "Patriot" act is the primary reason I won't be voting for Bush next time around.
If you need to understand why, then I suggest you don't have a clue as to why this country was founded.
Its the most anti-American law that's been passed in my lifetime (50 years).
I am reminded of a bad made for TV movie (I think it was "Amerika"). Anyway, the movie itself was pretty blasé, but it did have one really chilling scene in it. The movie itself was about a shadow gov. replacing the elected one (err, something like that. It was a long time ago; the details are probably not precise). Anyway, one guy finds out and is talking with one of the members from the shadow gov. They pass some people protesting in the street, and the lead says something like "See, the people will not stand for this." The member from the shadow gov. says something to the effect of the protest was actually staged by the shadow gov. It makes the people feel like they are doing something important, when all they are doing is destroying their neighborhood. They vent a little steam, feel better, and go back to work. Nothing real accomplished. The protest allows the shadow gov. to keep tabs on the disgruntled, and channel their energies to meaningless exercises. When ever I see a large mob, I think of this, and feel exasperated. Problem is that most of the "patriots" aren't terribly organized, and most have an innate distrust of that degree of intra-cooperation (does not bode well for integrity). That keeps them splintered and ultimately powerless (in the normal idea of that word). We are suspicious of each other, we keep our doors locked, we are splintered and isolated. Diffuseness is its' own type of power, but it will take a better man to figure out how to implement it well. For the time being, I think everyone calling in to work on the same day would be a better idea. Go fly a kite or play with the kids. See all the others who share your same basic ideas just being people. The loss of capitol would be very nerve wracking. Probably just as worthless, but much easier to obtain.
acting Police Chief Bill Pieruccini, who said he "The bottom line is at this point, I support the laws and the Constitution the way that the legislators we've elected have seen fit to pass," Pieruccini said. "That's one of my duties as a police chief . . .
Another one of your duties is to the community.
Forgot that one didn't we?
Do you think all Bible-thumpers are so closed-minded?
Most of them don't even know about the "Tomson" New Testament I provided a link to - and if they did, they'd vilify it out of habit since it isn't their "pet" translation (i.e., the KJV).
Most of them vilify people like me who blur the gender lines without actually being homosexual.
Most of them selectively read the Bible.
Most of them are probably rah-rahing Asscroft now.
I'm a Bible-thumper, I'm a conservative, but I'm a libertarian, I'm open-minded, and I'm not a fscking WASP. I eat stereotypes for lunch. I've probably gone through as much in my 23.5 years as many of you Slashbots have ever gone through, and my emotional state has the scars to show it. I'm not your typical right-wing fundie radical.
That said, we should take the Pat Act and use it against Our Greatest Terrorists (Asscroft and Dubya) and see how they like it.
-uso.
Dreams, dreams, don't doubt dreams, dreaming children's dreaming dreams. Sailor Moon SS
TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION--on the license plates of a not-so-insignificant portion of Washington DC-registered vehicles, including at one time (Clinton administration) the Presidential limousine.
DID YOU KNOW that if you live in DC you have no Congressional voting representation? A single non-voting delegate in the House, and NO Sentate representation at all. Yet you still pay Federal income tax.
Numerous? Name ten businesses which are taking pains to hamper the Act's coverage.
The hypocracy over positions on state's rights is not something unique to Ashcroft. Every major policial group does exactly the same thing. If your group has more power in local smaller governments than in the national government, then you pretend to favor States' rights because that's where your group has more power. If the opposite happens, you favor federal power. Look at the two largest parties of Republicrats and Democlicans, whichever one happens to be in the minority in Congress at the time is the one that happens to be touting states' rights at that time.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
It's pretty disappointing to me that Laura Bush, a librarian, has never (to my knowledge) said a word for or against the Patriot Act, even after the American Library Association has made their opposition very clear. I'd like to think if Hillary had ever been in similar circumstances, she'd be very vocal about her position, to any reporter that would listen.
Attn Republicans: They're not just trophy wives!
who knows what country will be the next one to have a bull's eye painted upon it.
There was a challenge to civil rights legislation by some restaurant owners who wanted to run whites-only restaurants, and held that the federal government did not have the authority to regulate restaurant entry policies (as such authority was not granted anywhere in the constitution). They lost, with the federal courts holding that the interstate commerce clause applied. Why? The restaurant bought some of its supplies from out-of-state suppliers.
Now in this case the end was a good one (overturning of segregation), but that's still some pretty specious reasoning.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
"The suggestion that Whitewater was never investigated is completely and totally ludicrous. It was investigated for most of the Clinton administration, despite a complete lack of evidence"
There was an overwhelming proponderance of evidence (proof, in fact). However, there were many necessary documents held by the Clintons that were needed to complete it. The Clintons violated a subpeona and never turned them over, so the investigation could not be properly completed.
"The investigation turned up one "offense": that Clinton lied in court in response to a question he shouldn't have been asked, on an entirely unrelated issue."
Are you referring to the Paula Jones sexual harassment case? One where Clinton eventually admitted his wrongdoing? The Lewinsky question you are referring to was quite relevant and should have been asked; it had to do with Clinton's use of subordinate employees.
"on an entirely unrelated issue"
Yes, it was not related to Whitewater, but it was still another Clinton crime. There were many, not related except for the perp's name.
"Vince Foster was never taken seriously by anyone, except possibly Ann Coulter"
Vince Foster was a friend of Hillary. I don't think he and Coulter ever met (let alone that Coulter took him seriously or any other way).
"Yes, clearly the Dutch government is trying to promote drug abuse. That would be a fair depiction"
Yes, it is, Glad you agree.
" Ari Fleischer propaganda "
If by "propaganda" you mean presenting facts that make you uncomfortable, then call it that.
"Now, are you talking about the US system or the Canadian system here"
This is the Canadian health care system, which is set up to severely limit coverage for those called "special needs" people.
"You're damned right the US system is set up to deny basic healthcare to the "wrong" sorts of people (anyone Ayn Rand would call a "loser", FWIW)"
No, the US healthcare system includes giveaways to the poor: medicare/medicaid. Nothing Randian about it.
The difference here is that Ashcroft equivocates on states rights depending on the specific right, not whether or not he or his party is in power.
"So why is America supporting the Israels occupation of Palestine ?"
First, there is no "Palestine". There might be one in a few years. Second, this occupation is entirely justified, and demanded by the terrorist actions. Israel was forced to occupy this land after being attacked from it. Every time they try to pull out, they are attacked from it and are forced to re-occupy. It is a valid self-defensive situation: occupy a territory that attacks you, and don't leave until it is no longer an aggressive threat.
Look at Egypt: Israel pulled out of the occupied Egyptian land once Egypt decided it was not going to exterminate the Israelis.
"Why do you believe that your country wants nothing more than to help the world??"
Because I am aware of the historic facts, especially of the US situation since World War 2 (no, the US quelling of the Filipino uprising was not a good thing at all).
"While I agree that taxes are wicked (and I am very opposed to them), they are needed at this time to pay for the huge debt of the 80's. "
No, we need tax cuts and spending cuts to pay for the 1980s debt (and the huge increase that Clinton added to it).
"And yes, these are payouts to friends.
"
No, with the tax cuts (which are mostly to the non-rich), nothing is being paid out at all. In fact, a lot is being taken.
You don't call a mugger who cleans out your wallet a gift-giver!
As a supporter of the ACLU club which pushed the City of Claremont, CA to pass a bill that prevents the use of the Patriot Act clauses within the bounds of claremont (though not speaking in my capacity as a member of that group), my research found that local government is given the power to restrict the use of law enforcement as it sees fit.
National government cannot force local governments to act in accordance with any new policy like this, what national governement has done is to declare certain, formerly off-limits investigative measures to now be appropriate in certain cases.
By recreating the laws that the Patriot act is designed to circumvent at a local level, these efforts do put a true legal block on the searches. Though federal authorities may ignore the local statute, any objective court should be able to decide that the federal action is out of bounds and dismiss the case.
**When craziness is bliss, 'tis folly to be sane**
"As a supporter of the ACLU club "
How can you support the ACLU, when it is so racist? Especially in California? The ACLU, during the CCRI fight, strongly supported the California government (in universities) punishing individuals for being the wrong "race" in order to foster a goal of group diversity.
I thought the ACLU was supposed to protect civil rights. Why are they supporting the government denying rights depending on skin color?
"That is not a sustainable system in the long run."
That is the case for any socialized system: it ends up being an unsustainable Ponzi scheme that spirals out of control. In the situation you mention, the US drug companies are propping up the Canadian system.
Those who ignorantly think that the US system in which much more health care decisions are made by the people (instead of the government) is inferior, look at the mention of "US drug companies" in the previous paragraph. Yes, it is US drug companies which invent and sell these drugs. Not Canadian.
"I think there is little doubt that the relatively large rate of unplanned teenage pregnancies in the USA is an immediate consequence of the religous inspired "abstination" type laws"
The "abstinance" laws only decrease teen pregnancy: they do nothing to increase it at all. After all, absintance is 100% effective (unless of course there is rape to violate the choice of abstinence). It is a lack of abstinence that is much more of a problem.
... then you know that this is not going to get any traction here. Sure, there are the few folk who fought for ten years to keep that chicken murdering Colonel from moving into town, but the overall political climate here is not amiable to this.
I hereby move that we rename the legislation "The Fluffy Bunnies and Kittens Act". Who could be against that?
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Sounds like good ol' fashioned McCarthyism arresting people who we suspect to be Terrorists.
It also is reminiscent of the witch hunts. It also sounds similar to the start of Nazi Germany with the secret police.
Meanwhile, numerous interest groups are taking aim at the Domestic Security Enhancement Act, which would strengthen the Patriot Act by allowing the government to make secret arrests, place unrestricted wiretaps and create DNA databases on ordinary Americans.
We need to protect our privacy or we will no longer be a free nation we will be no better than old Communist Russia where you can't make a move without the government knowing.
Remember the export controls on 128-bit encryption? You had to answer questions before downloading... as if a real terrorist couldn't just come here, get 1000 hours of free AOL and download it. I assume IPs from restricted nations were blocked... but I wouldn't be surprised if they weren't. Nevermind that it only takes ONE successful download of encryption to render such a system moot.
My recollection is that none of them read it. The Act wasn't distributed prior to the vote. That is passed with one (?) dissention says worlds about those who voted yes, none of it complimentary. They've gone on to do nothing about it for two years, only now, when the public is starting to realize just how little threat there really was and how much damage the Act has done to civil liberties, do these same "representatives" find the time to look through what they passed?
They voted based on polls, they're 'reconsidering' based on polls. Hindsight and principle are not factors.
How many cities passed legislation against the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act that Bill Clinton signed into law after the Oklahoma City bombing? Being the precursor to PATRIOT you'd think that some of these civil libertarians would have noticed it.
Good point. Does the act require anywhere that you have to give up the requested information in a format that can be _easily_ read?
This might be a good idea for those librarians whose associations haven't drafted shredding rules.
"Sorry, sir... but we've found it was easiest to keep our records in Yiddish that has been phonetically translated into Germanic runes. No, I'm afraid we don't have any programs to reverse the process."
~ Leilah
I don't think it's offtopic as it's related to exactly this page, not any other.
Less is more !
Take a look at "this".
We need to protect our privacy or we will no longer be a free nation we will be no better than old Communist Russia where you can't make a move without the government knowing.
You are absolutely right. Our forefathers had the wisdom and foresight to construct an unbelievable document that would span time. They wrote this document and the Bill of Rights (also referred to as the Rights of Man) after the War of Independence to keep future generations from suffering abuse and misconduct by the government. This "Living Document" has survived more than 200 years without revision, and I don't believe we should start now.
My bud shadowbearer was just being helpful! I guess I'd better consult Bartlett's next time, to keep from bringing other people to grief.
Always look on the briight side of life! (whistle, whistle)
Although they are good in theory, The orginaziation
has been captured by the extreme left wing which is why i am no longer a supporter. In other words they (the ACLU is over the edge.)
You will notice that what they support is a push for collectivism and a overall loss of indivudal rights.
Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice doggie" until you can find a rock. Will Rogers
The Greens?
The Peace & freedom party?
The Liberitarians?
Guess I'll just have another 6pack
Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice doggie" until you can find a rock. Will Rogers
That you have a public school education.
Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice doggie" until you can find a rock. Will Rogers
'My country, right or wrong' is a thing no patriot would ever think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying 'My mother, drunk or sober.'
Read this article by Robert Bork. Summary: you have probably been seriously mislead about the PATRIOT Act.
I watch Brit Hume on Fox News
You might want to brush up on your Constitutional reading there, buddy. There are four paths for an amendment to be ratified -- granted, only two of them have been used, but all four are possible:
1) Passed by 2/3 of Congress -> Ratified by 3/4 of states' legislatures
2) Introduced by 2/3 of states -> Ratified by 3/4 of states' legislatures
3) Passed by 2/3 of Congress -> Constutional Convention, 3/4 of states' delegations
4) Introduced by 2/3 of states -> Constitutional Convention, 3/4 of states' delegations.
So, there are two methods of dissolving the federal government where the federal government isn't even involved. Plus, remember -- Congress is voted from the people, so if it got to the point where the feds were so bad that the public would support government dissolution, the public could (and would) vote in people who felt the same way.
The patriot act is an encroahment on are rights as a Free people. What's next you tick off the wrong goverment official and then they can say your a terrorist and arrest you without a warrent. We now have almost no privacy because of this. What's next obtain files and supposedly any "incrimanating" evidence without a warrent? Come on this is outrageous.
When the laws get you down, find ways to work with them.
Of note: Five technically legal signs for your library.
Kevin Fox
In reading thru all these comments, It's plain to see that most if not the majority of those posting have actually read the patriot act.
Not only that - it expires soon enough.
_ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
There is no Statue of Metaldetector framing the Statue of Liberty.
Gordon Smith? You mean Patrick Henry, don't you?
Living in Denver, Colorado, I find myself constantly surrounded by right-wing bandwagon-hopping jingoist Bush supporters that all but carry the fasces around on their tomahawks. It makes one liberal minded independent feel like a bit of an island, and it sure is good to see all of the overwhelming logic and liberal (if not necessarily independent or individual) thought going on here.
I know I've come to expect the anti-anti-Privacy stuff from the \. crowd, but it's still nice to see that I'm not the only person in town who sends off a couple letters a week to my state legislators etc. letting them know what pissants I think they are.
------
"Will the highways on the Internet become more few?" --George W. Bush, in Jan. 2000
I assumed they just wanted to sit on the money for a while (banks love to do that) but maybe they didn't like the fact that the money was coming from France. ;)
Revise that to "Just SAY no to Politicians" and I would agree with you.
Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice doggie" until you can find a rock. Will Rogers
that make Washington a bad person?
The poster said nothing about Washington being a bad person; he just contributed some thoughts on what Washington would think of Bush (which was a subject that had been raised).
it is improper to judge people in history with the laws and norms of your time. ask any historian.
Ridiculous. Either go with objectivist morality "right is right and wrong is wrong" or go with relativist morality "there is no objective morality, everyone has their own". In neither instance is a historian any sort of authority.
so you can break the fucking law? Borders should be protected, and all 180 or so countries have them. Language. Culture. Our culture is a society of law and order, proper justice for the most part. It is probably one out of 2 or 3 outher countries that have the LEAST WORST governments on earth. Nothing is perfect. I am a descendant of immgrants, and they got here legally, and worked thier asses off The illegals stress the hospitals, taxpeyer pays, 1 out of every 5 people in federal prisons on border states is an illegal alien, taxpayer money. Illegal aliens dont get any of the social secutiy they pay, or disability, workcomp or such, because the BROKE THE FUCKING LAW as the first act of being in the USA.
.
Why dont you go to Saudi Arabia and fuck a man in the ass in public. Would you whine if they CHOPPED OFF YOUR FUCKING HEAD because thats what they to to homosexuals there? Its thier law, thier culture. Our laws do not permit random fucking disased thieving society underminding people to randomly fucking infiltrate us and fuck our system up and ruin it for everyone else. In fact, the USA is notoriously easy for illegals to get into and live
So cut your leftist propaganda. Your america hating self deprecating bullshit manner is really a revelation, a testament to the fact you are no successful in the land where hard work is rewarded. You are a lazy intellectual elitist who is unproven and unsuccessful. And you espouse utter bullshit and reading your falming festering quagmire of verbal diarhea is painful because its eructating from the mouth of a complete, total fucking cynical negative fucking moron.
and just to know, not that its right to do so, but everyone ive seen who has an illegal nannie or gardner treats them quite nicely, and these guys can make a years woth of money and head to mexico after 3-4 months. you know what, the gardning is toilet cleaning is"beneath" you because little elitist brats with computers would never get off thier fucking useless asses and work labor jobs.
Why would a first lady come out against the president's policy?
And since she's supposed to be apolitical, why would she make any pronouncements against policy?
First ladies that are political are notoriously ineffective and generally disliked.
There is enough energy here and across the nation to take action on a very real, very influential level. I propose, that on the 2nd anniversary of the signing away of American Rights, we innundate our Congressmen, Governors, and President with letters of abject disgust and oaths to disobey this intolerable act whenever possible.
Boston had to axe a load of tea. Rosa Parks only sat down. All I ask is a couple of letters sent.
"we have to ensure that in next few elections we place people of integrity and intelligence into office"
Like the Clinton administration?
Its mostly funny that people admire these clowns.
Hey, Bush isn't the brightest guy, but what he's doing, he's doing because he believes in it, not because he's promoting himself.
That doesn't mean I won't vote against him, but I certainly wouldn't vote for Gore. If Gore was the only guy running, I'd rather the office be vacant.
"The amazing thing is that Clinton was more investigated than any other president."
That is because of all the crimes he committed: he was only investigated when he committed crimes. That makes this a sympton of the amazing thing of him being the most criminal president.
"Yet, all the came away with was his perjury about something that they were not suppose to be investigating. Constrast that to Reagan or Nixon"
They were supposed to be investigating Clinton rigging a grand jury: because THAT IS A CRIME!
If you are only looking at convictions (as opposed to actual crimes committed, well Nixon (you mentioned him) did nothing at all.
omicoo--
"You are right the Supreme Court did not put Bush in office. His bro Jeb (gotta love the name) put him in office."
Yes, he did campaign for his brother, and he was effective, so maybe he did put George in office by campaigning.
"Jeb promised to deliver Florida and he did by appointing a crony as election commisioner and turns blacks and other traditionally democratic groups away from the polls."
He did neither. The "blacks away from polls" is totally made up. The Gore camp did not believe this happened, nor did the NAACP. Both groups have every reason to go to town on this if it were true.
All Jeb did to deliver Florida for his brother was campaign for him.
Just because Nixon was a bad guy doens't make Clinton not a bad guy. Both subverted the law and got away with it!
Perjury, lieing under oath is a crime, and should be. If he didn't want to say anything, then he should have either pleaded the fifth (I'm not sure if he could, does that apply in a civil case?), had his lawyer object, or told the truth, and then appealed the decision as made partially on a question that he should not have had to answer. Lieing is NOT forgivable. Doesn't matter if it is your political party of the other party, you should not allow your leader to get away with it or any other crime.
I'll grant that who the president sleeps with is a private matter, so long as it is discreetly done between consenting adults. However someone claimed sexual harrasement, and once that happens other things are often brought to light that otherwise we wouldn't care about.
Still, IMHO Clinton was a bad president Claiming credit for ecconomic cycles that he can't control. (and so on), but that he would have been a bad president even if he hadn't lied under oath. By lieing under oath though he was IMO no longer fit to serve. Nixon at least resigned - eventially.
"I'm hopeful that at least one of the progressive anti-war canidates wins the primary so the American public can have a real choice this time around"
The guys you are thinking of are actually very regressive (i.e. Howard Dean and his "more power for the powerful" platform), and they are pro-war (as they supported Saddam's war against Iraq, Israel and other countries; and have opposed Bush's successful efforts to end Saddam's war).
"By lieing under oath though he was IMO no longer fit to serve. Nixon at least resigned - eventially."
Nixon clearly felt and showed shame for what he did, and he did the honorable thing and resigned.
Clinton, in contrast, has no shame. To this day, he blames everyone but himself for crimes only he committed.
"However someone claimed sexual harrasement"
Clinton eventually admitted sexually harassing Paula Jones. This means he lied also about this when he denied it previously, causing a lot of waste of public dollars to try and get around his lying.
The main case that the Left makes about Paula Jones is that she either deserved it, or is lying, because she lived in a trailer park and had a big nose (the two major criticisms of her which come from the Clintonazis).
"And before some "patriotic" Americans start up about some ridiculous theory on the US paying for our defense, see the above paragraph and re-read it carefully"
The US did pay for Canada's defense during the days when the Soviet Empire threatened Canada (and just about everyone else). Nothing in the above paragraph mentioned contradicted this.
"When and where did Clinton admit to sexual harrasement of Jones?"
He admitted it by settling out of court.
"From what I have seen, I think that Jones was simply a money grubber which was shown through her later actions."
So she is trailer-trash, and deserved the sexual harassment. This argument is so common.
"Only one other person has claimed that he harress her (willey) and that was fairly well disproved"
That was well proven; it just never went to court. Don't forget his rape victim (Clinton admitted that rape incident with his hilariously worded denial)
"While I personally, agree with you that Clinton was wrong, he should not have been testifiying on this area. period. But once perjuring"
He should have been testifying. This was quite relevant to a case involving sexual harassment of an employee. If anything, he should not have committed any of the crimes in the first place, then he could have reasonably avoided testifying.
"but have always admired Carter and Bush as presidents who worried about the needs of the country first. Both made desicions that helped the country, but cost them elections."
Bush I's decisions to raise taxes harmed the country (beside being unnecessary and bad policy). This was what cost him the election. The "no new taxes" promise was a great idea: too bad he did not keep it.
"Regressive would be the term to desrcibe Republicans who want to repeal the entire New Deal and bring the country back to the late 19th century, a time of greed and inequality."
No, they want to move the country forward by reducing the greed (look at the Bush tax cut, in which government is less greedy). Repealing the New Deal is in fact a good idea: it has given the rulers way to much power and control: as such the New Deal is in itself a regressive idea, and devolving this power from the state to the people is truly progressive.
Inequaliy? These men favor socialist systems, in which inequality is magnified (the ruling class has everything and the people get the crumbs).
"Please explain to me how Bush has tried to end the war."
He invaded Iraq and overthrow the cause of the war.
"The same goes for calling people like Dean and Kucinich pro-war "
If they had their way, Saddam would still be in power funding his war of terror against Israel, and also executing at least a thousand Iraqis a month (while also preparing more aggression against Kuwait and other countries). Thanks to Bush, this war is over.
The most these two you named can be called is forgettable losers. They hate the country and its people, and Americans in return think little of them. Kucinich is even endorsed by Noam Chomsky, a noted Stalinist pseudo-intellectual and anti-semite of the lunatic fringe.
Thankfully, these extremists will never sway more than the rabid 5 to 10 percent extremists.
SIG CORRECTION: Think IBM, donating their workers to you for free in order to stick their foot up Bill's tush...
"Hint- before you make dumb claims like "Laura Bush has no professional qualifications", spend 2 seconds on google."
As long as we are entertaining the thought of Hillary in 2008, why not Laura instead?
At least Laura has not committed any crimes. What are Hillary's qualifications? She has a senate seat due to her campaign being funded by the executive branch of government (while her opponent did not have the luxury of selling the Lincoln Bedroom). She tried to destroy health care, and failed. She is very good at shredding evidence in criminal cases.
Do not know if Laura would look as pretty in pink, however.
"Eventually, it would mean that the government decides exactly who is able to vote."
This fits in with government controlling political campaigns, which we are moving to now, thanks to two factors:
1) McCain-Feingold, in which citizens have no rights to say anything about politicians or candidates
2) The push (thanks to Common Cause and others) for government control (via funding) of political campaigns.
The only grey area is smoking in public. You have a human right to fuck your health over as much as you want, just don't fuck with my air. (Don't piss in my swimming pool or install Windows on my server either.)
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
because we all know how well prohibition worked.
Out of curiosity, why was an ammendment necessary for prohibition of alcohol but not for that of stronger narcotics?
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
You can get more information about this kind of legal activity at http://www.civildisobedience.us
Fight for your rights - no one else will.
It's all about the Wizards First Rule.
o ok &item=0812548051
If you've read the book, you know what I'm talking about.
http://my.linkbaton.com/get?lbCC=q&nC=q&genre=b
The toughness of the laws is compensated
by the unnecessity to abide by them.
Considered harmful.
I believe this since I know a basic fact you are not aware of when you believe the left-wing media lying about "Tax cuts for the rich": the fact is that the rich are only a minority of those who have the government loot less from them under the Bush tax plan.
"To suggest they are doing for the good of the country, at a time of war no less, is laughable." It is not laughable: it is true: the administration has put forth an excellent domestic agenda.
"I'd be surprised if you even had the slightest grasp on history if you are willing to call the new deal regressive." It is regressive since it got the rulers much more involved in the lives of the people. It should have been temporary. Instead, it became a permanent power grab.
"And the cause of war was? WMD?"
The cause of the war in that area was Saddam Hussein. This war had been going on for decades. (By the way, about the WMD: France and Germany believed, and rightly so, that they existed)
"Meanwhile the US continues to ignore Africa because it holds nothing of value to then."
Ignore? You call spending billions in foreign aid "ignoring"?????
"Show me the proof (of Saddam's aggression)
He proudly admitted funding anti-israeli terrorists. He still claimed Kuwait as his own imperial territory.
"I don't see how Saddam could prepare to do anything with such a crippled mess of a country."He invaded Kuwait with his crippled mess of a country years ago. With his recent mess of a country, he was killing tens of thousands of Iraqis a year.
"BTW genius, 7,000 innocent civilians were killed in the war." Because Saddam used them as human shields. Another reason he had to go.
"How long has it been? Four months? I guess they were doing better under Saddam then."It figures you are pro-Saddam. Things were so much better.
"People like you love to call everyone a radical, a communist, or anti-american." I only reserve such terms for people when it is accurate to use them. I did not use the term Radical, however. I only used Communist for members of the Communist Party. I only use anti-american for inviduals who want to make the country significantly worse. I use the term Stalinist for those like Chomsky who write at great length in support of Stalinist regimes (Chomsky actually supported Pol Pot's "killing fields").
"Why don't you actually print something useful rather than slander everyone without any evidence to back it up?"I've given plenty of evidence.
"It's obvious you haven't read a damn thing by Noam Chomsky." I've read dozens of his writings. Typically, they have several lies per paragraph.
"It's also obvious you have blind faith in a government based soley on your party affiliation. It's quite sad."No, the government is right when it is right, wrong when it is wrong, regardless of party.
"There was never a valid reason to go to war." There were plenty of valid reasons to retaliate against Saddam's aggression, including his unprovoked attacks against US peacekeepers in the "no fly" zones. These have ended.
"Ties between Iraq and Osama bin Laden were proven fabrications (even before the war)."
No, they are proven to exist.
"The tax cut to the rich was worth more to the pockets of the top %1 than the social security and medicare deficiencies combined."
Another lie on your part. The rich were in a minority who got a tax cut.
"Why not fix the problems we have before giving away the farm?"
Stealing less from people is not giving away anything.
"Bush, the man, is an ignorant and arrogant person."
We are all ignorant. Bush less than most, and when he doesn't know something, he takes the time to learn. He certainly is much more
" I just find it weird that the US is going backwards in civil rights while 3rd world nations are taking big steps forward"
It is weird that the Supreme Court recently made such a decision that public universities can deny admissions to people who have the wrong skin color. This is indeed a step backwards for civil rights
Anti-Israel != Anti-semite.
The unreasoned hatred of the Israeli people usually boils down to the difference that they are Jewish.
"I have Jewish friends but I think Israel should become Palestine."
Better fire up the ovens. Or at least launch the "Voyage of the Damned". This is necessary in order to exterminate a nation to create the new one in its place that you want.
"I've read most of Chomsky's stuff and I don't see anything hateful about his writings except for hate of illocial foreign policy."
His illogical foreign policy is based in hate.
"Maybe in his earlier writings there was something, but I've never seen any evidence that he's anti-semitic."
Read his writings concerning Israel.
"By the way, we meet on one point - Kucinich would be a bad president. He's not a good leader."
I really don't know what kind of leader he would be. I oppose him since he is very badly informed on issues, and proposes the wrong solutions to the wrong problems.
"However, speaking as a socialist, I'm here to tell you that we HATE Stalin. He ruined his nation and the entire leftist movement (although the Soviets never had anything resembling socialism)."
What of Lenin? Is he a saint too? He overthrew a democratic government, and killed millions. It was Lenin who ruined his nation: Stalin just kept continuing what Lenin did.
I keep meeting socialists who claim to hate Stalin, but love those who were/are just like him, such as Lenin and Castro and Allende and Arbenz.
Among the socialists who hate Stalin, many turn out to be holocaust-deniers: denying that Stalin killed tens of millions, and those he killed (such as those evil fascist Ukrainian farmers) deserved it.
Even if you truly hate Stalin and his buddies, socialism itself is a significant problem. It is very dangerous to take control of the means of production (and the rest of the economy) from the people and turn it over to the government.
"And if you want proof that he's [Chomsky] not a lunatic, just hear him state facts. No opinions, just facts. You'll then see where he's coming from."
I've read many of his writings. It is hard to find him stating facts.
"I find it hard to defend pretty much anyone involved in the whole USSR debacle except for perhaps Trotsky"
Trotsky was one of the worst. He was the military commander who led Lenin's armies out of Russia into neighboring countries, killing large numbers of people and annexing these independent countries to the new empire (against their will, but that is what empires do). He was instrumental in establishing the new USSR as an imperialist power.
" The "socialists" you're thinking of are more like the "anarchists" that want anarchy so they can skate and smoke pot."
No, the socialists I am thinking of are the same ones you are thinking of: those who advocate totalitarian control of the economy.
"The entire point of true socialism (the good kind) is that the government IS the people "
The government is never "the people", although many governments would love for you to think so. This fallacy is one of the many dangers of socialism.
"means of production are taken away from a few hundred and given to everyone."
No, they are taken from everyone and given to the few leaders (or, at best, some democratic construct). Basic decisions which should be left to each individual involved are instead made by the government. These "means of production" are best left to the inviduals involved to work out.
"Socialism isn't communism. Communism is completely stupid to me."
The difference is semantical. The USSR was made up of Socialist Republics. The ruling party was Communist.
It occured to me that there's nothing more American than driving up I-95 15 miles an hour over the speed limit with a trunkload of illegal firecrackers, MP3s blasting through the stereo.
No insult, rant, or trolling says it better than upsetting enough people to vote the egocentric fool out of office.
"Warning: MEMRI and ADL are dangerous propaganda machines."
What page of Mein Kampf did you get that SIG quote from originally? Eichmannquiring minds want to know.
I am out of Karma (anti-whore) so don't have any points left to post, and am doing this as anonymous only for that reason (not out fear).
You are all welcome up here in Canada when all your rights are taken away by the Bushites.
You say there is no way that Bush could send troops to the LA City Council and quote history in the 1830? A piece of history that maybe only rings so true in my head because I come from the survivors of such a law, and it all happened right here in the state I now live in, Georgia. Yes in the US of A. Back then Gold was found in the Cherokee Nation. My people did not want the raping of the land for the yellow metal and certainly did not want it mined for free. Besides it was our yard. (Shouldn't a person have the right not to let a a stranger dig holes in his yard?), but being stupid savages we didn't want to bend to the will of progress and let a chosen few get rich. So..... An attack was staged on some white families that lived near the border at where friendly with the Cherokees and supported their stand on the issue. They were all killed. Arrows and such where spread through the area to put the blame on the Cherokees. So the State of Georgia stood up and said look what these savages have done! We must wipe them out! The National Guard was called (Yes the same one here today!) and our land was invaded. Supposely to free us also from our savage ways to make us civilized, never if we where called the "Civilized Tribe" Then the Feds where called in and to make a longs story short the man's whose picture in on a twenty dollar bill. Rounded us all up that was left after killing off those that wouldn't leave without a fight, and march us through the winter to Oklahoma. 14,000 died along that trail. Many more that were not counted died before the removal. A lot of people... Women, kids, old people. Not just warriors. My own Grandfather was killed by the Georgia National Guard INSIDE is own home defending his family when they came in the middle of the night like cowards, and a man's home is suppose to be his castle. All for what... Money and Power for who? The USA! Money then had the color of the yellow metal. Now days money is black and comes in barrels. Think about this short version of this old story and see if it relates to the happenings of today. Can't happen here??? It already has many times. It just wasn't your family in the pickle barrel so you forget history. I was taught this story as a child. I am now fifty years old, fought in Vietnam for these right that they are taking away, and now a crimmal for even writing these words. (Yes desention is now a crime against the government of which was born from desenction). Yes a simple act of writing is now a crime if you write the wrong words. (Didn't we used to call that communism?) My point is history does repeat itself because we forget the lessons of the past. It can happen here! And it is LOOK AROUND! All I ask is for you to look at the past and be leery of your own government. They are there for their own good not yours. Like someone else commented. People that would run for an office is the ONE you don't want in office! Some people here have commented "Vote them out" in the last election here in Georgia I couldn't vote for the candidate I wanted there was no space for a "write in" (My vote was for Nader) so mine didn't;t even get to count. When you only have two crooks to vote for you are going to get screwed. Do you really think there are "two parties" or only "one" power at work here. Just something is think about.........
Meby we should call this \. since it kinda leans to the left.(of course then you would have to use DOS
Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice doggie" until you can find a rock. Will Rogers
You can trust you goverment ask any Indian
That word they call that law... Wasn't it the word they used for those long haired dope smoking guys that dressed up like sombody else and threw a bunch of tea in the drink?
Let me hijack a cigarette truck and see who goes to jail.
Well I can go to jail for writing this!!!
"Pretty much like the Empire of the U.S. of A.? Oh, but in in doublethink that's called "liberating"."
The US is not an empire, and has not been involved i the imperialism game since before WW 2.
"What you're basically saying here is that America is an Empire."
Read.
"LOL. This guy thinks they elected czars by voting in the Russian Empire."
Where did you get your knowledge of history from, Bazooka Joe Comics? The Tsars (or Czars) had already been deposed, and Russia had a democratic government. It was this government (Kerensky), not the Czars, that Lenin overthrew.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
No, perhaps I wasn't clear. (First of all, I'm a Missouri resident, and I'm pretty sure our system works quite like Ohio's does.)
My complaint is, when you're issued a traffic ticket, the "court date" is for traffic court - which generally ends up being a parade of "offenders" lined up to get 10 seconds of time with the judge. You have no opportunity to plead your case at this point. All the judge wants to hear is "guilty" or "innocent". (Of course, most people who didn't already value their time enough to simply pay a lawyer to convert the ticket into a non-moving violation and pay said fines just plead "guilty" at this point, and get it all over with.)
If you do claim your innocence at this stage of the "game", you're given another court date (typically scheduled right at the dinner hour, or immediately after you get home from work - so better not be late!). This time through, you still don't get much of a trial. Again, you wait your turn to talk to the judge, who pretty much just wants you to agree to some sort of "deal". (EG. How about you just pay us $100 and we'll knock the points off on this violation?) If you truly stand your ground and say "I'm NOT GUILTY so I WON"T PAY A DIME!" - the rest of the people laugh at you, and you're sent to the "prosecutor" to "work something out".
From here, it's anyone's guess how it will play out - but they REALLY don't want to have to schedule another trial date for you, so they'll try their hardest to just get you to pay them some cash to make it all go away. (If you're lucky and persistent enough, they might just throw the case out... but you never got to actually argue your innocence.)
That's why I say, you don't REALLY get a trial on traffic offenses anymore. They simply give out too many tickets for this stuff - and they want to run you through a system that amounts to tax collection.
"The "Liberal Media" myth has been propogated for years
It is a myth only to that small percentage on the far left that thinks everything to the right of them is "right wing". Measured from the center, it is true.
"Who cares that we have had our rights taken away from us?
Bush is more protective of our rights than Clinton (I know, this is not saying much). His FCC has held the line to protect the First Amendment against those who want government to make media policy to "keep Rupert Murdoch in line" or censor Clear Channel because they play bad pop. The 2nd Amendment is being protected better. There are many other examples (including equal rights regardless of race, and children's rights).
"Who cares what France and Germany think? I don't."
At last, sensible foreign policy!
"Kuwait should technically belong to Iraq. It was once one country but Kuwait became
the rich land for the Imperialists left there when they became free of Imperial rule."
Kuwait existed as an entity way before Iraq did, so you are not correct there. Both of them once belong to Iran, so perhaps Iran should take them over? As for the Imperialists, Kuwait has been free of imperialist control for decades (except when iraqi imperialists had them for a few months).
This should not matter, however. Only the will of the people there matters: Kuwait only is part of Iraq if the Kuwaitis think it should be (and they do not, and are less likely to after Mr. Hussein raped and pillaged the place like an enemy country rather than a wayward province).
"Chomsky did not support that at all. He just attempted to make the facts straight."
Since when has he ever been concerned with facts? Chomsky is a man whose worldview is colored entirely by an invalid ideology. When writing, he makes up stuff to fit this ideology, or he wings it in bizarre ways (including the time he supported Pol Pot during the killing field days)
"Then why do you support a government that hasn't proven it's case to go to war?
It gave plenty of good reasons to retaliate.
"Have you changed the channel from fox in the past six months?
I do sometimes, to CNN or NBC or ABC or NBC (to find out when the left wing wants us
to think), and also to C-Span. Sometimes I look at MSNBC to watch it die like a fish flopping on the dock . It is quite interesting that FNC keeps earning the wrath of ideologues by daring to be balanced.
"You continue to amaze me with you powers of persuasion. "
Thank you.
"Stealing? Now that's a treasonous statement. The right to tax is a
constiutionally defined right of the government"
It doesn't mean that this power should be maximized and abused. The government has the right to execute people too, but does this mean it should be done all the time, or at all? As for Stealing, what do you call it when someone takes your property under threat of force? The Randists have made a good point on this one.
"The man can't pronounce the word "nulclear". He is the President of the United States.
The same is true of Jimmy Carter, and Jimmy Carter is an actual nuclear engineer! (You probably did not know that). I'm not one for spelling flames, but in the context you are pushing, it should be pointed out that you did not even spell the word correctly.
"Placing countries into random assignments of allies and enemies is not diplomacy.
It is reality. Those countries placed themselves into those categories.
"What would it have taken to wait a little longer and let the UN do its inspections? They obviously didn't have a chance to deploy them readily at the very least. They did not use one single WMD in the war."
It would have taken probably 12,000 Iraqi lives (the amount Mr. Hussein would have likely had killed during the wait that you wanted).
"Say it with me, "regressive". You see
"Right to Privacy has been on the books since 1965 "
but it is not in the Constitution is it? What the Soopremes create on a whim, they can take away on a whim.