You're right, I'll be we haven't apprehended a single terrorist on our soil, based solely on the fact that it hasn't been cowed about. MAYBE just MAYBE you don't give people involved in national security the credit of being professional about what they do and not running to the media every time they disrupt something. And you know what? They don't need to, because the thing passes without a debate, which tells me members of Government are privy to maybe a little bit more information on what the Act has done for our security than the rest of the public, and they think it's useful to continue it.
Your premise relyies solely on the assumption that the Patriot Act is indeed unconstitutional. I dispute that, and so does the Supreme Court. The document hasn't been changed because it doesn't need to be. I'm sorry you don't like it, but it's constitutional, get over it.
A market which is the single greatest funding mechanism for world terrorism. And yes, bankers and old reactors are more likely to do damage and I would love to see them regulated similarly.
1. Pakistan is not, nor never will be up to bat. They have nukes, and that's a good deterant. The military there knows they need us as we need them. Our combat in Afghanistan and Iraq will end, though we'll probably have an influence there for quite some time (as we should, we broke it, we should fix it)
2. The increased use in food stamps is due to continued economic stagnation of the middle and lower class. The recession will end, the numbers will go down. Food stamps are useful for creating economic growth. For every $1 of food stamps creates ~$1.40 in economic growth while the economy is slouched.
3. What? No. China is manipulating their currency to keep exporters in their country happy, which is why they have out of control inflation. We need our dollar to lose some value in order to increase exports here, and restore jobs (the lack of which is the main reason for economic troubles here, not debt).
4. Our cities are crumbling, that's why we need a renewed investment in infrastructure. It creates jobs and has a stimulating effect on local economies. It will cost us, but it will cost us more if we don't.
5. I don't take anyone who can say "Congress is plotting with the centralized agricultural fascists to make it illegal to grow food." seriously. I would love to see some evidence of this, because there is none. As for blowing up levies? Which is harder to replace and costs more money? Farmland, or cities? It was a tough choice, but the answer is clearly cities. Commodity prices always go up, that's the cost of countries like China and India entering the first world, and freak weather damaging crop output in the Ukraine.
Also, rationed health care? What? I didn't realize it was a scarce good, and for many Americans rationing would be an improvement, as they have zero health care now.
You're a fucking clown pal.
We're not broke, don't be thick. Most of our deficit is from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Bush tax cuts, increased safety net spending from retiring baby-boomers and those pushed into economic hardship from lost jobs, and revenue decreases from the recession. Without those factors our deficit would be only 2% of GDP, and quite manageable. The wars will end, taxes can be increased, and the recession won't last forever.
Ugh. You've never read a brief on a Supreme Court case, have you? The fourth amendment is not 'very simple' as you might know if you had ever given any of your attention to the history of constitutional law.
For Christ's sake, you can still order chicken wings and and buy guns can't you? Where is this fucking tyranny? The law is used to monitor people with suspected terrorist ties! Come back to me when you're forced into a camp or the President sends the national guard in to shoot protesters. Treating shit like this as 'tyranny' only denigrates the people who actually live in tyrannical societies.
How is any of that undemocratic? Just because you disagree with what the elected officials pursue as a national security policy doesn't make their election invalid. Voters still go to the polls and pull the lever for one guy or the other and there isn't a damned thing undemocratic about it. It's a winner take all system, if you don't like it start a referendum to change the electoral system in your state. The system here is pretty damned transparent, even if your voters don't pay attention to it.
I'm saying it never took away any of your rights in the first place. That's what the Supreme Court has said, or in effect said. I'm saying it's totally unrealistic that you can convince a court otherwise because no Executive is going to appoint a Judge who honestly thinks the Patriot Act goes to far, because that would require a reading of the Constitution that would nullify about every other law passed since the guilded age. I don't think it will protect us against every single attack, no, but I do think that it gives us a much better chance of disruption schemes that could seriously damage our economy.
The winner take all system we have necessitates a two party system. Considering the Democrats have been around since Jackson and the Republicans since a few years before Lincoln, I'd say your expectations for something different are pretty unrealistic. It's not a Democrat or Republican thing, it's a two party thing and at no time in American politics has there been more than two viable parties at a time.
This isn't 2002, and the fact that neither party is trying to capitalize on this issue before and election (like the Republicans did before 2002) should give you some indication about how serious Congress actually takes the law. They aren't giving a shit what you think, probably because they believe that the law is necessary for the continued monitoring of suspected terrorists. What evidence do you have the the law has been ineffective? There hasn't been an attack in the 10 years since, and I'm extremely skeptical that the Patriot Act didn't play a large part in that. Do you really think otherwise?
SUVs don't have the potential to be radioactive. SUVs don't have the potential to make the DOW crash. There is good reason the law is in place and it's not all about living out and Orwell nightmare despite what many think.
We haven't had a terrorist attack in this country since the law came into effect. I'm not saying correlation is causation, but I think claims that the law hasn't prevented at least one American death pretty dubious. They don't need a new 'excuse' because it's not being used to monitor the porn you're downloading and I assure you the Government has bigger fish to fry. Sure they may be snooping your traffic but the law says they can so any claims you make about it being a violation of your constitutional rights are useless.
Powers like this, once given, are pretty much impossible to take back. Your assertions to violations of your constitutional rights don't matter, the Supreme Court is okay with the Patriot Act, it's a done deal.
That said, it's not the end of the world, and none of you will ever be personally effected by this law and you know it and to claim otherwise is laughable.
Yes we do, and our level of debt is totally sustainable. Drawdowns in Iraq and Afghanistan and greater efficiencies in Medicare (like drug price negotiations) and an increased tax burden on the wealthiest 1% is pretty much all that is needed to reduce debt levels.
Slashdot Mirror
Our currency is not being destroyed. Defaulting on our debt by not raising our debt limit would destroy our currency.
You're right, I'll be we haven't apprehended a single terrorist on our soil, based solely on the fact that it hasn't been cowed about. MAYBE just MAYBE you don't give people involved in national security the credit of being professional about what they do and not running to the media every time they disrupt something. And you know what? They don't need to, because the thing passes without a debate, which tells me members of Government are privy to maybe a little bit more information on what the Act has done for our security than the rest of the public, and they think it's useful to continue it.
Your premise relyies solely on the assumption that the Patriot Act is indeed unconstitutional. I dispute that, and so does the Supreme Court. The document hasn't been changed because it doesn't need to be. I'm sorry you don't like it, but it's constitutional, get over it.
A market which is the single greatest funding mechanism for world terrorism. And yes, bankers and old reactors are more likely to do damage and I would love to see them regulated similarly.
1. Pakistan is not, nor never will be up to bat. They have nukes, and that's a good deterant. The military there knows they need us as we need them. Our combat in Afghanistan and Iraq will end, though we'll probably have an influence there for quite some time (as we should, we broke it, we should fix it) 2. The increased use in food stamps is due to continued economic stagnation of the middle and lower class. The recession will end, the numbers will go down. Food stamps are useful for creating economic growth. For every $1 of food stamps creates ~$1.40 in economic growth while the economy is slouched. 3. What? No. China is manipulating their currency to keep exporters in their country happy, which is why they have out of control inflation. We need our dollar to lose some value in order to increase exports here, and restore jobs (the lack of which is the main reason for economic troubles here, not debt). 4. Our cities are crumbling, that's why we need a renewed investment in infrastructure. It creates jobs and has a stimulating effect on local economies. It will cost us, but it will cost us more if we don't. 5. I don't take anyone who can say "Congress is plotting with the centralized agricultural fascists to make it illegal to grow food." seriously. I would love to see some evidence of this, because there is none. As for blowing up levies? Which is harder to replace and costs more money? Farmland, or cities? It was a tough choice, but the answer is clearly cities. Commodity prices always go up, that's the cost of countries like China and India entering the first world, and freak weather damaging crop output in the Ukraine. Also, rationed health care? What? I didn't realize it was a scarce good, and for many Americans rationing would be an improvement, as they have zero health care now. You're a fucking clown pal.
We're not broke, don't be thick. Most of our deficit is from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Bush tax cuts, increased safety net spending from retiring baby-boomers and those pushed into economic hardship from lost jobs, and revenue decreases from the recession. Without those factors our deficit would be only 2% of GDP, and quite manageable. The wars will end, taxes can be increased, and the recession won't last forever.
Ugh. You've never read a brief on a Supreme Court case, have you? The fourth amendment is not 'very simple' as you might know if you had ever given any of your attention to the history of constitutional law.
Oh radical libertarians, where would we be without you? I'm in a bad mood, please cheer me up with your views on Government.
Which is why you went over the Affordable Care Act with a fine toothed comb to search out what the law actually does right?
For Christ's sake, you can still order chicken wings and and buy guns can't you? Where is this fucking tyranny? The law is used to monitor people with suspected terrorist ties! Come back to me when you're forced into a camp or the President sends the national guard in to shoot protesters. Treating shit like this as 'tyranny' only denigrates the people who actually live in tyrannical societies.
How is any of that undemocratic? Just because you disagree with what the elected officials pursue as a national security policy doesn't make their election invalid. Voters still go to the polls and pull the lever for one guy or the other and there isn't a damned thing undemocratic about it. It's a winner take all system, if you don't like it start a referendum to change the electoral system in your state. The system here is pretty damned transparent, even if your voters don't pay attention to it.
I'm saying it never took away any of your rights in the first place. That's what the Supreme Court has said, or in effect said. I'm saying it's totally unrealistic that you can convince a court otherwise because no Executive is going to appoint a Judge who honestly thinks the Patriot Act goes to far, because that would require a reading of the Constitution that would nullify about every other law passed since the guilded age. I don't think it will protect us against every single attack, no, but I do think that it gives us a much better chance of disruption schemes that could seriously damage our economy.
The winner take all system we have necessitates a two party system. Considering the Democrats have been around since Jackson and the Republicans since a few years before Lincoln, I'd say your expectations for something different are pretty unrealistic. It's not a Democrat or Republican thing, it's a two party thing and at no time in American politics has there been more than two viable parties at a time.
This isn't 2002, and the fact that neither party is trying to capitalize on this issue before and election (like the Republicans did before 2002) should give you some indication about how serious Congress actually takes the law. They aren't giving a shit what you think, probably because they believe that the law is necessary for the continued monitoring of suspected terrorists. What evidence do you have the the law has been ineffective? There hasn't been an attack in the 10 years since, and I'm extremely skeptical that the Patriot Act didn't play a large part in that. Do you really think otherwise?
SUVs don't have the potential to be radioactive. SUVs don't have the potential to make the DOW crash. There is good reason the law is in place and it's not all about living out and Orwell nightmare despite what many think.
We haven't had a terrorist attack in this country since the law came into effect. I'm not saying correlation is causation, but I think claims that the law hasn't prevented at least one American death pretty dubious. They don't need a new 'excuse' because it's not being used to monitor the porn you're downloading and I assure you the Government has bigger fish to fry. Sure they may be snooping your traffic but the law says they can so any claims you make about it being a violation of your constitutional rights are useless.
Powers like this, once given, are pretty much impossible to take back. Your assertions to violations of your constitutional rights don't matter, the Supreme Court is okay with the Patriot Act, it's a done deal. That said, it's not the end of the world, and none of you will ever be personally effected by this law and you know it and to claim otherwise is laughable.
I agree, and what the fuck happened to counter-op? To my knowledge Perfect Dark is still the only game with it.
For the philosophy that STYLE IS SUBSTANCE (300 not withstanding).
It may be speculation, but if you know anything about State Governments, especially in extremely lopsided states like Utah, then it's probably true.
until Jimmy Page dies and they can finally get the rights to what everyone always wanted out of this genre.
Yes we do, and our level of debt is totally sustainable. Drawdowns in Iraq and Afghanistan and greater efficiencies in Medicare (like drug price negotiations) and an increased tax burden on the wealthiest 1% is pretty much all that is needed to reduce debt levels.
It doesn't change how much money the two main party candidates are going to have though, and money is everything in electoral politics.
If these jerks think they have the right to own the internet they should at least have the courtesy to give us all the wireless data we want.
Elections have consequences. But what do I know? Both parties are exactly the same, right?