I'm interested in the general opinions here. I've been reading a lot lately about gross violations of this and wonder where the assumed supporters of this act, the right - who seem to dominate this board - sit on the topic.
Printable View
I'm interested in the general opinions here. I've been reading a lot lately about gross violations of this and wonder where the assumed supporters of this act, the right - who seem to dominate this board - sit on the topic.
It is a heinous crime against the constitution.
The original idea was OK but then the Fed's apparently wanted a lot of things that made most of us hope that it would go belly up before it trampled on so many of our rights.[Mad]
"Those who will sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither." -Benjamin Franklin.
I hated how they could justify it with all the rhetoric "...or the terrorists win." The average American is scared s***less, they've already won- hence why they're called TERRORists... Remove fear and you take away the power of the enemy.
This is an abomination, and it goes against everything this nation was intended to be by our founding fathers. The fact that it gets such broad by-partisan support should scare folks a hell of alot more than any terrorist.
I really hope those three yes votes are trolling.
I voted "Against" since this is an all or nothing question.
However, I have to say there are some things in the law that I agree with. For example, the provision that requires phone solicitors that call on behalf of charities to provide certain information regarding their operation including an address, etc... Or the provision that makes it a crime to basically impersonate a member of the Red Cross.
I've tried to read the entire Act. OK...so I can read the whole thing. I can hardly understand everything that it entails. I've read some commentaries from intelligent people who are on both sides of the act and even they say they can't make enough sense out of all the provisions in the Act to truly form an opinion as to whether it's a completely good or bad thing.
So, generally, I'd say I'm more against it than for it. Especially the NSLs...though the NSL provisions have mostly been stricken down by the courts as unconstitutional anyway...so it's kind of a moot point. I know it's generally made opening a bank account a real pain in the ass. :)
But even the ACLU, probably the most outspoken critic of the Act, has only challenged certain provisions of the Act even though they talk about how bad the entire thing is.
Personally, I think a lot of the rhetoric, both for and against, is way overblown.
we let the terrorists win if we abridge our freedoms because of their actions.
we need to be as free as possible, and when we find a terrorist deal with them in the harshest manner possible.
just so everyone understands my definition of "harsh", when a suicide bomber attacks troops in afghanistan, we id them then delete their whole family.
everyone related to them joins them in martyrdom. the families of the 19 hijackers? uh huh, I went there.
I agree with bailey, there are parts of it that are worth keeping, but I voted no.
one of the things that bush did after 9/11 was to create a new agency, I think that's the last bloody thing we needed. we need to shut half the government down, now, or we'll end up worse than greece.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin13
this
Doesn't matter what side of the aisle the politician is on, they're still a politician that wants nothing but more power.Quote:
Originally Posted by stevelkinevil
The Patriot Act is just the tip of the iceberg in my opinion.
I have always been AGAINST the ..........UN-patriot act.
Nada vote.
It has lasted through two presidents and I can't say it has done anything, except line the pockets of a few.
Wow just looked at this again and I find it nearly unfathomable that on this site of all places there are even 6 votes supporting the systematic dismantlement of our constitution. Guess no matter where you are there are always those willing to say "baaaaaaaahhhhh"
When this first came up I was for it in concept but as the details emerged about how far reaching and violating it is I no longer saw it as a good idea. It smacks of KGB tactics, just snatch people away in the dark of night for no apparent reason - never to be seen or heard from again. Scary stuff. I watched a movie recently with Sam Jackson where he was interrogating a terrorist and in one way you are like "yeah!" but in another you have to think "holy crap, that's just scary they could do that"
Like communism it is great in IDEA but will never work in real life.
Would you do us all a big favor and go knock on Barry's door and let him know that? Thaaaaaaaanks (Office Space reference...)Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbyfairbanks
Already tried but was asked to leave. I didn't donate enough to the campaign effort
Against it from day one. The economy can be fixed, gun laws can be fixed, debt can be fixed, and so on, however, damage done to the Constitution seems to be permanent and pervasive. I don't for a second think we need Constitutional rule bending to beat these terrorist turds.
I'm guessing our military and intelligence community have thwarted many terrorist attacks, but I really doubt that the "Patriot" act has had anything to do with it.
+1, excellent [Beer]Quote:
Originally Posted by Elhuero
I just read something that my political science professor (one of the few who claims to be a hardened anti-liberal teacher, but also not really for the GOP either) handed out back when I was a freshman in college and it states that he and other political science doctorate holders did a study on Jefferson's ideals for America as it was being created... I'll list only a couple:
1. The Constitution is an amendable, living document not meant for long term application but for when a 2nd, 3rd, 4th and so on American Revolution occurs (recommended every 25-80 years- depending on how soon American Government forgets that this country harbors the ideals and love of revolt) it can be used as a template for newer, better, and time appropriate constitutions.
2. The Bill Of Rights (believed to be kept intact regardless of revolution) is a time transcending document with the ability to add, amend, and be interpreted by lawyers, The Supreme Court and educational institutions with emphasis that the 10 Amendments originally enacted NEVER [made that the key word] be modified, forgotten, ignored or deleted without 75% of the population's consent.
3. God- regardless of which religion- shall not be used as a cornerstone of any state function, electoral campaign, policy writing, or law. Also, no American shall be judged by what God he chooses to worship, but only how they act with regard to influence of that God. No one should be forced into any religious ideal against their will, and we shall ensure that freedom be preserved, especially with that right in mind.
Against it for obvious reasons.
I think the quote Ronin posted from Ben Franklin sums it all up in one sentence... I was going to post it, but he beat me to it.
the "version" I prefer is:
"People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
the REAL question is- is that what they're going for, or are they just ignorant?
[Beer]Quote:
Originally Posted by Elhuero