Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

Zeebadee · Mar 4, 2004, 11:59 am

Your attitude is exactly what the government is counting on to begin the process of arrests for whatever reason the Attorney General sees fit. When ordinary citizens are ready and willing to give up the rights of someone else, the camel has it's nose inside the tent. I wonder, if you were the victim of some mistaken identity, would you be quite so willing to give the state the power to lock you up for two years without any evidence of a crime even being committed?

rmnunez · Mar 6, 2004, 06:22 am

Zee, you think "the government" is about to start brandishing this Patriot Act to lock up dissidents. You think of yourself as a dissident and therefore anticipate the government is coming after you too. I think the Patriot Act is aimed at terrorist interdiction so as long as dissidence falls short of terrorism it does not apply. If you are getting a bunch of people together to plot a bombing, kidnapping or murder so as to advance some political goal, you'd probably fall within the scope of the Act, but if you were gathering to promote a write-in candidate, to raise money for some social program, to express support for one policy or another, then the Act is inapplicable.

You think I've been 'duped' by the media which is somehow working together on "the government's" orders. I've actually studied the Act with a bit of care, it really doesn't apply to political dissent.

The Nethercott case looks close. The fellow is hosting some sort of "militia" convention. Presumably there will be a bunch of people getting together in Arizona, and many (most) will be carrying duly-licensed firearms. But we can also expect some out-of-staters whose arms are licensed differently (and possibly in a manner inconsistent with Arizona's laws).

As in any gathering of like-minded people, merchants among them likely will seek to sell their wares and here we mean firearms (the aim of the meeting is to form a militia). Doesn't the state of Arizona have an interest in regulating, monitoring and controlling the possession, use and sale of firearms? Why resort to the Patriot Act for this?

If Napalitano arrested Nethercott to interfere with this militia-forming convention I wonder why not just bust the guy on other than the Patriot Act on the eve of the convention? Now if they arrested Nethercott for any other reason the Act might be applicable, I know nothing of what Nethercott has done or planned to do, don't know what the government suspects him of being involved in.

If Nethercott is neither a terrorist under the Patriot Act nor some unlawful gun merchant under whatever pertinent Arizona law, he has been unfairly treated and ought to be released. Though it is terrible that an innocent person could be held for years without any recourse, fortunately this is rare and the law does anticipate some sort of remedy.

Zeebadee · Mar 6, 2004, 01:04 pm

You are making a lot of assumptions that have no basis in fact. I don't think of myself as any kind of "dissident". I don't fear the government is going to come after me. I don't even think you have been "duped" by the media.

I do see the Patriot Act as a continuing and dangerous process of erosion of our Constitutional rights. You say the Act doesn't apply to political dissent, but you aren't the one making those decisions. As it stands now, Ashcroft has the power to decide when and where it applies. Think about it, an unelected person literally has the power to lock up a citizen for any reason he wants. You tell us not to worry because he won't use it except for terrorists, but you really don't know, do you? If he can summarily lock up Padilla, he can lock up any citizen.

"Why not just bust the guy on other than the Patriot Act..."? because without the Act, the government has to show evidence of a crime, and allow due process. No such bothersome details stand in the way of the Act. Just declare the guy a combatant and throw him in jail.

"Though it is terrible that an innocent person could be held for years without any recourse, fortunately this is rare and the law does anticipate some sort of remedy. "

This is totally contradictory. Which is it, "without recourse" or "..some sort of remedy"? What remedy is there? And the fact that's it's "rare" is no consolation at all if you're the one locked up.

There are people that are actively working to bring down our form of government. You can't protect and defend the Constitution by ceding the rights it guarantees. The Constitution IS our form of government, suspend it and those people win.

Mar 6, 2004, 03:53 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Sodfather,)
What are you getting at? There was footage of the first plane hitting...I'm quite sure.

And you say he continued reading to the children like it was a crime...Maybe he didn't want to scare the shit out of anyone by sprinting out of the room or something...

Weird topic. :?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

we call this just looking to attack bush

Mar 6, 2004, 03:54 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Zeebadee,)
You are making a lot of assumptions that have no basis in fact. I don't think of myself as any kind of "dissident". I don't fear the government is going to come after me. I don't even think you have been "duped" by the media.

I do see the Patriot Act as a continuing and dangerous process of erosion of our Constitutional rights. You say the Act doesn't apply to political dissent, but you aren't the one making those decisions. As it stands now, Ashcroft has the power to decide when and where it applies. Think about it, an unelected person literally has the power to lock up a citizen for any reason he wants. You tell us not to worry because he won't use it except for terrorists, but you really don't know, do you? If he can summarily lock up Padilla, he can lock up any citizen.

"Why not just bust the guy on other than the Patriot Act..."? because without the Act, the government has to show evidence of a crime, and allow due process. No such bothersome details stand in the way of the Act. Just declare the guy a combatant and throw him in jail.

"Though it is terrible that an innocent person could be held for years without any recourse, fortunately this is rare and the law does anticipate some sort of remedy. "

This is totally contradictory. Which is it, "without recourse" or "..some sort of remedy"? What remedy is there? And the fact that's it's "rare" is no consolation at all if you're the one locked up.

There are people that are actively working to bring down our form of government. You can't protect and defend the Constitution by ceding the rights it guarantees. The Constitution IS our form of government, suspend it and those people win.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

you foget the most powerful tool at the publics hands

the media

they start using the patriot act wrongly
make a news conference
youd be surprised how much it can help

dotcoma · Mar 6, 2004, 03:54 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (gecko,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Sodfather,)
What are you getting at? There was footage of the first plane hitting...I'm quite sure.

And you say he continued reading to the children like it was a crime...Maybe he didn't want to scare the shit out of anyone by sprinting out of the room or something...

Weird topic. :?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

we call this just looking to attack bush<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

We call this no concept of context...

Mar 6, 2004, 03:56 pm

hmm? i just saw this topic and posted as i read

i hope that sokay with you

thank god you were here to put me in my place

Zeebadee · Mar 6, 2004, 07:02 pm

"You foget the most powerful tool at the publics hands

the media

they start using the patriot act wrongly
make a news conference
youd be surprised how much it can help"

Unfortunately, the media isn't in the public's hands. And considering the fact that there are at least two American citizens sitting in military jails right now without access to any Constitutional rights, the media has been deafeningly silent. I wouldn't count on the media for any help.

If the government really has a case against them, what is your problem with simply trying, convicting, and sentencing them? There's an old saying in sports, "what got you here is going to keep you here". If we want to continue to live in a free society, we are going to have to use the tools the Constitution provides to protect ourselves. It's difficult to believe that Americans are so terrified that they are willing, even eager to give up rights that they won't ever get back in order to gain a perceived sense of "security", but I guess it's true. The day will come when politicians will use the Patriot Act to stifle opposition, all in the name of something like "public order", and they'll be using the power that we willingly gave them.

Mia · Mar 6, 2004, 08:23 pm

this is where the phrase slippery slope came from. It seems so innocent. Such a good idea! It only affects terrorists.....an erosion of our civil rights is an erosion of our civil rights. If this is how it SHOULD be and is CONSTITITIONAL why did it take us so long to think of it?

Mar 6, 2004, 08:46 pm

its funny how you can imagien the patriot act becoming a bad bad thing

yet you give terrorists the benefit of the doubt

your husband ever hit you?

ask him for me

Mia · Mar 6, 2004, 10:00 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (gecko,)
its funny how you can imagien the patriot act becoming a bad bad thing

yet you give terrorists the benefit of the doubt

your husband ever hit you?

ask him for me<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

You are a freak - following me to this post and trying to relate the two? I never said to give the terrorists the benefit of the doubt. Exactly the opposite if you actually read what I wrote.

All I ever said was that the US government is not perfect and does quite a bit on the international scene under the radar. Are you so uninformed you think the only fighting and killing we do is in the declared wars? If so, you don't belong on a discussion board along with people who read.

I'm not the only one against the Patriot Act - why don't you talk to the ACLU? All they all victims of wife-beating too and that's where they come up with their complaint about it?

You have not offered an argument as to how this legislation does not trample on my civil rights.

Here's an example: the internet access they can gain to look at "terrorist's" emails actually gives them access to everyone on that ISP. I have no problem with them spying on terrorists, but I have a problem with them spying on me.

You should too.

rmnunez · Mar 7, 2004, 02:44 am

I think outsourcing could promote jobs if the outsourcing was of manufacturing and the job promotion in services. Seems like developed nations are transitioning into primarily services-based economies while developing nations are moving from primarily agricultural to manufacturing economies. The manufactured goods are for consumers in developed economies whose purchasing power will improve thanks to the low cost of these foreign-made products. If the manufacturers are American or western multinationals, the money they save in manufacturing abroad and the profits generated from their enhanced sales if they pass on the savings as cheaper products will end up in shareholders pockets who will make further investments generating more economic activity. Thus western and American multinationals will grow and hire more managers and other business professionals to run more foreign plants from their headquarters. The complexion of the work force is changing, jobs in manufacturing are lost, jobs in services generated.

gecko · Mar 7, 2004, 04:14 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mia,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (gecko,)
its funny how you can imagien the patriot act becoming a bad bad thing

yet you give terrorists the benefit of the doubt

your husband ever hit you?

ask him for me<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

You are a freak - following me to this post and trying to relate the two? I never said to give the terrorists the benefit of the doubt. Exactly the opposite if you actually read what I wrote.

All I ever said was that the US government is not perfect and does quite a bit on the international scene under the radar. Are you so uninformed you think the only fighting and killing we do is in the declared wars? If so, you don't belong on a discussion board along with people who read.

I'm not the only one against the Patriot Act - why don't you talk to the ACLU? All they all victims of wife-beating too and that's where they come up with their complaint about it?

You have not offered an argument as to how this legislation does not trample on my civil rights.

Here's an example: the internet access they can gain to look at "terrorist's" emails actually gives them access to everyone on that ISP. I have no problem with them spying on terrorists, but I have a problem with them spying on me.

You should too.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

no you are trying to make the US and the terrorists equally "bad"
that is not the case

dotcoma · Mar 7, 2004, 04:56 pm

The US and the terrorists are one & the same. The Patriot Act and Homeland Security are quite literally, the declaration of war against the American people by the guys wearing $1,500 ties. I bet gecko will be first in line to get "chipped"...

Impenitent · Mar 7, 2004, 05:08 pm

name one person whose rights have been stripped away with the patriot act? name ONE...

Mia · Mar 7, 2004, 05:25 pm

Gecko - I never said anything of the kind. You are making big leaps from what I actually say to what you think I mean. If you are interested in meaningful discussion, it's a good idea to clarify what a person is saying before you respond. If you are not why don't you shut up?

Mia · Mar 7, 2004, 05:40 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
name one person whose rights have been stripped away with the patriot act? name ONE...<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

That's hard to do when one of the provisions is that they are allowed to do things in secret!

dotcoma · Mar 7, 2004, 06:00 pm

Sherman Austin (www.raisethefist.com) and Casey Nethercott (http://www.ranchrescue.com/) as far as people I know on a more personal basis. But, it's actually quite mainstream that the Patriot Act is being used by local governments all over the country to justify all kinds of unconstitutional activity. THOUSANDS of American citizens of middle eastern backgrounds were rounded up after 9/11 and held for weeks and months in some cases without being charged are given access to a jury. And given that the FEDS don't have to answer any questions on matters that deal with "terrorist investigations" (actually, they can secretly arrest you and execute you with a military tribunal), WHO KNOWS how many people have been effected by this assault on the republic.

The FEDS sent out a flyer after 9/11 instructing local law enforcement to call the JTTF if people they pulled over for traffic violations made "numerous references to the constitution" or had bumper stickers against the federal government or the U.N.

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/images/FBI-...Flyer-Front.jpg

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/images/FBI-...tFlyer-Back.jpg

Impenitent · Mar 7, 2004, 06:20 pm

http://news.com.com/2008-1082_3-5062481.html

"Under a 1997 federal law championed by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., it is illegal to publish such instructions with the intent that readers commit "a federal crime of violence.""

it was NOT the "patriot act" law that austin broke...

http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/index.php?pag...03c1_vigilantes

"The latest arrest was of Ranch Rescue member Casey Nethercott, who was picked up by FBI agents and Douglas police Nov. 25. Nethercott is charged with unlawful flight to avoid prosecution."

it was NOT the "patriot act" law that nethercott broke...

thousands rounded up and you still haven't named ONE...

dotcoma · Mar 7, 2004, 06:31 pm

Both are pretexts to the Patriot Act (Miss. Feinstein flaunts this), both are unconstitutional. The Casey Nethercott article you googled by the seat of your pants is outdated by over a year.He was arrested without charge last week. When Sherman was "arrested", the FEDS used the Patriot Act to justify them not charging him while keeping him under arrest.

Mar 4, 2004, 11:59 am	#101 (permalink) (top)
Zeebadee Volcanic Erupter Posts: 3,836	Your attitude is exactly what the government is counting on to begin the process of arrests for whatever reason the Attorney General sees fit. When ordinary citizens are ready and willing to give up the rights of someone else, the camel has it's nose inside the tent. I wonder, if you were the victim of some mistaken identity, would you be quite so willing to give the state the power to lock you up for two years without any evidence of a crime even being committed? "Everybody knows that the boat is leaking Everybody knows that the captain lied." - Leonard Cohen

Mar 6, 2004, 06:22 am	#102 (permalink) (top)
rmnunez Volcanic Erupter Location: Mexico City Posts: 4,772	Zee, you think "the government" is about to start brandishing this Patriot Act to lock up dissidents. You think of yourself as a dissident and therefore anticipate the government is coming after you too. I think the Patriot Act is aimed at terrorist interdiction so as long as dissidence falls short of terrorism it does not apply. If you are getting a bunch of people together to plot a bombing, kidnapping or murder so as to advance some political goal, you'd probably fall within the scope of the Act, but if you were gathering to promote a write-in candidate, to raise money for some social program, to express support for one policy or another, then the Act is inapplicable. You think I've been 'duped' by the media which is somehow working together on "the government's" orders. I've actually studied the Act with a bit of care, it really doesn't apply to political dissent. The Nethercott case looks close. The fellow is hosting some sort of "militia" convention. Presumably there will be a bunch of people getting together in Arizona, and many (most) will be carrying duly-licensed firearms. But we can also expect some out-of-staters whose arms are licensed differently (and possibly in a manner inconsistent with Arizona's laws). As in any gathering of like-minded people, merchants among them likely will seek to sell their wares and here we mean firearms (the aim of the meeting is to form a militia). Doesn't the state of Arizona have an interest in regulating, monitoring and controlling the possession, use and sale of firearms? Why resort to the Patriot Act for this? If Napalitano arrested Nethercott to interfere with this militia-forming convention I wonder why not just bust the guy on other than the Patriot Act on the eve of the convention? Now if they arrested Nethercott for any other reason the Act might be applicable, I know nothing of what Nethercott has done or planned to do, don't know what the government suspects him of being involved in. If Nethercott is neither a terrorist under the Patriot Act nor some unlawful gun merchant under whatever pertinent Arizona law, he has been unfairly treated and ought to be released. Though it is terrible that an innocent person could be held for years without any recourse, fortunately this is rare and the law does anticipate some sort of remedy. Et semel emissum volat irrevocabile verbum. Raúl M. Núñez Sheriff

Mar 6, 2004, 01:04 pm	#103 (permalink) (top)
Zeebadee Volcanic Erupter Posts: 3,836	You are making a lot of assumptions that have no basis in fact. I don't think of myself as any kind of "dissident". I don't fear the government is going to come after me. I don't even think you have been "duped" by the media. I do see the Patriot Act as a continuing and dangerous process of erosion of our Constitutional rights. You say the Act doesn't apply to political dissent, but you aren't the one making those decisions. As it stands now, Ashcroft has the power to decide when and where it applies. Think about it, an unelected person literally has the power to lock up a citizen for any reason he wants. You tell us not to worry because he won't use it except for terrorists, but you really don't know, do you? If he can summarily lock up Padilla, he can lock up any citizen. "Why not just bust the guy on other than the Patriot Act..."? because without the Act, the government has to show evidence of a crime, and allow due process. No such bothersome details stand in the way of the Act. Just declare the guy a combatant and throw him in jail. "Though it is terrible that an innocent person could be held for years without any recourse, fortunately this is rare and the law does anticipate some sort of remedy. " This is totally contradictory. Which is it, "without recourse" or "..some sort of remedy"? What remedy is there? And the fact that's it's "rare" is no consolation at all if you're the one locked up. There are people that are actively working to bring down our form of government. You can't protect and defend the Constitution by ceding the rights it guarantees. The Constitution IS our form of government, suspend it and those people win. "Everybody knows that the boat is leaking Everybody knows that the captain lied." - Leonard Cohen

Mar 6, 2004, 03:53 pm	#104 (permalink) (top)
gecko Guest Posts: n/a	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Sodfather,) What are you getting at? There was footage of the first plane hitting...I'm quite sure. And you say he continued reading to the children like it was a crime...Maybe he didn't want to scare the shit out of anyone by sprinting out of the room or something... Weird topic. :?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> we call this just looking to attack bush

Mar 6, 2004, 03:54 pm	#105 (permalink) (top)
gecko Guest Posts: n/a	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Zeebadee,) You are making a lot of assumptions that have no basis in fact. I don't think of myself as any kind of "dissident". I don't fear the government is going to come after me. I don't even think you have been "duped" by the media. I do see the Patriot Act as a continuing and dangerous process of erosion of our Constitutional rights. You say the Act doesn't apply to political dissent, but you aren't the one making those decisions. As it stands now, Ashcroft has the power to decide when and where it applies. Think about it, an unelected person literally has the power to lock up a citizen for any reason he wants. You tell us not to worry because he won't use it except for terrorists, but you really don't know, do you? If he can summarily lock up Padilla, he can lock up any citizen. "Why not just bust the guy on other than the Patriot Act..."? because without the Act, the government has to show evidence of a crime, and allow due process. No such bothersome details stand in the way of the Act. Just declare the guy a combatant and throw him in jail. "Though it is terrible that an innocent person could be held for years without any recourse, fortunately this is rare and the law does anticipate some sort of remedy. " This is totally contradictory. Which is it, "without recourse" or "..some sort of remedy"? What remedy is there? And the fact that's it's "rare" is no consolation at all if you're the one locked up. There are people that are actively working to bring down our form of government. You can't protect and defend the Constitution by ceding the rights it guarantees. The Constitution IS our form of government, suspend it and those people win.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> you foget the most powerful tool at the publics hands the media they start using the patriot act wrongly make a news conference youd be surprised how much it can help

Mar 6, 2004, 03:54 pm	#106 (permalink) (top)
dotcoma Volcanic Erupter Posts: 3,154	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (gecko,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Sodfather,) What are you getting at? There was footage of the first plane hitting...I'm quite sure. And you say he continued reading to the children like it was a crime...Maybe he didn't want to scare the shit out of anyone by sprinting out of the room or something... Weird topic. :?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> we call this just looking to attack bush<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> We call this no concept of context...

Mar 6, 2004, 03:56 pm	#107 (permalink) (top)
gecko Guest Posts: n/a	hmm? i just saw this topic and posted as i read i hope that sokay with you thank god you were here to put me in my place

Mar 6, 2004, 07:02 pm	#108 (permalink) (top)
Zeebadee Volcanic Erupter Posts: 3,836	"You foget the most powerful tool at the publics hands the media they start using the patriot act wrongly make a news conference youd be surprised how much it can help" Unfortunately, the media isn't in the public's hands. And considering the fact that there are at least two American citizens sitting in military jails right now without access to any Constitutional rights, the media has been deafeningly silent. I wouldn't count on the media for any help. If the government really has a case against them, what is your problem with simply trying, convicting, and sentencing them? There's an old saying in sports, "what got you here is going to keep you here". If we want to continue to live in a free society, we are going to have to use the tools the Constitution provides to protect ourselves. It's difficult to believe that Americans are so terrified that they are willing, even eager to give up rights that they won't ever get back in order to gain a perceived sense of "security", but I guess it's true. The day will come when politicians will use the Patriot Act to stifle opposition, all in the name of something like "public order", and they'll be using the power that we willingly gave them. "Everybody knows that the boat is leaking Everybody knows that the captain lied." - Leonard Cohen

Mar 6, 2004, 08:23 pm	#109 (permalink) (top)
Mia Retired Posts: 7,312	this is where the phrase slippery slope came from. It seems so innocent. Such a good idea! It only affects terrorists.....an erosion of our civil rights is an erosion of our civil rights. If this is how it SHOULD be and is CONSTITITIONAL why did it take us so long to think of it? "...with like-minded people one cannot discuss. With like-minded people one can only participate in a church service, and you know how I feel about church services." Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Mar 6, 2004, 08:46 pm	#110 (permalink) (top)
gecko Guest Posts: n/a	its funny how you can imagien the patriot act becoming a bad bad thing yet you give terrorists the benefit of the doubt your husband ever hit you? ask him for me

Mar 6, 2004, 10:00 pm	#111 (permalink) (top)
Mia Retired Posts: 7,312	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (gecko,) its funny how you can imagien the patriot act becoming a bad bad thing yet you give terrorists the benefit of the doubt your husband ever hit you? ask him for me<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> You are a freak - following me to this post and trying to relate the two? I never said to give the terrorists the benefit of the doubt. Exactly the opposite if you actually read what I wrote. All I ever said was that the US government is not perfect and does quite a bit on the international scene under the radar. Are you so uninformed you think the only fighting and killing we do is in the declared wars? If so, you don't belong on a discussion board along with people who read. I'm not the only one against the Patriot Act - why don't you talk to the ACLU? All they all victims of wife-beating too and that's where they come up with their complaint about it? You have not offered an argument as to how this legislation does not trample on my civil rights. Here's an example: the internet access they can gain to look at "terrorist's" emails actually gives them access to everyone on that ISP. I have no problem with them spying on terrorists, but I have a problem with them spying on me. You should too. "...with like-minded people one cannot discuss. With like-minded people one can only participate in a church service, and you know how I feel about church services." Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Mar 7, 2004, 02:44 am	#112 (permalink) (top)
rmnunez Volcanic Erupter Location: Mexico City Posts: 4,772	I think outsourcing could promote jobs if the outsourcing was of manufacturing and the job promotion in services. Seems like developed nations are transitioning into primarily services-based economies while developing nations are moving from primarily agricultural to manufacturing economies. The manufactured goods are for consumers in developed economies whose purchasing power will improve thanks to the low cost of these foreign-made products. If the manufacturers are American or western multinationals, the money they save in manufacturing abroad and the profits generated from their enhanced sales if they pass on the savings as cheaper products will end up in shareholders pockets who will make further investments generating more economic activity. Thus western and American multinationals will grow and hire more managers and other business professionals to run more foreign plants from their headquarters. The complexion of the work force is changing, jobs in manufacturing are lost, jobs in services generated. Et semel emissum volat irrevocabile verbum. Raúl M. Núñez Sheriff

Mar 7, 2004, 04:14 pm	#113 (permalink) (top)
gecko Molten Ash Posts: 70	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mia,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (gecko,) its funny how you can imagien the patriot act becoming a bad bad thing yet you give terrorists the benefit of the doubt your husband ever hit you? ask him for me<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> You are a freak - following me to this post and trying to relate the two? I never said to give the terrorists the benefit of the doubt. Exactly the opposite if you actually read what I wrote. All I ever said was that the US government is not perfect and does quite a bit on the international scene under the radar. Are you so uninformed you think the only fighting and killing we do is in the declared wars? If so, you don't belong on a discussion board along with people who read. I'm not the only one against the Patriot Act - why don't you talk to the ACLU? All they all victims of wife-beating too and that's where they come up with their complaint about it? You have not offered an argument as to how this legislation does not trample on my civil rights. Here's an example: the internet access they can gain to look at "terrorist's" emails actually gives them access to everyone on that ISP. I have no problem with them spying on terrorists, but I have a problem with them spying on me. You should too.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> no you are trying to make the US and the terrorists equally "bad" that is not the case

Mar 7, 2004, 04:56 pm	#114 (permalink) (top)
dotcoma Volcanic Erupter Posts: 3,154	The US and the terrorists are one & the same. The Patriot Act and Homeland Security are quite literally, the declaration of war against the American people by the guys wearing $1,500 ties. I bet gecko will be first in line to get "chipped"...

Mar 7, 2004, 05:08 pm	#115 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	name one person whose rights have been stripped away with the patriot act? name ONE... "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Mar 7, 2004, 05:25 pm	#116 (permalink) (top)
Mia Retired Posts: 7,312	Gecko - I never said anything of the kind. You are making big leaps from what I actually say to what you think I mean. If you are interested in meaningful discussion, it's a good idea to clarify what a person is saying before you respond. If you are not why don't you shut up? "...with like-minded people one cannot discuss. With like-minded people one can only participate in a church service, and you know how I feel about church services." Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Mar 7, 2004, 05:40 pm	#117 (permalink) (top)
Mia Retired Posts: 7,312	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) name one person whose rights have been stripped away with the patriot act? name ONE...<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> That's hard to do when one of the provisions is that they are allowed to do things in secret! "...with like-minded people one cannot discuss. With like-minded people one can only participate in a church service, and you know how I feel about church services." Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Mar 7, 2004, 06:00 pm	#118 (permalink) (top)
dotcoma Volcanic Erupter Posts: 3,154	Sherman Austin (www.raisethefist.com) and Casey Nethercott (http://www.ranchrescue.com/) as far as people I know on a more personal basis. But, it's actually quite mainstream that the Patriot Act is being used by local governments all over the country to justify all kinds of unconstitutional activity. THOUSANDS of American citizens of middle eastern backgrounds were rounded up after 9/11 and held for weeks and months in some cases without being charged are given access to a jury. And given that the FEDS don't have to answer any questions on matters that deal with "terrorist investigations" (actually, they can secretly arrest you and execute you with a military tribunal), WHO KNOWS how many people have been effected by this assault on the republic. The FEDS sent out a flyer after 9/11 instructing local law enforcement to call the JTTF if people they pulled over for traffic violations made "numerous references to the constitution" or had bumper stickers against the federal government or the U.N. http://www.keepandbeararms.com/images/FBI-...Flyer-Front.jpg http://www.keepandbeararms.com/images/FBI-...tFlyer-Back.jpg

Mar 7, 2004, 06:20 pm	#119 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	http://news.com.com/2008-1082_3-5062481.html "Under a 1997 federal law championed by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., it is illegal to publish such instructions with the intent that readers commit "a federal crime of violence."" it was NOT the "patriot act" law that austin broke... http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/index.php?pag...03c1_vigilantes "The latest arrest was of Ranch Rescue member Casey Nethercott, who was picked up by FBI agents and Douglas police Nov. 25. Nethercott is charged with unlawful flight to avoid prosecution." it was NOT the "patriot act" law that nethercott broke... thousands rounded up and you still haven't named ONE... "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Mar 7, 2004, 06:31 pm	#120 (permalink) (top)
dotcoma Volcanic Erupter Posts: 3,154	Both are pretexts to the Patriot Act (Miss. Feinstein flaunts this), both are unconstitutional. The Casey Nethercott article you googled by the seat of your pants is outdated by over a year.He was arrested without charge last week. When Sherman was "arrested", the FEDS used the Patriot Act to justify them not charging him while keeping him under arrest.