Who the fuck does Bush think he is??

100..,.....

Please dont take this the wrong way or take offense, but you are looking at it from an angle if you think an ACLU lawyer is an impratial centrist.

WTF are you talking about? And how the hell did Hillary get into this conversation?

Just because someone is a member of my party doesn't mean I agree with their position on everything. That would be absurd.

Couldn't have said it better myself!

It will not be an every day "beat cop" acting upon the provisions of the Patriot Act. I approve of the the fact that one need only be suspected of a crime. I want people that are suspected of crimes and/or "terroist" activities investigated. Your average Joe citizen is not going to be suspected of a crime...so it does not affect your average Joe citizen.

As to the answer to your last question. I thought that I had answered it in a multitude of ways but you apparently want some kind of a direct black or white answer.

Your question...

How can you reasonably claim that personal freedoms were not abridged by this one thing alone?

You can call it an "abridgement"...it certainly has expanded upon the 4th admendment. Ultimately it will be the Sumpreme Court that decides if provisions of the Patriot Act are within the Constitution and it has already done so in some instances either by not hearing a case and kicking it back down to the decision of a lower court or deciding upon its own.

The "abridgement" is not designed to affect every day Joe citizen and I am in favor of "abridging" the rights of suspect criminals and or "terrorists".

I have my thinking and you have yours.

Thats a very weak argument. For your argument to be right, you would have to assume that the people didn't elect the people making the legislation that the wanted to kill all left handed people.

Bottom line is that the citizens of the country elect the official based on their values and want them to inact legislation and appoint interpretors of that legislation (judges) with the same values.


Why should one of the many minority parties demand that a judge have their values.

Hilllary is a big liberal and those are liberal values.

No they aren't.
According to your conservative propoganda maybe, but those are nowhere close to being liberal values. They are egregious distortions at best and outright lies and propoganda at worst.

As I said, it's been within the last generation where things have gotten more and more partisan, which includes nominations on both sides. Right now there's a teetery, slightly right-leaning balance, of which O'conner has traditionally been the swing vote by being a 'pragmatic conservative'. Bush would attempt to skew that balance to the right to further his agenda, and the agenda of his puppeteers.

I'm not saying that other administrations haven't attempted to do the same in the past... what I'm saying is that it's not a good thing, and the extremity of this battle has really come to a head lately. IMO as a result, everyone aside from the rich, the corporate (but I repeat myself!) and the zealot will be the lessor for it.

That said, at least Clinton had the presence of mind to consult with the GOP before putting forth Ginsberg and Breyer, both of whom were quickly ratified. Bush has not attempted to reach a consensus with centrist offerings, but rather proferred the most radical and extreme personalities he can find... Bolton, Gonzales, and now Roberts.

Nobody is demanding that Bush's nominee share liberal values. We know that nobody Bush nominates will be a liberal.
However, as I said, a thorough and exhaustive vetting process is what the American people deserve and should demand.

As for the people electing people who share their values, that's fine, WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE CONSTITUTION.

The founding fathers wanted to prevent the majority from trampling the rights of the minority and created a governmental system of checks and balances for precisely that purpose.

Are the people who are elected (by people who share their values) allowed to pass laws saying I no longer have the right to free speech? or freedom of religion? Or perhaps that 5th amendment is too pesky so people should be forced to incriminate themselves and NOT have the right to face their accusers?
Should they be allowed to do that? They were after all elected by a majority of the people who shared those values, so the constitution doesn't really matter right? Just majority rule?

According to your logic we should be allowed to kill all of the left handed people if that's what 50.1% of the American people want right?

The provisions of the USA PATRIOT act directly rewrite portions of the criminal code. Thus, all law enforcement, I repeat, all law enforcement can and will use these provisions. There is no special "patriot act police" that have these powers handed down from on high. Even Dpty. Cleetus in Bumblefuck, Idaho has these rights, if he gets it in his head that the "hahahahahahas down the end of Buffalo road have one of them thar crack houses in it".

Read the bill. Take some time and actually READ the damn thing.

Which you persist on dodging.

"EXPANDED"? It's curtailed the protections of the 4th amendment in the most egregious way!

You're bordering on Orwell-style 'doublespeak' now.

And in the meantime? You've already tried to float the canard in the other post that these things would be 'sunset', which they have not been. The supreme court is now in danger of being skewed hard right by what is sure to be a neverending stream of evangelical, activist judges. This is a good thing?

Ahhh... I see. So once you're a suspect... not a CRIMINAL, mind you, just a suspect, then you're lumped in with the terrorists and any rights you had have been trumped. Where's the presumption of innocence? Are you in such dire dire fear of the brown man that you'd throw away due process for some artificial sensation of safety?

Here's a hypothetical situation. Let us assume that you had a female companion, and let us also assume that the relationship went sour and ended with a large amount of raised voices and acrimony after one particular night of kinky sex.

Let us further assume that this woman is so pissed at being unceremoniously dumped that she goes to the police and claims you raped her in your last encounter. She has physical evidence to support her claim: lubrication, perhaps genetic material. If you were particularly frisky, she may even have some bruises on the arms. If she were particularly evil, she may get some additional bruises from a sympathetic third party with which to railroad you.

At this point, by your reckoning, you're a criminal suspect and therefore have no rights against unreasonable search and seizure. Your rights are forfeit. Police can, at any time, enter your home, your vehicle, your place of work seeking evidence to support this woman's claim against you and take any and all physical evidence they feel is of import... perhaps you took pictures of this woman and had them on a CD: They take your computer, your CDs, and your camera. They don't need to tell you that they're there or even that they've BEEN there; as far as you know, you've been robbed. If they have 'resonable suspicions' that you conspired with other people to perform this 'crime', they can tap all of your phones, and move that tap to your place of work (roving wire taps).

All this is entirely within the realm of possibility of these laws as written. The USA PATRIOT act enshrines in law the de facto presumption of guilt, and gives law enforcement, everyday, average law enforcement, the tools to fulfill that presumption.

Indeed. I believe in innocence until guilt is proven. Pity that you feel that criminal suspects don't deserve any rights. You'd best hope you never 'fit the description' of a perpetrator in the future... you might just find yourself on the shit-end of the scenarios you currently applaud.

Worse is when the gov't starts producing propoganda in the guise of actual news stories:

http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showthread.php?t=443711

Perhaps a more pertinent example would be to substitute 'left handed' with 'black' and 'kill' with 'deny the right to vote'.

The 50.1% majority should not be allowed to dictate absolutely to the 49.9% minority. Letting the tyrrany of the majority have unfettered power would leave women without the vote and black people still as property to their owners, forget about them going to the same school or riding on the same bus.

I have read it more than once and have followed all hearings held that involves the Patriot Act...and you are mis-representing the Patriot Act.


No...I have not doged anything...only in your mind.


It most definitely has not "curtailed" the protections of the 4th amendment. It has altered the 4th to some extent. Permission of the Courts are still required to enforce provisions of the Patriot Act

Cute...but only in your mind.

I did not "try to float the canard in the other post that these things would be 'sunset'. Another mis-representation by you. FYI...historically it is repeatedly been proven that the Justices of the Supreme court are not at all predictable.


FYI...the presumption of innocence is a legal term and only applies with in a court. I do not fear any man...and/or any organization. My life has been at risk far to many times to be very fearful of anything. The Patriot Act does not eliminate due process...but in some instances may change the known definition of due process. FYI...the world is in flux...the interpretation of the Constitution has always been in flux and the Constitution was not wrttten in stone...thus the power to admend.



Your senario is not applicable and is more than ridiculous and is a mis-representation of the use of the Patriot Act. It will be government agents that seek the enforcement of the Patriot Act...after having received the permission of a Federal Judge.

This is the end to any further intercourse with you about the Patriot Act as you are now just using rhetorical BS.

anyone whos now STILL pro bush is a fucking retard. End of discussion.

Name one element of my interpretations of the patriot act that are 'misrepresentations'.

- Are only 'special officers' entitled to use these new powers (as you claim), or are they available to all law enforcement officers?

- Are police now, or are they not, allowed to enter your place of work, residence, or other property without requirement to disclose their presence as clearly defined in section 213 of the USA PATRIOT act?

You clearly find my perspective on this 'misleading', based on... what, exactly? The fact that you don't agree?

You dodged a direct question in the prior thread, and you mealy-mouthed a response in this one. Here's the correct way to answer a yes or no question: "Yes", or "No". You are permitted to add 'sir' afterwards.

The question is, paraphrased for simplicity:

"Do you believe that rights have been lost during this administration?"

The 'alterations' have given the police the ability to invade your property and take your shit and not even tell you why or tell you why they're doing it. Being presented with a warrant at time of search and seizure was one right you were afforded by the fourth amendment and centuries of case law that has now been removed.

"Altered" looks, flies and quacks like a duck called 'curtailed' in this instance.

Quoth you, in the other thread:

You claim to have read the act. If so, then you would have known that section 213 was NOT part of the sunset provisions and precisely the point at issue here. Thus, it was a canard, a straw man argument that served no purpose but to distract from the main point.

As to the 'neverending stream of right wingers' comment, that was in reference to the people Bush will likely nominate, following HIS established pattern of behaviour.

If you had no fear of terrorists and/or criminals, you would see no need to change the laws. Fear underlies the entire structure of this administration, and fear is often the root cause for many of those that support it (with greed rounding up the rest).

I'm not without fear, but I fear far more an increasingly reckless and totalitarian state than disgruntled brown people.

It is absolutely applicable, although obviously highly contrived. These provisions are available to any law enforcement agent at any time for any crime, NOT LIMITED TO FEDERAL AGENTS. Where do you get the idea that there's limits on this to only federal agents? Wherever it's from, that source is in error.

Quoth DIRECTLY from the section itself:

Show me one part in there where it limits these powers, which directly amend the UCC, only to federal agencies.

The rhetorics are purely for illustrative purposes, and I challenge you to find a single aspect of the act that would deny its plausability.

I do not talk out of my ass on these matters, sir. I bother to inform myself and arm myself to the teeth with all available information before posting on elements of fact and public record. The pure fact is that section 213 allows police, as defined clearly above, to enter and procure property without informing you why, where or when.

The USA PATRIOT act has converted a right, enshrined into the UCC, to be exempt from police wandering through your house into a privilage to be revoked at any time on any suspicion by any law enforcement branch, dependant on the attitude of a judge at a given point in time. In fact, if they can get a federal judge to rubberstamp things, that judge need not even be in physical proximity of you (section 219). Perhaps this is the source of your belief that only federal forces have these extended abilities... 219 doesn't limit the scope of the act only to federals, it extends the ability of federals to act without geographical limitation IN ADDITION to giving local law enforcement those extra abilities (such as 213).

The Patriot Act is a federal act/law and as Federal law its provisions are enacted upon and enforced by Federal Agents...not city...county...state agents. Please...specifically show me where it states that city...county and state agents can enact provisions of the Patriot Act for local criminal or "terrorist" investigations. BTW it is not Federal Judges that rubberstamp city...county...state agents investigations...it is state superior court judges that do so.

if you really cared about your country and your freedom, 'hoss', and were anything more than an ignorant redneck you'd hate this administration more than I do.

Rick, remind me to buy you a hooker next time you're in Vegas. I don't have the patience to explain things to these unibrows anymore, I just call them names, but it's good to know someone is taking up the slack.

Dubya is the DICKTATOR to end all.

`(b) DELAY- With respect to the issuance of any warrant or court order under this section, or any other rule of law, to search for and seize any property or material that constitutes evidence of a criminal offense in violation of the laws of the United States, any notice required, or that may be required, to be given may be delayed if--

If you are going to use laws of the United States...this refers to Federal Laws as Federal Laws are the only Laws that are Laws of the United States. Other laws are not laws of the United States...they are city...county...and state laws and are often unique to the different cities...counties...and states.

FYI...Danny boy...I do not approve of the majority of the policies of this administration. Do I hate this administration...no...do I find fault with it more than other administrations in my life time...possibly...but it has been my experience that every administration has fallen short of pleasing me...but then again that is not their job to please me...or you.

shut the fuck up and go put some more baby powder on that sloping forehead, redneck. It's glowing. All you ever do on this board is post in support of your beloved leader GWB. That rugged self made man.

Pig shit...Danny boy...but that is SOP for you.

Bush think he's the most powerful man in the world. After his term he'll just end-up being a porn addict. lol

Rush Limbaugh says so is about as far as you're going to get with this guy, don't waste your breath.

amen, Fletch XXX!

i have friends who used to get out there, talk to people, talk to their representitives, and do things. now they talk on the internet to each other, sign online petitions, and feel that they have been heard. and as it is normal for people who have vented to feel calmer, they are no longer angry enough to do anything.

unfortunately the only people who here them are the people who already agree with them...

Its actually really comical that the self proclaimed democrats and this one far right wingnut from canada have no idea what the core values of the democratic party are.



I guess the new democratic party wants the government to have less control over the private citizens. To be honest, a lot of them actually understand that, thats why they vote for republicans.



Somebody say examples:

Lets get in the way back machine and visit last week.

Liberals on Supreme Court decide against the constitution that government can take your private property to distribute to other private owners with higher tax revenue potentional


Democrat politican proposes 25% tax on porn.

Even some idiot on GFY is still proposing universal healthcare. Thats not big government. That creates less beurocracy in the healthcare decision making process. LOL

First of all Go Fuck Yourself.

Second, universal healthcare would cut the current beauracracy in half, and that's a FACT. SEVERAL different studies have all shown this to be the case.

Doctors wouldn't have to collect payment from 20+ insurance companies, they would collect payment from one place. It would be a big load off the shoulders of employers etc etc.

PLUS, add to that the fact that medicare and medicaid spend far less on overhead and administration than the average HMO, and have less doctor and patient fraud.

Your sir, have been misinformed.