Are you choosing to be obtuse or does it come naturally? What you said about your desire to have centralized power in the government is in opposition to the founding principles of this country - the US Constitution. In fact, it is authoritarian and has little to do with any American values.

It's not all that difficult of a concept, but it eludes you.

What a joke your reaction is. Take a deep breath, calm down. Methinks... LMAO!

No, it's evidence that this case could be dealt with without the Patriot Act, and nothing more.

Do you honestly believe that not using the Patriot Act to arrest and charge some whiney 16 year old kid is sufficient justification for abolishing the Act?

That's too fuckin' funny. Thanks for the early afternoon laugh...

__________________



For those who have fought to defend it, freedom has a taste the protected will never know...



If it wasn't for double standards, liberals would have no standards at all...

I'll tell you, only as soon as you tell me whether you preffer raping your mother or your sister.

(Seriously, i hate arguing logical fallicies and God help me i'm not gonna start with you).

Maybe you could try a concept yourself, of replying to what has been written...not what you then want to bring in to the topic like a rolling snowball that just adds more issues to it as and when you feel like it.

Nobody has been arguing about values or the founding fathers; stick to the point at hand.

What reaction? All i'm telling you to do is stop creating arguments and then debating them yourself. I don't care what the pro's and cons are of arguments you have made up. (whether they be about the constitution, American values or anything else). Try rebutting points that have been made, not ones that you make up.

Perfectly calm, if not somewhat bored by your ridiculous antics.

__________________
The George W Bush Store:

http://georgewbushstore.com/

No; it's more like further evidence that all these complaints about the Patriot Act are based on unsubstantiated hype. The added power it grants the government is minimal, so there’s no reason to not to have it.

__________________
“Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests.” - Lord Palmerston

It grants the government HUGE power .... warrantless searches? Where's the balance of power there? Where's the limitation of power?

I'm not saying each and every last provision contained in the patriot act is bad. Clearly the provisions that allow federal agencies to share information are a boon to security and don't really infringe upon our rights, because the information is already in the government's hands, its just a matter of one hand knowing what the other hand is doing. But the violations of the 4th amendment that occur in the patriot act are anti-american and unconstitutional and therefore should be struck down.

I would have loved to see the outrage if the patriot act restricted gun ownership. Sadly, the people who are on the right side of the issue of the 2nd amendment don't see the bigger picture and don't think the 4th amendment is worth protecting. 2nd amendment? "I'm gonna fight to the death to protect my right to bear arms". 4th amendment? "Meh, .... ok you can take that one away". WTF?

Like I said, hype and mistaken attribution. The government had the authority to conduct warrantless searches long before the Patriot Act was passed; expressly since at least the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, and implicitly before that. Where was the outrage and concern when details of Clinton’s Echelon program emerged?

__________________
“Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests.” - Lord Palmerston

The point being that your "I'd rather not walk around with a target on my back" (or that quote's equivalent) is bullshit.http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/1380390-post48.html

I see they expanded the list since then.

filming US, Israeli, and Australian embassies and conducting surveillance of US warships.



And when are you going to show that the PA was responsible for these?Well, for example, the freedom to not be put away forever without a trial because some asshole had a hunch about me. That kind of thing. I know, totally worthless, huh? Terrorists have no legal power to do anything more to me. The government does. Is that better?

… as was your point about conservatives being knee-jerking pussies.

Actually, he was sentenced to life for plotting to attack on federal agents in New Jersey.

Just as soon as I get unrestricted access to all evidence found in those investigations. In the meantime, feel free to post proof that the PA played no role in any of those plots.

You’re an alien???

You’d better finish your naturalization process quick, before you end up in one of those labor camps you promoted.

No; just because terrorists have no legal power doesn’t mean they have no power.

__________________
“Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests.” - Lord Palmerston

I disagree. I accept your concession, though.Your link just says he plead guilty to filming/surveillance.

The overall point is that those people appear to have been stopped by things that existed before PA, like passengers.Oh, I see. So we should let the government do whatever it wants, keep it a secret, and only oppose it when we somehow prove that they were wrong (despite the fact that aforementioned info is a secret). Hmmm...so if they started killing people randomly without a trial (but we didn't know that it was random), and said it was for national security, and kept the related data a secret, you'd just accept it since you have no access to information proving it is not for national security? Would they even bother finding out? It's not like there will be a trial.

In any case, would it be okay to put non-citizens away without a trial? Even legal ones?Well, given that PA a legal matter, it then would follow that it does not alter the terrorists' power.

Well, look at that. You actually recognized one. There is some hope that functioning neurons are present.

YOU typed it, I'm arguing it. Neither conservatives nor many liberals desire a centralized power in government - it's unconstitutional and contrary to our founding principles. YOU typed it, dude. Deal with it. It is an authoritarian attitude that has nothing to do with American values.

As your memory is lapsing, once again YOUR admitted authoritarian and un-American words: I know few, if any, Americans who advocate such authoritarian attitudes.

Here, YOU presume to speak for conservatives where you advocate centralized power in government. Don't presume to speak for conservatives, and certainly I can't imagine any liberals who would go for it either. You're an embarrassment to conservatives and I am pretty sure no liberal would claim you, either. That pretty much covers most sane Americans.




Now, grow up. You don't want your authoritarian desires and centralized power in government fantasies challenged, don't type them.

My God, its like dealing with a child.

I don't think there are in your case, seeing as you've just gone and made yet another post of the same babbling horsehit.

That's the first time you've challenged it as such, before you kept on saying shit like this:

You've gone off on tangents about the constitution, founding fathers and various other things, which you are clueless about and just rebutted, as if somebody else had made the argument.


My un-American words? Says the terror loving coward who won't support the Patriot act. (Seriously, if we're gonna start generalizing and calling each other names, i'm gonna enjoy this, given your unpatriotic outbursts finally seem to have a comedic value in which they fit).

Anyhow, where did i ever doubt those words? All i ever doubted was the shit you made up and claimed were my words....(like saying conservatives like the Patriot act).

Strange isn't it, that through my entire posts i have never said that.

Man, you know few things at all, if anything...don't be modest when talking about your short-comings in life.

The question was asked to me as to why conservatives seem to support the Patriot act, i gave my response...but finally you actually make a point in relevance to something i've said.

Still doesn't include you, you're certainly not sane, and if you are, you're not very smart. At least the mental disabilities would explain the lack of capacity in the brain in yor case.

As for speaking for conservatives, well if you don't see me as one then *shrug*, makes no odds to me. You can keep pissing up a rope for all i care.

The thing is, i don't type them, and yet you challenge them anyway...so this whole excercise seems somewhat futile. You can just keep making up arguments and shit that you allege other people say, and then beat the shit out of the argument in the most preposterous, pompous, disengenuous way, like you have in this entire thread.

__________________
The George W Bush Store:

http://georgewbushstore.com/

Of course you do, you're a disagreeable fellow. There are other sources available for of the plots listed, I'm sure.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...803766_pf.html

Not enough of them, which is why it was passed in the first place.

How does any of this idiocy relate to the topic?

Of course, they’re required to find out if you’re a citizen to know if they have the authority under the Patriot Act in the first place. In the extremely unlikely event that they were to have detained a citizen illegally, it would certainly come out during one of the mandatory reviews. Just because they haven’t had a trial doesn’t mean they have no access to the legal system.

I personally don’t have a problem with suspected terrorists who are here on Visas being treated this way. Don’t worry; they still have it far better than they would in one of Slon’s forced labor camps.

It provides law enforcement with tools to combat terrorism, so obviously impacts terrorists’ power.

__________________
“Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests.” - Lord Palmerston

You mean he was that pissed off after they imprisoned him for taking pictures? Must be because he's a killer. No regular person would be angry about being imprisoned for taking pictures. So when you posted the "27 attacks," you were not using it to try and justify the PA by showing that it does something?Well, you admit that you have no evidence that the PA is effective. Nonetheless, you support this trampling of rights. The only point at which you would consider getting rid of the act (supposedly) is if I provide evidence that it is ineffective, information which is presumably a secret.

So if the government started killing people (trampling their rights), you'd just accept it until it is proven that it is ineffective at protecting national security?Slon's labor camps would require an actual trial before placing anyone there.

In any case, why do you think they can only detain non-citizens like that? What about Jose Padilla? Or is that an unrelated law?But as usual, you don't know how, but it must anyway, right?

Every “regular person” trained in al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan and worked with Khalid Sheik Mohammed and Hambali. Why, he’s the real Joe Six-pack!

Yes, of course; 27 separate attacks have been thwarted since the PA was enacted. What’s your point?

I have over two dozen terrorist attacks that were stopped since it was enacted, more than enough evidence as to its effectiveness. You have yet to demonstrate a right that has been trampled in the process.

Show me where the PA allows killing people.

Oh, so now you think every illegal alien deserves his day in court before we can touch them? What a difference a couple of months make. Apparently your compassion comes and goes according to how poorly your current argument is fairing.

I think they can only detain non-citizens under the PA because that’s what the law states. Jose Padilla was held as an enemy combatant; that’s something entirely unrelated.

__________________
“Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests.” - Lord Palmerston

We should just start imprisoning people for associating with undesirables. Then when they disagree with their imprisonment, we can say, "there, see what he did?" So it is your assumption that correlation = causation? If so, are you saying that no attacks have been prevented prior to PA?

Ah yes, I can see it now:

Reid, a British citizen of Anglo-Jamaican heritage who converted to Islam in prison, hid explosives inside the soles of his shoes before boarding American Airlines Flight 63 from Paris to Miami. He was apprehended on board by flight attendants and passengers after trying to light the fuse with a match.

Patriot Act secret agent flight attendants and passengers!I disagree. I think my taking a dump sometime around 2001 caused those attacks to be stopped. You see, my shit lingers and it has that effect on terror plots.

Also, demonstrate what? Didn't you already agree with me?

"I think they can only detain non-citizens under the PA because that’s what the law states"I didn't say PA allows killing people. I'm just trying to figure out if you honestly believe the government should be allowed to trample on people's rights based on hunches (or less) and without any trials or much disclosure.What difference?

People should also not be deported/imprisoned unless proven to be illegal immigrantsSo they don't even need the PA to throw innocent people in prison forever? They just need an official government accusation (made secretly, of course) of being an "enemy combatant"?

In any case, yes, even non-citizens deserve their day in court if the government accuses them. Many non-citizens are here legally, by the way.