oldsaw wrote: ftfy.............. It's Iggy up to his old tricks. If the Patriot Act was/is such a bad idea (and it is) then his idol would have abolished it.
Just reason #540 why he's a letdown. Idol though, Hardly.. You're just pissed he's going to be reelected, and the last great conservative push in the country is going fizzle out.. Gilded Age 2 has died, and now for progressive age 2. Where's the next TR when you need him...
I blame all Presidents in the modern era for this issue. While all this started under Bush's watch it's continuing under Obama. I'm not pleased with that. I was hoping he would reinstate sanity for privacy in this country. So far, he hasn't.
Which gives the conspiracy theorist in me a louder voice than I'd like.
Sorry for your plight Pork's Boy. The no fly list is just more security theater imo.
Oldsaw does bring up a good point that we don't know the FBI's side of the story. But there is so much that is kept from us I'm suspect of them as well. Again my opinion here - I think many things are kept secret for expediency and to avoid embarrassment more than security. The gov't hides behind this terrorism boogeyman too much. They also use it to justify many actions or to remove liberties.
Sorry to rile you guys with this post. I do this because one day I'd like to get on a plan without having to jump through a flaming hoop to prove I don't worship Allah. Because you know gubment representatives, read royalty, don't have to.
huge-O-chavez wrote: You're just pissed he's going to be reelected, and the last great conservative push in the country is going fizzle out..
The election is still two years away. As for conservatism, in fiscal matters I'm a proponent. On social issues, not nearly so much.
Gilded Age 2 has died, and now for progressive age 2.
Pendulum-swings for both only prove failures for both. Considering the expanding costs of "progressive" programs, progressives will need more than two attempts to get it right.
Where's the next TR when you need him...
Props to TR. He knew how to mobilize the military, fight a war and conduct foreign policy.
Xceler8x wrote: Sorry to rile you guys with this post. I do this because one day I'd like to get on a plan without having to jump through a flaming hoop to prove I don't worship Allah.
Perfect opportunity for the TSA to staff with scantily clad young ladies serving alcohol as part of the screening process !
huge-O-chavez wrote: YAY for the patriot act... I mean. It has the word patriot in it right? How bad could it be.. Good job people who voted for Bush.
It is my understanding that the "patriot" act had been written for several years( Billy was in office) before it was enacted.
oldsaw wrote: The election is still two years away. As for conservatism, in fiscal matters I'm a proponent. On social issues, not nearly so much.
I hate this idea that socially conservative now stands for conservative Christian.
I am socially conservative in the fact that a person's business is their own. They have a right to legally/financially spend their lives with whomever they want, be it a man/man or woman/woman. Same with things such as abortions, it is a woman's body and her choice to do with it what she wants.
The liberal view point extends to creating laws that establish these as legal, looking at it conservatively, the government shouldn't need to establish these laws, it is part of a persons individual freedoms and privacy rights.
pilotbraden wrote:huge-O-chavez wrote: YAY for the patriot act... I mean. It has the word patriot in it right? How bad could it be.. Good job people who voted for Bush.It is my understanding that the "patriot" act had been written for several years( Billy was in office) before it was enacted.
Indeed: http://www.globalissues.org/article/342/the-usa-patriot-act-was-planned-before-911
From the article: James X. Dempsey and David Cole state in their book, "Terrorism & the Constitution: Sacrificing Civil Liberties in the Name of National Security," that the most troubling provisions of the pre-USAPA anti-terrorism laws, enacted in 1996 and expanded now by the USAPA, "were developed long before the bombings that triggered their final enactment." Dempsey is the former assistant counsel to the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights and Deputy Director at the Center for Democracy & Technology, and Cole is professor of law at Georgetown University and an attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights. Looking back at the 1996 Antiterrorism Act, Dempsey and Cole declare that "the much-touted gains in law enforcement powers" under that Act, "produced no visible concrete results in the fight against terrorism." They add that the principles espoused in the Act "were shown in case after case to be both unconstitutional and ineffective in the fight against terrorism." And importantly, the authors comment that the United States government has not shown that the expanded powers it has asserted in the USAPA are necessary to fight terrorism. Dempsey and Cole trace the origins of the national security trend back to the "intolerant approaches of the 1950s," when association with Communist or anarchist groups was made a ground for exclusion and deportation. Congress removed the guilt by association law in 1990, but it was revived only six years later by law enforcement proponents in the 1996 Antiterrorism Act, immediately following the Oklahoma City Bombing. More specifically, however, Dempsey and Cole show that it was the Reagan Administration which initially proposed some of the most troubling provisions which eventually became part of the USAPA. When Reagan proposed these provisions, Congress rejected them on constitutional grounds. The first Bush Administration then made similar proposals, which were again rejected by lawmakers. Congress twice refused to enact the secret evidence provisions proposed by Bush I. (Indeed, just prior to 9/11, Congress was about to pass a law repealing the secret evidence provisions of the 1996 Antiterrorism Act.)
Elements of the law date back to the Reagan administration but were never implemented. The Clinton administration was more successful......
oldsaw wrote: Elements of the law date back to the Reagan administration but were never implemented. The Clinton administration was more successful......
Disturbing to say the least. This says to me that this policy is being pushed by much more than the whichever President is in office. Therefore there is a much larger element of our government behind this. The Pres, in this case, was just a figure head and means to an end.
Somewhere, someone on our own side doesn't want us to be free.
it's hard to control free people. Also hard to control educated people. And hard to control healthy people..
this is why none of the above in this country are very good. They want us poor, oppressed, uneducated, and sick. That way we will not worry about the bigger picture
Wait just a minute buster, EVERYTHING is Bush's fault. You just need to adjust your facts a bit
Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, etc, etc, etc. how far back do you want to cast blame?
mad_machine wrote: Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, etc, etc, etc. how far back do you want to cast blame?
Garfield.. the president, not the cat..
why? why not?
oldsaw wrote: Props to TR. He knew how to mobilize the military, fight a war and conduct foreign policy.
I love the man. If we had more republicans like him I'd vote for em. Break the trusts, destroy corruption and fight hard for conservation. Also to make sure that regulations are in place to protect all, equally and fairly.
You're obviously trolling on the foreign policy stuff.
Interesting stuff about him and the military, the death of his son Quentin though. What is most interesting about him personally is the way he was brought up, his father and family and then were he ended up... He broke the mold socio-economic in his day, but in the end went back to kind of embody a buygone era.
mad_machine wrote: Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, etc, etc, etc. how far back do you want to cast blame?
Johnson is good for me. Created the Gulf of Tonkin incident to start his war.
oldsaw wrote: Elements of the law date back to the Reagan administration but were never implemented. The Clinton administration was more successful......
Actually that article says elements of the law go back to the 50's.. Which I guess I could buy..
You guys are correct, that Bush was just the figurehead in charge when this happened, so he gets the blame.
huge-O-chavez wrote:oldsaw wrote: Props to TR. He knew how to mobilize the military, fight a war and conduct foreign policy.I love the man. If we had more republicans like him I'd vote for em. Break the trusts, destroy corruption and fight hard for conservation. Also to make sure that regulations are in place to protect all, equally and fairly.
If there were more Republicans like TR, I'd vote for them, too. Maybe even if they were Democrats. But times have changed and so have our politicians. You keep pointing out that times are a changin' and that all the old farts just have to accept it, then you lament that we don't have people who emulate a man who died over 90yrs ago. You funny........
You're obviously trolling on the foreign policy stuff.
You funny, again.
It takes one to know one, doesen't it?
Interesting stuff about him and the military, the death of his son Quentin though. What is most interesting about him personally is the way he was brought up, his father and family and then were he ended up... He broke the mold socio-economic in his day, but in the end went back to kind of embody a buygone era.
The man certainly had guts and style, a man's man if there ever was one.
oldsaw wrote:huge-O-chavez wrote: You're obviously trolling on the foreign policy stuff.You funny, again.
I got 1st round when we meet.
oldsaw wrote: I think that article raises as many questions about the "victim" as it does about the no-fly list.
I just ran across this thread on an old tab I had open, and I just need to say...
Really? Seriously? Raises questions? Wow.
mad_machine wrote: Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, etc, etc, etc. how far back do you want to cast blame?
FDR. Not everything, but a helluva lot of blame can be laid at the feet of FDR.
You'll need to log in to post.
