But hey, what's the concern? If you're not doing anything wrong, that is, if you're in full compliance, then you have nothing to fear, right?
His supporters are some of the dumbest, disgusting and most reviling creatures second only to the ragheads in the middle-east. The dumb vile creatures will deal with this information in 2 primary ways. 1) you will be labelled a "liberal" . For these unfortunate brainwashed mental midgets, any comments, information or thought coming from somone labelled as "liberal" is to be disregarded. The content itself of the argument be damned. You are a "liberal" and that is all there is to it. Therefore everything you comment on is irrelevant. 2) If they fail to peg you as as "liberal", then they will move on to the source of your information and label that with an even broader brush of being a "liberal commie pinko" news source. Forget the fact that 90% of the media is owned by the largest political contributors to the neocon party. Note I make a distinction with the Republican party. The real Republican party of Ronald Reagan is in existence in name only. I suspect poor Ronnie is rolling in his grave right now. His shining city atop the hill is losing it's luster at an alarming rate. Thanks to an infestation of vile, un-washed illiterate inbreeds crawling out of the darkest recesses of the South. Quote from Hydroblunt: http://www.eff.org/Censorship/Terrorism_militias/patriot-act-II-analysis.php Congrats to the Bush voters, nice job.
Uhm no, cause they do not need a valid reason to detain you. In fact if you use that skill called "reading" which should have been taught very early on in your life, you would see that under Patriot II any joe shmoe can call up and call you a terrorist and you'll be arrested without any real reason. Once released, you get a "tough shit, better luck next time" and thats it. No repercussion whatsoever. The Patriot Act II also promotes businesses becoming snitches and reporting every transation at the first request of the government. Warrants are no longer needed, just some government police officer calling the shorts. In case you do not get it, you do not even know if you're doing smth wrong cause no reasonable judge or jury is deciding any of it. Overall, seems like a much more sophisticated form of Stalinism, quite clever I must say. Somehow judging from the lacking ability to even read the Act by members of this site, I have a feeling it will pass with little problem.
yes, a bit sarcastic.... these people using ultra-extreme scare tactics as a stalking horse? never. http://www.thememoryhole.org/policestate/iao-logo.htm http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/012703B.us.nuke.htm http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames?bid=3&pid=176
Funny that you mention 'labeling' of political personalities. Did you ever notice that on those 'neocon owned media sources', conservatives will be labeled as conservatives, but most liberals are not? Why do you think that is? For exactly as you described in #1 above - once a person is labeled, others listen to what that person has to say with a bias of "oh, he's a xxxxx, so I guess he's got an agenda, so I guess I really won't listen to what he's got to say" . It's especially bad when 2 are debating - the conservative - while truly being of a conservative mind - will be 'labeled'. Fine. But more than half of the time, if the conservative is labeled, the admittedly liberal minded won't be... If you don't believe me, just watch some regular broadcast tv. You'll see... I believe that your whole theory about the media's backing of conservative values will be shot down if you do. It's like others have said, they are out to make a buck, I agree. And so they will definitely go after liberal INDIVIDUALS if it can sell more papers. Al Gore comes to mind here. But watch closely, the liberal AGENDA will never be attacked....
Wow... I don't normally get involved in the political rantings on this site, but I really just have to ask a question... What is the liberal agenda? Clean up the environment. Promote understanding and acceptance between different socio/economic classes. Decrease private ownership of military grade automatic weapons. Offer healthcare to the citzenry. Allow people to live their lives the way they choose and only come down on them when their choices directly impact another in a negative way. Hmmmm... sounds like a really bad party. They should be stopped! I just want somone to really explain to me what is bad about being a liberal without referencing Clinton screwing around or the fact that we are all a bunch of gay loving soldier haters. Really come back with why the things a liberal stands for are bad. Real reasons. I'm just curious.
In one sentence: "You are with us, or you are with the terrorists." Liberals dare to question authority, the current right wing neocon authority especially....in this case that authority is the mixture of religious special interests combined with very wealthy and very powerful.....brought to you and funded by corporate America, of course.
If youâre not a terrorist,don't worry Feb 6, 2006 by Armstrong Williams âSo to prevent another attack based on authority given to me by the Constitution and by statute, I have authorized a terrorist surveillance program to aggressively pursue the international communications of suspected al-Qaeda operatives and affiliates to and from America.â --President George W. Bush, 2006 State of the Union Do you want to prevent terrorists from launching another attack on U.S. soil? Then you had better get used to the idea of the government spying on people who have contact with al-Qaeda. Because that is what it is going to take to win this war. We live in an information age. If we donât engage in wiretapping of individuals who have known associations with terrorist organizations, then we will not be able to prevent the next attack. The President understands this. That is why he authorized a domestic eavesdropping program after September 11, 2001. So far the plan has been integral to the war on terror. Since President Bush began the surveillance program, we have intercepted plots to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge, to smuggle missiles into the United States, and to detonate a fertilizer bomb in London. This plan has saved thousands of lives. And letâs not forget that Bin Laden just released another video. Members of al-Qaeda still spend their days trying to invent new ways to kill Americans. We are still in the middle of a war. Spying on your enemies is a part of every war. Predictably, the ACLU doesnât get that. The ACLU has been foaming at the mouth over the alleged invasion of civil liberties. But do you think the ACLU is going to win this war for you? Besides, itâs hard to exercise your civil rights when a nuclear bomb detonates in your backyard. Someone really needs to send a memo to the ACLU that leading a national hubbub over the Presidentâs terrorist surveillance program is only helping the terrorists. As CIA Director Porter Goss recently explained, the public disclosure of the surveillance program has greatly inhibited the ability of the NSA to track terrorist communications. "The damage has been very severe to our capabilities to carry out our mission," Goss said. Someone should also inform the ACLU that the President is acting well within the powers granted to him by the Constitution. As the Supreme Court observed in the watershed case, US v Curtis Wright Corp., the President necessarily possesses broad powers in the protection of national security, including a power to formulate foreign policy. This is because âthe President alone has the power to speak or listen as a representative of our country.â The President alone has intelligence information about national security issues that is generally unavailable to Congress. The President must be free to exercise the âexecutive powerâ granted to him by the Constitution if he is to act as this countryâs protector when national security requires it. Incidentally, that is why Congress passed legislation following September 11 that gave the President the specific power to eavesdrop on calls that suspected al Qaeda operatives are making to the United States. Letâs not forget that there has not been a single terrorist attack on US soil since this administration began taking it to the terrorists in earnest. The terrorist surveillance program is a crucial instrument for protecting the nation against another 9/11 style attack. FBI Director Robert Mueller said that leads generated from the program had been "valuable in identifying would-be terrorists in the United States." This is the means by which we might be able to foresee the next 9/11. Think about that. Just one more thing: the only phone calls theyâre monitoring are ones from people with known terrorist associations. As General Michael Hayden, the deputy director of national intelligence has explained, "this is targeted and focused. This is not about intercepting conversations between people in the United States. This is hot pursuit of communications entering or leaving America involving someone we believe is associated with al Qaeda." So if youâre not chit chatting with people whose sole purpose is to kill Americans, then you donât have anything to worry about.
In a sentence, the predominant thinking and rationalization of all actions of the right wing: "The end justifies the means." Who needs rule of law anyway.... Strawman arguments.