quote:

---

And another question - Why do you hate our freedom?

---

Who are you talking to?
 

---

Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
 
Methinks Danzig is being facetious.
 

---

Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
 
ae. Why would someone question a law that was passed to preserve democracy? To preserve freedom itself?

edit: or what he said.

[ January 06, 2004, 07:38 PM: Message edited by: Danzig ]
 

---

Posted by T_Smith (Member # 3734) on :
 
Ah, gotcha.
 

---

Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
 
In a fit of rage one day, I personally added the Hatrack forums to the FBI website watch list. It was a dumb thing to do, and I regret it now, but because of it I'm no longer able to take part in any political discussions where I may have any disagreement with the government. In case they're reading now, this is because there is no facet of life in which I disagree with the government, and I abhor all who do. Honest. Oh, and I added Ornery, too. I now make all my political arguments at frescopix, under an assumed name.

--Pop
 

---

Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
 
Glad to hear you are a true patriot, Moose, but will those traitors who "disagree" be willing to withhold support from those who passed this bill, and the person who signed it into law?
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
Fortunately, due to the new social rules, we are all government informers. I may not have a direct pipeline to God, but I have the next best thing...Ashcroft's e-mail address.

it's hitlerwasright@doj.gov
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
I'm just tired, to be honest. The kind of drooling idiot who still supports the Bush administration is apparently immune to logical argument; they genuinely don't CARE about the restriction of civil liberty, or the abuse of the legislative process, as long as it's their man -- a southern Christian in the pocket of big business -- doing it.

[ January 06, 2004, 09:53 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
 

---

Posted by Human (Member # 2985) on :
 
I swear to God, I am not going to be surprised if I wake up one day and find out that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights have been made totally useless. Not surprised one whit.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
Tom, don't you know that no 'rational person' could ever find anything wrong with Bush?
 

---

Posted by Toretha (Member # 2233) on :
 
Dude, Jon, it's already happened. WE just don't realize it yet. And it isn't really Bush, he's just the idiot the FBI are using until they're ready to completely take over the US and turn it into a police state. We don't really have any rights left, they're just holding back all info on that legislation until they're fully ready to take over
 

---

Posted by Starla* (Member # 5835) on :
 
Oh dear divine forces....

This is great. Now the feds can look and see what I spend my hard earned cash on.

Hell, I could get arrested for buying gas at the "wrong" station (though my little red volkswagen doesn't use as much as Their big SUVs), or patronizing the "wrong" store, 'cause I was funding a terrorist.

That money in the matress idea starting to sound real good about now...
 

---

Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
 
Does anyone know if the text of the bill is published online somewhere? I can't find it on the congress webpage.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Wow, a Godwin Rule in 9 posts and a knee-jerk attack on the intelligence of those who disagree in 12. This thread beats all records.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
The great thing about Dagonee is that you can always count on him to attack people who take positions he dislikes, without ever actually addressing the position itself.
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
Look, we need to move on to the next issue, which is to fight them from putting Ashcroft-cams up our rears in order to enforce the anti-gay Constitutional Amendment.
 

---

Posted by Starla* (Member # 5835) on :
 

 

---

Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
 
So, then what did you do Tom?
 

---

Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
 
Erratum: It was misleading to say that Patriot II has been passed. Rather, a key part of it was passed, incorporated into a different bill.
 

---

Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
 
Come on, guys. I think we can trust the government not to abuse power. I mean, how useful is a system of checks and balances, anyway?

Checks and balances never stopped a terrorist, I can tell you that. If we just tagged A-rabs like we do cattle, this whole 9-11 thing could've been avoided.
 

---

Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
 
The only chance of getting this stuff removed is by having it challenged in court. The supreme court may choose to defend the constitution one of these days.
 

---

Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
 
Well, and impeaching Bush, electing fewer Republicans, maybe raising the national IQ a few dozen points... Not to be redundant...
 

---

Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
 
Facetiousness aside, what's everyone doing about this? Is anyone writing to their reps or whatever? I would, except for, y'know, living in Singapore and all.
 

---

Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
 

quote:

---

electing fewer Republicans

---

Then we just shift the crimes from restriction of privacy to a restriction of freedom of association and confiscatory taxes. Neither Rep.s nor Dem.s have a care for the constitution as it was written.

(edited for spelling)

[ January 07, 2004, 09:30 AM: Message edited by: Robespierre ]
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Geez.

Talk about judgemental.

You're all bad Christians, and I'm in support of taking away your children.


 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"The supreme court may choose to defend the constitution one of these days."

Won't happen, I'm afraid. The Supreme Court's partisanship is one of the bigger threats to the Constitution out there, and NONE of the presidential candidates currently address this danger.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

TomDavidson said:
I'm just tired, to be honest. The kind of drooling idiot who still supports the Bush administration is apparently immune to logical argument; they genuinely don't CARE about the restriction of civil liberty, or the abuse of the legislative process, as long as it's their man -- a southern Christian in the pocket of big business -- doing it.

---

quote:

---

TomDavidson said:
The great thing about Dagonee is that you can always count on him to attack people who take positions he dislikes, without ever actually addressing the position itself.

---

quote:

---

The Supreme Court's partisanship is one of the bigger threats to the Constitution out there, and NONE of the presidential candidates currently address this danger.

---

I am in agreement with this sentiment. This is why the electoral weakness of the democrats bothers me so much. If the dems manage to lose enough of the senate, the rep.s will lose all reason to nominate a judge who will protect us.

Consider an example from history. During FDR's first term in office, he imposed several severely restrictive and destructive programs to institute central control of the economy. These programs were cut down by the then centrist judical branch. However, after the '36 elections, FDR had a 3/4 majority in congress and was able to convince several moderate judges to step down. Even though the court had surpressed programs like social security as violating the "general welfare" clause just a few years previous, the new court, packed with FDR's brand of socialist idealoges reversed itself and allowed the redistribution of wealth to begin.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
I considered just posting these two quotes next to each other and letting them speak for themselves, but I wasn’t sure everyone would get the point. Except for the post on the “No Cow Left Behind Thread,” I doubt I’ve ever not addressed the positions I oppose in a thread I have taken part in. And, in fact, I don't disagree with the core portion of the position that these new provisions should not have been passed.

For the record, I’ve already written my Representative and Senators opposing this. Just like I did when the banking disclosure/anti-laundering rules with almost the same provisions were being proposed under the Clinton administration. Just like I did about the asset forfeiture laws under Bush I.

I was attacking the comparison to Hitler and calling “drooling idiots” those of us who, on the whole, support the Bush administration. Since there weren’t any substantive points in the thread to discuss, I focused on the name calling.

I’ve also written about holding U.S. citizens or people arrested in the U.S. as enemy combatants (opposing it).

I’m exactly the kind of person whose mind you should be trying to change. Petty insults, calling me “cattle” and “drooling idiot,” are not the way to do it. Writing and acting in such a way as to condemn the motives of those you oppose instead of trying to understand the moral reasoning they are using to arrive at their conclusions is not the way to do it. Believe it or not, most people think they are doing the right thing. If you can figure out why they think what they’re doing is right, you have a much better chance of changing their minds.

When you eliminate all common ground, don’t be surprised when there’s no compromise.

Dagonee
P.S., obviously, people on all sides of political issues do these things. I’m responding to these because I don’t do them, and I am generally in support of the administration that is their target.
 

---

Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
 
How do you propose they address it, Tom? Justices are appointed for life, and the only way to get them out is impeachment. Seems like half the time they turn on the person who appointed them, too--if I remember correctly, a number of our current most liberal justices were appointed by Reagan--and it wouldn't surprise me if that's why presidents are trying so hard to find extremist ideologues to appoint. They're the only ones who can be counted on. There really is no Constitutional check on a justice's power once he or she has it.

That said, I understand why it's so--it's to prevent extremists in the other branches of government from controlling them--but what happens when the situation is reversed?
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"I’m exactly the kind of person whose mind you should be trying to change."

Yeah. Except that you won't change it. I've given up trying to change the minds of your "kind of person," Dag. I spent years trying to be reasonable with the kind of people who'd vote for George Bush, and look how much you respect me for it.

Edit: Seriously, you'd get more of my time and attention if you ever replied to any of my posts that weren't meant to be deliberately harsh. Since you ONLY reply to the harsh ones, I figure you're one of those people who, well, only reply to the harsh ones and write you off instinctively. I'm sorry about that.

-------

Mac, my gut feeling is that the role of the Supreme Court should be sharply restricted and/or eliminated. When the system of checks and balances breaks down due to voter inertia and propaganda -- as it recently has, for example -- there's no restriction on the power of any of the means of government. This is especially harmful in the case of the court, whose appointments tend to last decades and whose decisions are still considered viable reasoning for years after society has moved on.

[ January 07, 2004, 09:50 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
 

---

Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
 

quote:

---

the role of the Supreme Court should be sharply restricted and/or eliminated.

---

quote:

---

TomDavidson said:
Seriously, you'd get more of my time and attention if you ever replied to any of my posts that weren't meant to be deliberately harsh.

---

quote:

---

The problem, of course, is that it's a bit too easy to play this system

---

• The new process starts in 2009, so no current partisan considerations can be predicted accurately.
• 20 year terms, no multiple terms, or 10 year term with possible reappointment.
• Justice continues serving until replacement is approved.
• President nominates replacement no sooner than 270 and no later than 180 days of term expiration.
• Senate has 180 days from submission of nomination to confirm or deny. No vote in that time means confirmation (like the president not signing or vetoing a bill). Some mechanism must exist to force a vote so a reverse-filibuster cannot force automatic approval.
• If Senate disapproves, it can by majority return a list of 3 names to the President, who can appoint any one of them without further Senate action. Or the President can submit another nominee under same rules as above.
• Current Justices given staggered term lengths based on their appointment dates, so they don’t all end at once. Or, to avoid gamesmanship based on court alignment, just let current justices continue their life terms.

quote:

---

You simply cannot read the Patriot Act.

---

quote:

---

all human governments are of the devil.

---

You should give Saudi Arabia a shot if you like inspired government. You're too late to get in on the Taliban expiriment though, they were a little more inspired than the Saudis.
 

---

Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
 
Rob, I have no interest in emigrating to Saudi Arabia, as I don't think their government is any more inspired than ours. The old position I was referring to was essentially anarchist. Nor am I saying I support it. I'm just saying I wish I could.
 

---

Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
 
I think its pretty clear that personal freedom is what has raised the western world to greatness. This concept needs to be re-learned and re-applied to our lives and government. The idea that one group may hand down edicts on how to live one's life is what wrecks our system. Protection of our borders, maintaining the personal property rights of individuals, and sundry other concerns are all the government need concern itself with. Making life decisions in place of the individual is not in the interest of the government or of the individual.
 

---

Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
 
Dagonee--how does that eliminate politicalization of the Surpreme Courts. To get appointed or reappointed you have to cow-tow to the polititcians in the Senate and Presidentcy.

Having them serve for life means, once they get pass the confirmation, they are free from undo influence of any political party, just the influence of their own beliefs.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
That's why I left the option for a single 20-year term (which I prefer). No politicization because there’s no chance of getting reappointed. The record on lower courts is already used, so allowing appointment to a higher court wouldn’t change that.

I considered a 10-year single term, but that would leave an appointment battle every year, which may be too much for the country to take. Maybe a single 15-year term?

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
 
I had an idea a while ago, to improve public involvment in government.

It seems to me that people don't vote because they feel nothing they do will have an effect. There needs to be a system of feedback that allows government officials to interact with the public on a scale where people feel that their input is meaningful. Here's my suggestion:

Set up a web site that is arranged according to the branches of government. I'll describe one "path" through the site as an example.

You log on, and identify yourself though some kind of voter ID password. (someone would have to work out how this could be done and preserve anonymity).

Click on "legislative branch," then "House" and the page shows House committees working on various legislation.

Click on a committee that interests you, and you can see the current wording of a Bill as proposed, or the minutes of the meetings, etc.

Looking at the wording of the bill, and you can select language and respond to it. For example, you could select the part of the bill you disagree with, and up pops a menu that has several options:

1. Agree
2. Disagree
3. Clarify, I don't understand
4. Other (This offers the opportunity to suggest alternate language for the bill, and it's hierarchical. If anybody actually cares, I'll explain in greater detail)

Now, what happens with this information?

First, remember that you gave some voter ID. This did 2 things. First, it guaranteed that people can only put their input in once per cycle. Second, it directs your response to the appropriate representatives.

What happens then is that the next day, the web site compiles a color coded text document of the bill's language for each of your representatives, and emails them each one document, rather than a million. So Congressman Joe Blow looks and finds that most of his constituents agree with most of the bill (bright green letters), but certain language is highlighted in red, indicating that these words are objectionable, or, certain language is white on white background, indicating that his constituents don't understand what it means. Black letters mean that either it isn't important, or the constituents' opinions are evenly divided. Shades of grey, light green or pink are possible also.

Voters can also navigate to their particular representatives, and see a chart that shows how they voted, and how their votes correspond with their constituents.

So before election day, you log on, check your representatives, and at a glance, you can see:

1. Whether they voted for what you wanted them to vote for.

2. Whether they voted for what the majority of their constituents wanted them to vote for.

If it's clear that they aren't working in the interest of their voters, they should be voted out in a heartbeat.

If they look like they're qualified hard working public servants, then they should be re-elected.

I know there's the problem that not everyone has a computer and all, but it seems like it's a start.

Anyway, it's an idea I thought of, and this thread reminded me of it, so I figured I'd see what people think.

Comments?
 

---

Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
 
Sounds like a decent idea that will probably never happen, Glenn. Those in power probably wouldn't want it in place.

And I have to agree with Tom's sentiment - although not the language I suppose. I'm really beginning to wonder what Bush would have to do to get these folks to stop supporting him. It's as if he was fortunate enough to have 9/11 fall on his watch, so now he's allowed to do anything he wants. I mean we're not safe from terrorism, we're occupying two nations, we've lost important freedoms, we've had an excessively long economic downturn, the deficit is ridiculously large, health care is an unaddressed problem, social security remains a problem, medicare got a mediocre overhaul at best, the environment is being ignored, the world hates us, little has been done to stop corporate scandals, education is still as problematic as it ever was, and on top of all this we have a president that uses terms like "Axis of Evil." And yet there are still all these people supporting him, even though many can't even give a solid reason why besides "because I like the guy" or "because he's tough on terror!" What would he have to do?

I just don't see why things like the Patriot Act II doesn't bother people enough to vote for someone else - anyone else for that matter! How can people just accept something like this with a joke or two and then vote for the guy?

(Fortunately, unlike Tom, I'm not nearly tired yet. )
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 

quote:

---

we've lost important freedoms

---

People keep saying this. What specific freedoms have we lost?

Please answer with data, not anecdotes.

quote:

---

we've had an excessively long economic downturn

---

quote:

---

Tresopax said:
I just don't see why things like the Patriot Act II doesn't bother people enough to vote for someone else - anyone else for that matter!

---

quote:

---

The economy MAY have been on a cycle, but reducing government income and increasing spending explicitly made it difficult to recover.

---

quote:

---

reversing a trend of government in the 90s to balance the books (Oh yeah - remember the 90s - real tough economic times).

---

quote:

---

If I was deemed by someone as reliable, then you could be put under extremmely heavy monitoring and if you so happen to make the 'watch list' so would all you associations.

---

quote:

---

When do you think Bush plans to reduce spending, Robespierre?

---

quote:

---

People keep saying this. What specific freedoms have we lost?

---

quote:

---

No, we haven't. The economy deflated, as it should have, and is now rebounding. If you're planning on blaming poor economic performance on Bush, will you commit to blaming good economic performance on him as well?

---

quote:

---

So you’re on favor of ousting 60% of the House and almost all the Senate?

---

quote:

---

Probably never, he lacks the political spine to cut the programs that should be cut. My point was that HenryW seems to be blaming bush for the Clinton economic downturn, which ended in '01. I want to know how anything Bush did, corrolates with the economy going down.

---

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The economy MAY have been on a cycle, but reducing government income and increasing spending explicitly made it difficult to recover.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please explain how reducing government income and increasing spending over the short term made the eocnomy weaker. A typical Keynsian(usually democrat too) response to downturns is to increase spending, artificially increasing demand.

---

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

reversing a trend of government in the 90s to balance the books (Oh yeah - remember the 90s - real tough economic times).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would remind you that the 90's boom was not created in washington. Washington did not start thousands of new companies and employ millions of new workers. If anything, it is a good example of how a republican congress actually did something good for a change and fought Clinton to balance the budget.

---

quote:

---

the power to make the call on interruption of assummed freedoms resides in few hands and the probability for abuse is greatly increased.

---

quote:

---

I should have been clearer in saying that too little of this administration's spending to spur the economy made the grade as 'churn' dollars, therefore delaying recovery.

---