posted
Why doesn't there seem to be any discussion of this going on here? Did I miss a thread? Are people still unaware that Patriot II has been stealthily approved? What?
Posts: 2443 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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?
Posts: 1364 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 3658 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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
Posts: 3493 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
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...
Posts: 463 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Does anyone know if the text of the bill is published online somewhere? I can't find it on the congress webpage.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2443 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, and impeaching Bush, electing fewer Republicans, maybe raising the national IQ a few dozen points... Not to be redundant...
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2443 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
"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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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.
quote: the role of the Supreme Court should be sharply restricted and/or eliminated.
While I understand this sentiment, I disagree totally. Without a branch that is not subject to direct election, we have an unbalanced direct democracy. Such a system amounts to mob rule. This is precisely what men like Alexander Hamilton were trying to avoid. The articles of confederation, which governed the 13 colonies before the ratification of the constitution, were an abject failure. They gave near absolute power to the legislature. There were public votes to decide criminal trials and many other such abuses. The sharing of power between an executive and legislative branch is not enough to protect the basic rights of all people.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Without a branch that is not subject to direct election, we have an unbalanced direct democracy."
The problem, of course, is that it's a bit too easy to play this system, and it's not like the finest legal minds of the last two generations are winding up on the court.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
I’ve yet to see a post from you concerning the Bush administration that does not seem harsh or that includes any potential belief that he’s not a monster. Maybe I just miss them all.
I’ll reiterate something I brought up earlier. I’ve seen little or no bashing of those who oppose Bush as unpatriotic on this board. I’ve seen a lot of attacks on the intelligence of the those who support him. Usually such attacks are in threads with a bunch of like-minded people and no substantive discussion.
If all we want to do is sling insults back and forth, I can oblige. But saying that’s all I do with no discussion of the opposing position is plain bullsh&#.
quote: The problem, of course, is that it's a bit too easy to play this system
Tell that to the democrat party. They seem to be having some serious trouble playing the system like they used to. If they could break the chains of the special interest groups that rule their lives, they would have a chance in big elections. They have overspecialized and are now suffering for it. If I had a reasonable alternative to republican antics, I would jump at the chance.
Where have all the federalists gone?
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know what the BIG problem is for the common man?
You simply cannot read the Patriot Act.
I tried. It's too big, and to understand it requires scrolling up and down for all the self-referencing..
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
As for the Supreme Court (and all judgeships, for that matter), here’s my suggestion for reform:
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.
The rules can be set to allow lame-duck nominations or prevent them. As long as it’s consistent and put in place when we don’t know who will be President, it should favor both parties equally. As for the concept of judicial review, there’s really no way our government can survive without it. But at least there would be a limited time period when one person can affect the future of the country so powerfully. Dagonee
Neither could those voting on it. They had to rely on what their party bosses told them. Also, there is the odd tactic of foisting the actual copies of the bill on congress the night before they vote on it, eliminating the chance of anyone actually reading every word of it.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
*sigh* All this is making me wish I could buy into the old notion in my church (long since abandoned by most people, to my knowledge) that all human governments are of the devil.
I'm tired of having to choose between one part of my morality and another.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
posted
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.
posted
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. )
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
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
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?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
