I'm Looking for "Patriot Act" Success Stories

[Porterville]

Alright, I disagree with your use of the quote from Ben Franklin.... in this case especially, because I (that is me) feel that is hyperbolic (I believe this to be the right term). Like the use of icons for self aggrandizing after every post, I grew tired of it, for whatever reason, and ripped on you. I shouldn't have done it, but I did. I like using the most ridiculous thing I can find to counter hyperbole, hence, Hello Kitty.

[JohnGalt]

I have at least 50 other posts on this thread that outline the tradition conservative approach to stand athwart calls for greater centralization or consolidationism. The crux of your argument seems to be that I used the quote in some sort of intellectual vacuum which is not the case (based on the number of other posts I have on this thread) and also your claim that the quote has no bearing on the topic at hand-- which is a political statement/political ploy in its own right.

It seems clear that in context the quote means simply that those who favor consolidationism in the hopes of increasing security, deserve neither. It is a very stunning quote on the nature of self-defense being a personal responsibility rather than a political program. While this is standard operating procedure for Christian patriots, it's a very interesting quote coming from the Quaker Franklin, geared towards the humanistic members of the society.

The tone you chose required a response geared to the level of not only your choosing, but also fueled by the emotionalism in having just read the Supreme Court betrayed the Constitution this AM.

[Porterville]

I don't understand the decision... nobody on any of the post I have visited has been able to clearify exactly what it means. How does it consolidate power on dissipate power??? And does it take power away from unions like the NEA somehow??? Are lobbiest hurt??? Are independent organizations like the NRA hurt??

[VaBthang4]

I acquiesce.

I may believe that there was at least one [1] M1A1 there that day. I am persuaded there was but I'd feel better seeing an image that didn't originate from a site with an ax to grind.

As to the image that began this debate...it is indeed doctored...

Let's compare...

The top image shows an M1A1 Abrams tank sitting outside the compound. In the image there is a pole running from the top of the image to the bottom. It is sitting alone while a Bradley and a modified M60 maneuver on the compound.

The second image [poorly doctored] shows two Bradley fighting vehicles an Abrams and a modified 60 all sitting next two each other. And the pole is not in the image [it would need to be removed in order to cut in the modified 60].

The clarity of the top image versus the Gaussian blurring of the bottom image is a red flag. The blurring is commonplace when doctoring images...the bluring must be full image in order to subdue the blurring around the cut & pasted edges [which imo is also poorly done].

There is a legitimate chance that all four of these vehicles could've been lined up next to one another, there is a legitimate chance that the second [doctored] image was taken from an angle that excluded the pole.

I wish I cold trust the motivation of the sites displaying these images, but I don't. Both have an ax to grind with the Government as a whole versus the reality of a Liberal Administration that carried out the siege at Waco.

I am bothered by the possibility of having Abrams tanks at Waco. There is absolutely nothing in the vehicles profile that demanded it be at Waco. With that said, I don't put it past a Liberal administration and kiss *** bureaucrats [sp?] with a desire to impress anyone for personal gain employing them for no competent reason.

Using Waco as an example of evil government to be raised in a thread concerning post 9/11 America versus what it really was, a 90's Liberal Administration following their own doctrine of tyrannical rule from on high, is a sign of desperation from anti-authoritarians who have gotten more mileage out the siege at Waco than any Big Government design could've.

[JohnGalt]

CFR?

For starters, if you cannot place political ads 7 days prior to an election, it will cause the Congress to delay any controversial votes until, 7 days prior to an election. It's all a rigged game of insiders, but advertising and free speech has proved a powerful check on DC-tax regime politicians.

It was severely abridged this morning by the courts who have just granted the DC-regime politicians a massive new power.

[mysterio]

No, you are unconditionally wrong. You said to show the tanks, and I showed you several. The tanks are both there in several of the pictures. You claimed they were not. You were wrong.

I truly don't think much about the Waco attacks. I got involved in this picture debate because you were wrong. Not just wrong. The worst kind of wrong. You were the name calling, arrogant, insulting kind of wrong that is blind to facts and logic. You are wrong about the Patriot act as well. The language in the act is designed to make it look like the Bill of Rights has not been gutted. However, their clever use of words, changing definitions that most people aren't familiar with, opens loopholes in the Constitution big enough to do anything they want. If you don't believe me, read it with a critical eye. Imagine a power hungry Clinton with that thing at his or her disposal.

And think about why libertarians spend so much time trashing this legislation. Do you think it's because we hate Bush? I don't. I voted for the guy. I won't do it again, but I certainly do not hate him. Some of us don't trust the government with the sway it has over our lives right now. Sure, we all live under the pretense of "freedom," but we only enjoy freedom at the whim of the powerful. Some of us cringe any time the government tries a new clever worded attempt to rip what little freedom we have left away.

You served in the marines. I respect that. I respect all of those who put their lives on the line so that we can keep our country moving forward. But would you have a citizenry who blindly accepts everything the government does? What good is freedom then? Is it ok if it comes from a party you like? Should we rubber stamp everything the Republicans propose, even if we would not accept the same from the Democrats? A Janet Reno identical "patriot" act would cause an uproar here of an extent seldom seen. Do you expect me to clap while Republicans do the same? No. I will speak against that in the same way that I would if it were democrats empowering government. Libertarians don't see the Constitution as a "living" document. It's clear and straightforward, and it limits government power. Leave it the hell alone.

[witnesstothefall]

it's a very interesting quote coming from the Quaker Franklin, geared towards the humanistic members of the society.

Franklin was no Quaker. Your ignorance of his religious/philosphical positions rather disqualifies you from being an authority on what or who is conservative or isn't. You seem inordinately disposed to labeling people one way or another.

Franklin's, and other of our "Fore Fathers'" (as you write it) positions on religion were not as evangelically orthodox as so many latter day "conservatives" would have it. For a glimpse at Franklin:

To Ezra Stiles, 9 March 1790 You desire to know something of my religion. It is the first time I have been questioned upon it. But I cannot take your curiosity amiss, and shall endeavor in a few words to gratify it. Here is my creed. I believe in one God, the creator of the universe. That he governs by his providence. That he ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable service we render to him is doing good to his other children. That the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental points in all sound religion, and I regard them as you do in whatever sect I meet with them.

As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think his system of morals and his religion, as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupting changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his divinity; though it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the truth with less trouble. I see no harm, however, in its being believed, if that belief has the good consequences, as probably it has, of making his doctrines more respected and more observed; especially as I do not perceive that the Supreme takes it amiss, by distinguishing the unbelievers in his government of the world with any peculiar marks of his displeasure.

[VaBthang4]

Oh relax...I started to read your response but you went dramaqueen on me so I skipped it.

I do find it odd how so many dopians try and use the folly of a Liberal President as an example of evil big government during a Conservative Administration.

Anyway...I thought some more yesterday and noticed the irony in that the Clinton's thought it too high profile to use armor against Somali muslims and Al Qaeda terrorist in Mogadishu but found no problem with employing it against a bunch of whacked out fake christians in the USA.

[JohnGalt]

Is your only point that good conservatives should surrender their God given responsibility of self-defense to the federalis?

Whatever, Comrade.

[witnesstothefall]

No, my only point is that you're a complete fraud. I notice that with almost every post you make you call people names and avoid direct discussion of issues.

I made no points whatsoever on self-defense or federalism. I merely pointed out that your historical citations are as fraudulent as your labelling of people.

[JohnGalt]

And others think I do a semi-decent job defending the Old Republic, where as I can't recall a single post of yours in defense of the Old Republic.

There is a whole other world behind the scenes at FR, ya know? Well, clearly you don't.

[witnesstothefall]

It's pretty astonishing how full of yourself you are.

A Defender of the Old Republic, are you? Part of the In Crowd "behind the scenes" that I don't even know about. Woe is me.

Here's a bit of heresy for you. The wisdom of the Founders was that the Republic should evolve, that its laws and governing document should change over time and by the Necessity the People found fit to deliberate and effect.

Of the many insights of the Founders, perhaps the most brilliant was the inclusion in the Constitution of those very tools which allowed it to change over time, so that it would never become necessary for some nitwit to defend the Old Republic against the New.

The Republic lives.

[CJ Wolf]

"I consider the USS Cole, the embassies, etc. to be US soil, so the answer would be just a few short years before, during Clinton's term (and directly on US soil, we had the WTC bombing and the OKC bombing). "

I agree but don't forget the CIA shootings, as well.

[mysterio]

There are two ways to change the Bill of Rights. You can either amend them, or you can declare martial law. Martial law suspends them temporarily. Amending them suspends them permanently. Neither has been done here. They have used clever wording to avoid the amendments and add conditions to them. They get away with this only because our SC is derelict in its duties. The framers of the Constitution took pains to be exceptionally clear about the Amendments. However, the number of people who understand that "shall pass no law" means "shall pass no law" is relatively few.