Obama losing ground on Patriot Act

Discussion in 'Politics' started by aaronman, Nov 7, 2009.

  1. Liberal Lawmakers Defy Obama on Patriot Act


    Obama's masters must be pissed, he can't even keep his own party in line!
     
  2. i thought this was getting repealed? I remember that from some campaign speeches.
     
  3. Obama 2003: Yes, I would vote to repeal the U.S. Patriot Act, although I would consider replacing that shoddy and dangerous law with a new, carefully crafted proposal that addressed in a much more limited fashion the legitimate needs of law enforcement in combating terrorism (for example, permitting a warrant for the interception of cell phone calls, and not just land-based phones to accommodate changes in technology).

    He then went on to vote for the Patriot Act in 2006.

    And later FISA.


    And then he was elected President. :laughing:
     
  4. oh yeah FISA that was another one..

    i'm sure he will repeal the George Bush/Dick Cheney Patriot Act. It's everything that Obama is against no? It's full of crazy and evil Neo-Con crap and we know he's the total opposite of that.

    It's only been a year so we can't complain yet man. :rolleyes:
    How many years more until it's acceptable to complain about the President of the US?
     
  5. At least there are a few liberals with spines...
     
  6. Fucking good. That patriot act is bullshit.
     
  7. some politicians actually do keep their spines in check...:eek:
     
  8. I normally don't like your view points, but I have to say that I like your sense of integrity. You stand for what you believe in, and I like that.

    I wouldn't mind our government being more liberal if it was done with a sense of integrity and honesty. Although I wouldn't mind our government being more conservative if it was done with a sense of integrity and honesty as well.

    That is why I say fuck politicians and fuck government. Make your own decisions.

    Sorry this didn't have anything to do with the topic at hand...
     
  9. Just to play devil's advocate here..

    Imagine a scenario in which two 18 year old guys get caught by the police with alcohol. They are charged with underage possession and consumption of alcohol. One of the guys was caught at a private party that his friend was hosting. The second dude was caught by an undercover officer at Shooters. Do they deserve the same punishment?

    The boys are BOTH committing illegal behavior and therefore should be punished the same. One is not allowed to commit a "private" murder; killing someone is illegal all the time. The setting of illegal activity does not dictate whether or not it should be permitted. Along the same lines, anyone caught participating in illegal activity-whether it is private or public-should be forced to face the consequences.

    Many people use the same incorrect basis for expressing their opposition to the Patriot Act. The protestors are using their complaints about rights of freedom to complicate the border between right and wrong. In our democratic society, we, the people, decide upon which actions to make into laws. Therefore, it is absurd to think that a person would claim that it is okay to break the law as long as no one finds out. It should not matter when or how people are "discovered" to be committing a crime; they should be punished accordingly.
     

  10. First off, nobody should be arrested for underage drinking. That's just another stupid side effect of big government.

    Second, the argument is between liberty and security, not right and wrong. There are means of gathering intelligence without spying on innocent people.

    He who sacrifices liberty for security deserves neither, and that's the course we're on.
     
  11. So are you arguing that we shouldn't have Big Brother watching because you disagree with the laws that are in place? How do you pick and choose between an underage kid who gets drunk and crashes into another car, and an adult who vandalizes private property?

    Is giving the government access to cell phone records really infringing upon your inalienable rights though? What if it helps to catch more dangerous criminals, like members of violent gangs plotting murders.
     
  12. first off, there is a huge difference between 'underage drinking' and underage drinking WHILE DRIVING and then crashing into another car. i think one definitely deserves a punishment, while the other one is a social construct that is somewhat arbitrary.

    second, there is also a large difference between giving government the right to spy on whoever the fuck they want and giving them the right to spy on members of violent gangs who are actually stupid enough to plan murders over their cell phones.

    soooo basically, it comes down to the aforementioned Ben Franklin quote. He who sacrifices liberty for security deserves neither. and that was definitely the direction we were headed under the patriot act...
     
  13. Maybe in a perfect world...

    But if you look at history you'll see that it is impossible for expansive government powers to go unexploited by special interests.

    There were 763 "Sneak & Peek" requests in 2008, and only 3 were for terrorism. The vast majority (65%) were used in the war on drugs.

    Read here.

    Violent gangs plotting murders? They only murder themselves, so why should we bother?
     
  14. The report says the 65% drug offenses were followed by 5% for fraud and 4% for tax offenses. I'd be curious to see what the other 26% were for.

    Being against government monitoring because of archaic dumb laws like the anti-drug laws is one thing, but opposition to those laws should be in the form of changing the laws themselves, not by breaking them.

    Also, when the Feds get involved in the war on drugs, these aren't small time pot dealers we're talking about. The requests were probably for large criminal organizations that make money by importing heroin and cocaine.

    The point I'm making is that unless you run a cartel or you're involved with a lot of white-collar crime, the government isn't going to waste time looking through your phone records. And you'll probably be safer as a result of the government's actions against the people they do bother to track.

    That's a pretty big, and wrongful assumption. Plenty of innocent people get killed just by living in gang-infested areas, or by calling the police when they hear gunshots in the street outside their window.
     

  15. On a moral level I don't agree with the violation of personal property.

    But on a personal level, given the current trend of US and world governments from libertarian to authoritarian, I think we should all be fearful of the expansion of state power.

    You know the poem "First they came..."? I'm thinking long term.

    The empire is going to require more and more from us over time, and a bunch of us won't sheepishly give in to them. When the time comes for secession they would have an immense advantage over the rebels via systems put in place like the Patriot Act.

    And since we've all been brainwashed to fawn over Lincoln I'm sure there will be many pawns who will kill for the "Union".
     
  16. The poem is about political persecution, this debate is about enforcing laws.

    And yes, the worldwide trend throughout history has been towards more government. But I would argue that this is simply a result of higher population density and technology, making it easier for large groups of people to communicate with each other. People don't live in little towns ruled by nobles, cut off from the rest of the country, anymore. Globalization is just being more connected, not necessarily taking away freedoms.

    I'm not thinking in terms of secession, this is true. I guess we have our priorities lined up differently in that case. :wave:
     

  17. The poem is about political apathy, this debate is about protection of liberty.

    Enforcing laws is a completely different thing, you are trying to prevent crime, precrime, like in the movie Minority Report...

    Are you really playing devil's advocate here?


    But globalization has taken away freedoms, that's the reality of it...

    Centralization of power always ends up the same way, and I don't think anything different is happening today. You know Rome fell because it diluted it's currency and expanded the empire too thinly? Same thing more recently with the Soviet empires.

    Europe is not as connected as the US, understand that. I would prefer a European confederate model, like we originally had. State sovereignty.

    That way some states would already have universal health care. Border laws would have to be changed, but I think it would be a much better system than the centralized corporatist form we have now. Competition would show us the way.

    But if we had that, we would not be world police and would not enjoy such a high standard of living by exploiting the third world.


    Would you fight for empire?
     
  18. Yeah I am. I don't support the Patriot Act at all. I just think a lot of people disagree with it for all the wrong reasons. But I'd totally support precrime if it got me those cool computers...

    [​IMG]

    I would if it was in my best interests.
     

  19. Well then, the sooner you learn the interests of empire the better. :smoking:
     
  20. I meant more along the lines of the interests of staying alive and living in prosperity.

    I'd rather stick to suburbia than living in a commune that seceeded from civilization and is cut off from all the benefits of living in a country with a government.
     

Share This Page