|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| Aug 15th, 2003 06:33 PM | ||
| kahljorn |
"The potential for massive collateral damage, in terms of life and property, is greater now than at any point in recorded history" Kings always used to have the power to declare war whenever the fuck they wanted. All they needed was a good speech to safeguard against rioting and shit. |
|
| Aug 15th, 2003 04:58 PM | ||
| ranxer |
not at all what i'm saying.. i'm much more interested in working on the root causes of terrorism than securing a 'terror free' zone by threats of massive violence or massive security programs to 'protect' innocents. same with any violence for me.. i don't want better cops i want less desparate people so that we don't need better cops. |
|
| Aug 15th, 2003 03:16 PM | ||
| The_Rorschach |
So, as a ramification of past actions, you are willing to sacrifice uninvolved innocent civilians to what, atone for past misdeeds? Please tell me I am mis understanding you here. |
|
| Aug 15th, 2003 01:10 PM | ||
| ranxer |
totally agree with sspads, ror doesnt that skip over the point? i look at security problems(attacks on america) as blowback from what we've been supporting/doing with our foriegn policies.. the questions about fighting terrorism with security or military fly right passed the origins of the terrorism.. its mostly from our foriegn policy.. don't you think we could reduce attacks by working with the world community as much as possible rather than dictating our right to smash whatever we need to to keep the money rolling? |
|
| Aug 11th, 2003 05:35 PM | ||
| The_Rorschach |
Not to conradict you Sspad, you're quite right, but allow me a hypothetical for a moment. Let us say the terrorists have learned from this, and they no longer see the secular capitolistic arm as the enemy, but the government which safeguards it. Lets say twenty years from now they get their shit together enough to strike a three pronged attack on Capitol Hill whilr congress is in session , and by luck or fair planning, manage to take out all three branches of our government. Now these are alot of assumptions, and not very likely, but then terrorist attacks on a grand scale are never very likely - Though they are no less possible because of it. Assuming we essentially lost all governmental infrastructure, what do you hypothesize would be the fate the US as a country? |
|
| Aug 11th, 2003 04:32 PM | ||
| sspadowsky |
Shucks. T'weren't nothin'. 
|
|
| Aug 11th, 2003 12:41 PM | ||
| Protoclown | Spad, that was insightful and well-spoken. I tip my hat to you, sir. | |
| Aug 11th, 2003 10:47 AM | ||
| sspadowsky | That's the guy. | |
| Aug 11th, 2003 10:20 AM | ||
| Miss Modular |
Quote:
|
|
| Aug 11th, 2003 10:05 AM | ||
| sspadowsky |
I enjoy a good conspiracy theory as much as the next guy, but I've done a fair amount of reading about the PATRIOT Act, and I can dispell the conspiracy idea here. The provisions in this act are a mish-mash "wish list" of a bunch of crap that the FBI had wanted to pass for many years. But they knew there was no way in hell Congress would approve any of it under normal circumstances. As soon as 9-11 came along, boom! The PATRIOT Act was passed about a month later. Most of the Senate didn't even read it. In fact, only one person voted against it, a senator from Wisconsin whose name escapes me at the moment. The DOJ is trying to downplay the backlash created in part by the ACLU against the Act, saying that it would only be used against people suspected of terrorist activity. Not true. I may not hold a doctorate in jurisprudence, but my reading comprehension skills are pretty good, and the language in the Act allows the unconstitutional searches, seizures, and procurement of library, medical, and any other records, to be conducted against ANYONE. Skeptical? Fuck you. The FBI has a long and infamous history of abuse of power (see Malcom X and MLK in particular). I've maintained that we must always look at how laws can, and most definitely WILL be abused. The PATRIOT Act is bad news, and the sequel is much worse. I'm glad that the Legislative branch is finally waking up and seeing what horrible injustices can be perpetrated under the PATRIOT Act. I'd rather be free and take my chances than live in a police state. People really need to understand something: Comparisons of the current climate to that of Nazi Germany are not unfounded. Nazi Germany didn't happen overnight; it was the result of many years of sinister, calculated effort. Legislation like the PATRIOT Act is the foundation on which such societies are built. Assuming the PATRIOT Act remains, we have to look at what will follow it over the next 10-20 years. Aschcroft & Co. are already trying to further broaden the DOJ's powers with the new version of the PATRIOT Act. No good will come of it. |
|
| Aug 9th, 2003 06:41 PM | ||
| ranxer |
damn, i missed it. anyone have a clue why i cant find any mention of that segment on cspan.org? |
|
| Aug 9th, 2003 10:15 AM | ||
| kellychaos |
Almost like it was planned ahead?  :CONSPIRACY
|
|
| Aug 9th, 2003 10:07 AM | ||
| Zero Signal | That the PATRIOT Act itself, as long as it is, magically appeared in final form only one month after 9/11 is highly suspicious in itself. | |
| Aug 9th, 2003 10:00 AM | ||
| kellychaos | The problem with these sort of things is that the political powers that be build on these seemingly innocuous infringements of our rights in "baby steps" that get their foot in the door just a little more at a time, almost imperceptively, while telling us that each step is, of course, for our own good. Then, you wake up one day and you find you've been blind-sided without even knowing it ... unless you pay attention and question EVERYTHING. Good call, Ror! | |
| Aug 8th, 2003 05:01 PM | ||
| AChimp |
 Security. 
|
|
| Aug 8th, 2003 04:49 PM | ||
| The_Rorschach |
The honest answer will be somewhat disappointing unfortunately: I'm simply not sure. Both, the the second act is far more potentially dangerous, allow the government indiscrete powers. . .But the ability to declare wars which will be fought by others without consent of the people, is also an indiscrete power. The potential for massive collateral damage, in terms of life and property, is greater now than at any point in recorded history. Both Hobbes and Locke agreed the most basic right is the right to life, therefore protecting the innocents from unwarranted and undeserved death should be the governments most important duty. . .But at what cost? Shall we now sacrifice freedom for security, as our Forefathers have warned us against, Mister Franklin in particular? I dislike the bills, but I cannot help but acknowledge they are necessary considering the world's political climate. . .But God help us when the day comes that another Nero comes to power. That possibilities frightens me far more than any loss of life due to isolated terrorist strikes. |
|
| Aug 8th, 2003 04:42 PM | ||
| KILLADEUCE | Could you guys slap a synopsis of the act on here? I'm a little in the dark on this one.. As i am with all issues that normally have ALOT to do with me or the future of our country | |
| Aug 8th, 2003 03:57 PM | ||
| Jeanette X | I'm curious to know your opinion on the Patriot Acts. | |
| Aug 8th, 2003 03:12 PM | ||
| The_Rorschach |
Watch Tee Vee NOW! Geoff Aronow of the ACLU, and an independant -if liberal- panel are currently discussing the particulars and legalities of both the Patriot Act, and proposed Patriot Act II. It's on C-SPAN 2. If you are not watching this you should be. It's very partisan, but not uninteresting. This means you specifically Ranxer 
|
|
