Wrong Direction Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 It will end up eating the GOP alive on the inside. Its because of that the Paul Ryan's budget doesn't call for any serious DoD cuts President Obama proposed $180 billion in defense cuts, and to "re-invest" $100 billion back into the troops/vets. Paul Ryan has accepted that proposal 100%. Back to the topic... Can someone articulate for me how the patriot act has hurt Americans? I honestly don't know any more about the left's complaints of this bill than the personal liberty generalization. Are there any specifics, and specific examples? Should the fact that the anti-war, anti-patriot act president has extended the bill not serve as evidence that it has some benefits? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadySkinsFan Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 Ever notice that "corporate rights" are rising while human beings real rights are being eroded, by both parties? Why do you think this is happening? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted May 27, 2011 Author Share Posted May 27, 2011 President Obama proposed $180 billion in defense cuts, and to "re-invest" $100 billion back into the troops/vets. Paul Ryan has accepted that proposal 100%.Back to the topic... Can someone articulate for me how the patriot act has hurt Americans? I honestly don't know any more about the left's complaints of this bill than the personal liberty generalization. Are there any specifics, and specific examples? Should the fact that the anti-war, anti-patriot act president has extended the bill not serve as evidence that it has some benefits? Sacrificing personal liberty for so called security never has benefits in the long run and no, Obama's reversal in stance does not mean it has value, it only means that he probably lied during campaigning or he is now a neo-con. ---------- Post added May-27th-2011 at 02:01 PM ---------- Ever notice that "corporate rights" are rising while human beings real rights are being eroded, by both parties? Why do you think this is happening? sadly, because we are sheep and let it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doctorshockalu Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 Either they illegal wiretap with the Patriot act or illegally wiretap without it. Anyone who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves. And I called Obama's bull**** a long time ago when I realized he is following through with Bush's policies. It's funny because when Bush was in office the democrats were screaming how he was a nazi/neo-con and the republicans were quiet. Now that Obama is the prez the republicans are screaming how its un-constitutional/government intrusion and the democrats are completely fine with the torture and illegal containment. This is the exact reason every term should be two years and you cannot serve office more than once. That way the politician in charge could actually make decisions that were in America's long term interests instead of decisions that would effect their long term employment status. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 This is one of my biggest disappointments with President Obama. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadySkinsFan Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 Don't think that us liberals who voted for Obama aren't screaming too. Everyone of my friends who voted for him now feel betrayed. That's why I say the 2 parties are all the same, just different flavors. The policies remain the same. And remember it was Bush who described his base, "the Haves and the Have Mores." If you think he was just joking around, you are sadly mistaken. All one has to do is look at the policies. Just today, a court ruled that corporations can give DIRECTLY to candidates, instead of the obfuscating "PAC" and the like. Truly a travesty of our lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrong Direction Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 Sacrificing personal liberty for so called security never has benefits in the long run and no, Obama's reversal in stance does not mean it has value, it only means that he probably lied during campaigning or he is now a neo-con. Good re-statement of a talking point. Again, I'm actually looking to be informed here. What personal liberty is being sacrificed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadySkinsFan Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 Good re-statement of a talking point.Again, I'm actually looking to be informed here. What personal liberty is being sacrificed? If you are so interested, why don't you do the research? We all have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrong Direction Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 Don't think that us liberals who voted for Obama aren't screaming too. Everyone of my friends who voted for him now feel betrayed. That's why I say the 2 parties are all the same, just different flavors. The policies remain the same. And remember it was Bush who described his base, "the Haves and the Have Mores." If you think he was just joking around, you are sadly mistaken. All one has to do is look at the policies. Just today, a court ruled that corporations can give DIRECTLY to candidates, instead of the obfuscating "PAC" and the like. Truly a travesty of our lives. Hopefully your problem with the ruling is with money to candidates, not with corporate money with candidates. This ruling puts corporations on the same level as individuals such as Soros. The problem is our financing system in total, not this one ruling. ---------- Post added May-27th-2011 at 02:11 PM ---------- If you are so interested, why don't you do the research? We all have. I'd like to know if the opponents of this are as ill-informed as the opponents of Paul Ryan's reform plans. If people can't articulate why they're opposed in any detail, why should I give their thoughts any credence at all? If they can, I'm happy to be informed. Plus, I'm on a con call and can't really research things right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadySkinsFan Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 My "problem" is that corporations are involved in ANY kind of campaign contribution. They don't vote. Why should they have a say? The Constitution was written for human beings, not corporations. Corporations are created with legal instruments and can be dissolved. They don't have opinions, they just make money (for profit) or educate/provide services (non-profit). The Citizens United decision is a travesty and will be one of the causes of the downfall of this republic and the American way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doctorshockalu Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 Here is a few. Information Sharing- Critics warn that unrestricted sharing could lead to the development of massive databases about citizens who are not the targets of criminal investigations. Roving Wiretaps- Critics say the language of the act could lead to privacy violations of anyone who comes into casual contact with a suspect. Access to Records- Critics attack the breadth of the provision, saying the law could be used to demand the reading records of library or bookstore patrons. Foreign Intelligence Wiretaps and Searches- Because foreign intelligence probes are conducted in secret, with little oversight, critics say abuses could be difficult to uncover. “Sneak & Peek” Warrants - Sec. 213: Allows "Sneak and peek" search warrants, which let authorities search a home or business without immediately notifying the target of a probe. Does not expire. Critics say the provision allows the use of "sneak and peek" warrants for even minor crimes, not just terror and espionage cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrong Direction Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 My "problem" is that corporations are involved in ANY kind of campaign contribution. They don't vote. Why should they have a say? The Constitution was written for human beings, not corporations. Corporations are created with legal instruments and can be dissolved. They don't have opinions, they just make money (for profit) or educate/provide services (non-profit). The Citizens United decision is a travesty and will be one of the causes of the downfall of this republic and the American way. So individuals buying votes is cool, but corporations doing so is bad? For the record, I totally disagree with you on citizens united as well. That was a free speech ruling. Government telling any entity when they can give their political opinion is gross and I can't support anyone who wants to do that. Personally, I'd take all private money out of campaigns (fully public fund) and I'd support term limits for Congress. I just think the arguments people are making now are misplaced. ---------- Post added May-27th-2011 at 02:21 PM ---------- Here is a few. Information Sharing- Critics warn that unrestricted sharing could lead to the development of massive databases about citizens who are not the targets of criminal investigations. Roving Wiretaps- Critics say the language of the act could lead to privacy violations of anyone who comes into casual contact with a suspect. Access to Records- Critics attack the breadth of the provision, saying the law could be used to demand the reading records of library or bookstore patrons. Foreign Intelligence Wiretaps and Searches- Because foreign intelligence probes are conducted in secret, with little oversight, critics say abuses could be difficult to uncover. “Sneak & Peek” Warrants - Sec. 213: Allows "Sneak and peek" search warrants, which let authorities search a home or business without immediately notifying the target of a probe. Does not expire. Critics say the provision allows the use of "sneak and peek" warrants for even minor crimes, not just terror and espionage cases. Thanks. All interesting. I'd first note that the top problems are all theoretical. That doesn't mean they're not legit criticisms, by the way. I wonder what safeguards are in the bill to reduce the potential for these theoretical problems. Safeguards, or rules, almost certainly exist. I wonder how sufficient, or insufficient they are? The last one is a more direct "threat." I wonder where the threshold for sneak and peeks stands, what approvals need to be put into place, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadySkinsFan Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 You must have missed my post in another thread where I said that only individuals could contribute and that their contributions are limited. Another poster followed that with limiting contributions to one's local district. I'd get on board with public financing, thus taking all private money out of campaigns like you state above. I don't necessarily support term limits but I do think we should take away the perpetual "retirement" that Congresspersons get for serving. They should be forced to save or else pay into Social Security like everyone else. That includes their lifetime healthcare. They should be forced to use the systems that they vote for while they "serve." That way, maybe they'd get it and start to legislate for the real life that the rest of us live. Again, the Constitution was written for human beings, and only human beings are entitled to free speech rights. A corporation is a non-human legal entity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted May 27, 2011 Author Share Posted May 27, 2011 Good re-statement of a talking point.Again, I'm actually looking to be informed here. What personal liberty is being sacrificed? I'd think invasion of privacy is the first on the list. Thats a no brainer to see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doctorshockalu Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 The sneak and peek is definitely the worst one. It is obvious that would be abused. The problem is there is no real safe guards for bills like this, hence the opposition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrong Direction Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 You must have missed my post in another thread where I said that only individuals could contribute and that their contributions are limited. Another poster followed that with limiting contributions to one's local district.I'd get on board with public financing, thus taking all private money out of campaigns like you state above. I don't necessarily support term limits but I do think we should take away the perpetual "retirement" that Congresspersons get for serving. They should be forced to save or else pay into Social Security like everyone else. That includes their lifetime healthcare. They should be forced to use the systems that they vote for while they "serve." That way, maybe they'd get it and start to legislate for the real life that the rest of us live. Again, the Constitution was written for human beings, and only human beings are entitled to free speech rights. A corporation is a non-human legal entity. You seem like an incredibly liberal person, but I bet you and I could come to reasonable agreements on these topics (financing/term limits). I personally think all of the budget problems we have are directly the result of this kickback atmosphere in Washington. If I were running for President, this would be my major platform, followed by changes in existing programs. ---------- Post added May-27th-2011 at 02:31 PM ---------- The sneak and peek is definitely the worst one. It is obvious that would be abused. The problem is there is no real safe guards for bills like this, hence the opposition. Really? What if you need specific approval from a division that only investigates terror matters, or if there's a reporting requirement to such a division, or if the department using that authority had to be able to defend in court their use (when disputed) or face stiff penalties? I don't want Andy Griffith coming into my house using some trumped up legal justification from the Patriot Act, but I don't know how possible that actually is, and I'm assuming it's not likely at all. ---------- Post added May-27th-2011 at 02:31 PM ---------- I'd think invasion of privacy is the first on the list. Thats a no brainer to see. Without more knowledge of the substance, I worry that people are jumping to conclusions. That's why I want to learn more about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.