We have very little time left as a democracy- the Patriot Act, open-ended weapon against democracy
POSTED BY: SignyM
UPDATED: Thursday, October 16, 2025 15:16
VIEWED: 18510
PAGE 19 of 21
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
flexibility in our government makes us a stronger democracy, not a weaker one.
Flexability is almost always a virtue, so I agree with you on that.
Finn, do you ever RANT? You know, use multiple exclamation points and the like? You're so gorram calm and easy goin' most of the time! Let loose sometimes, man! Flame a little! It could be fun.
(and let the 'C' word into your ideas of how things work, dude, lack of such leads to neatness and tidieness, and ultimatly a view of things that is less whole, and less realistic, IMNSHO.)
How to be a more exciting poster in 2 easy steps Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Oh, and what about the fact that our clunky, imperfect, irrational democracy has been bumping along for 200 years, with folks even less honorable that your concept of Dubya at the helm? Was that just an aberration?
Many have been at her helm, and some have run her into reefs and storms, but she's well designed, and can take some abuse.
Dubya is veering toward a huge iceberg, but she ain't no puny Titanic. You're right, she'll survive even him.
But it is gonna hurt. More than it had to.
Thar he BLOWS Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Not a big ranter. I tend to be kind of stoic. Although I have ranted before; it just depends on something getting my dander up. Usually it takes some kind of hard evidence though; I’m not likely to rant based on speculation. I realize that makes my posts somewhat boring, but I’m a scientist; I’m supposed to be boring.
Originally posted by chrisisall:Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
flexibility in our government makes us a stronger democracy, not a weaker one.
Flexability is almost always a virtue, so I agree with you on that.
Finn, do you ever RANT? You know, use multiple exclamation points and the like? You're so gorram calm and easy goin' most of the time! Let loose sometimes, man! Flame a little! It could be fun.
(and let the 'C' word into your ideas of how things work, dude, lack of such leads to neatness and tidieness, and ultimatly a view of things that is less whole, and less realistic, IMNSHO.)
How to be a more exciting poster in 2 easy steps Chrisisall
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
the "right to bear arms" will keep any of us free. Back in the day, when the army's weapons were pretty much equal to what everybody else had, that might have been a valid viewpoint. But a shotgun is no match against a 50-caliber machine gun, tank, or any other modern military weapon, and thinking that the "right to bear arms" keeps you free is a fantasy.
REAL freedom comes from freedom of thought. If a large portion of any population comes to a different paradigm than the government, the government will not stand. That is the basis of the many "velvet revolutions" that happened in the past decade or so.
excellent point and people also have to realize, that they didn't have the kinds of weapons we have today
the fact that some people think that somehow, their guns is going to be a match for a machine gun or tank baffles me, we are not living in the 1700s, the times they have a changed, it would be a chicken shoot, its fantasy!!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
They already know. They volunteered to fight for a system that, while obviously imperfect, works well enough to inspire their loyalty. Works better, in their minds, than anything else available.
I would say they volunteered to preserve and protect your constitution ( if I read the oath right )
Read in further they volunteered to defend the United States...
Now, my question is what about the guys who feel that the government has overstepped self-defence, and are now pursueing more imperialistic intents...
Does their commitment to protect and preserve the United States mean they must fight for a system which they feel is overstepping the limits for which they actually volunteered...
Should this be a two step process, volunteer to serve, then again for overseas service ?
In your own history, that has served to limit your ability to conduct " acts of aggression "
For example, during the war of 1812. Much of your milita decided they shouldn't cross the Niagra river during the battle of Queentown heights, and they were not legally obligated to at the time. Other such examples occured during the Spanish American war, or even to a lesser extent to that reserve unit who didn't feel they should take their fuel trucks into harms way for the sake of this cause.
In addition, many who did serve and are trying to get out are finding it difficult to do so...
I guess what I am saying is many of those who " volunteered to fight for a system that, while obviously imperfect, works well enough to inspire their loyalty " didn't volunteer for this circumstance.
Many still would, but of those... how many tours would they volunteer for ?
" Looking for a place to happen
Making stops along the way "
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Is this a loaded question or a false analogy or an off-topic diversion or just plain bad writing demonstrated by a run-on sentence? Gee, I dunno, but as far as I'm concerned I WAS talking about the right to privacy, and how it may be resticted to further restict the right to free speech and free assembly, both of which are...er... explicit. But apparently irrelevant in Finn's hierarchy of Constitutional rights.
However- and just to prove what a good sport I am, I will- if Finn insists- demonstrate how his argument is fundamentally flawed. But Finn has to insist that I adress this, because it really was not my point.--- SignyM
That’s what I thought. I figured that you would stall and avoid the question. Because it puts you in a corner. Your argument lacks perspective.--- Finn
I presume you are requesting my arguments? Nah, you wouldn't be that straighforward, would you? You have to try to provoke them out of me.
Actually Finn I have three arguments. The first one is logical: you pose safety/gun ownership dichotomy as an anlogy to the safety/"privacy" dichotomy. This is a false analogy. While both gun ownership and privacy{see below} are constitutional rights, they can't be used to analogize each other because they have asymmetric relations with other laws and rights. The right to privacy- I'll get to that in a a bit- is a perfect right, no matter how technology changes. Gun ownership may become ineffective with time... not because of some vast left-wing conspiracy to deprive people of "effective" weapons against the government (Your argument, not mine. Just try not to get labelled as a terrorist- OK?) but simply because the technology of much modern weaponry is far beyond what a person can support. (Think about maintaining an aircraft carrier or a fighter jet, for example.)
The second argument is a quibble about the red herring that you tossed out about privacy rights being "implicit". I am using the term privacy as shorthand for the rights listed in the Fourth Amendment because I simply didn't want to have to repeat the phrases each time. However, if you knew about some other amendment OTHER THAN the second amendment, you would know that I am talking EXACTLY about the EXPLICIT rights in the Fourth Amendment, which provide protection against "unreasonable search and seizure" For your information, since you seem unfamilair with the Fourth Amendment, here it is:
Quote:The so-called Patriot Act violates EVERY SINGLE ASPECT of the Fourth Amendment's explicit rights. That is what I have been arguing all along, you chose to misrepresent me.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The third gets to the heart of one of your arguments, and that is that you can have safety OR privacy, but not both. By and large, what you pose is a FALSE DILEMNA that has already been worked out in the Constitution itself. There is a reason why the Founding Fathers limited searches and seizures to "probable cause" and that was to prevent wholesale searches of suspect (or even non-suspect) populations. Wholesale searches are a waste of time and resources, and do not increase internal security.
Your question was a little like "Have you stopped beating your wife?" I avoided the question because it was not only a diversionary tactic, it was stupid question (false analogy, false dilemna). Why discuss flawed aruments? So- BTW- here is notice that I will probably not respond to such flawed arguments in the future. Be assured that I'm not "stalling", I just refuse to waste my time.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:There is also a reason why the founding fathers granted the people the right to keep and bear arms. One could say that gun control law violates every single aspect of the 2nd Amendment; not only are we still a democracy, but you are surprising on board with this example of a violation of our Constitution.
Originally posted by SignyM:
There is a reason why the Founding Fathers limited searches and seizures to "probable cause" and that was to prevent wholesale searches of suspect (or even non-suspect) populations. Wholesale searches are a waste of time and resources, and do not increase internal security.
Quote:You avoid the question because you can’t answer it without dismissing your whole ‘fear mongering’ about the end of our democracy, or aligning yourself with the Right. Two things I know you’re not going to do. The fact of the matter is that these are two examples of violations of the Constitution; if one of them leads to the end of our democracy why don’t both of them? I guess the democracy-ending aspect of the loss of a particular freedom depends largely on point of view.
Originally posted by SignyM:
Your question was a little like "Have you stopped beating your wife?" I avoided the question because it was not only a diversionary tactic, it was stupid question (false analogy, false dilemna). Why discuss flawed aruments? So- BTW- here is notice that I will probably not respond to such flawed arguments in the future. Be assured that I'm not "stalling", I just refuse to waste my time.
The first time a democratic administration employs the Patriot Act, I have a feeling you might decide that our democracy is much stronger. Your argument lacks perspective. That's my point, in case anyone missed it. That’s Geezers point also.
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
SignyM, here's another related theory:
Since the late fifties the American economy has been in decline. When oil becomes too expensive to retrieve due to tapped out planetary resources (2012 some say) the world economy will change drastically, and relativly quickly. Our government (the shadow government, the Firm, whatever; the guys that stay) are planning for that day of possible anarchy. They are putting in place all the police state-like short leash options they will need under such circumstances.
Freedoms are secondary to survival, and from their point of view they are simply 'bringing order to the galaxy '.
A theory I do not fully subscribe to, yet cannot by any means dismiss (I might just be too afraid of it to want to really buy it).
Do you think this might be why we're waving goodbye to the fourth amendment these days?
P.S., can you start a part 2 for this thread? It is really long.
Too terrified for the capacity of rational thought Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It lacks YOUR perspective, or Geezers'. Do you want me to get into what those perspectives are? Better ask Geezer before you drag him into this.
AFA the Second Amendment: If you want to discuss the 2nd Amendment, feel free to start another thread. As of this point, you really don't know what my opinion is on the topic, do you? But you presume a whole lot.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I guess the democracy-ending aspect of the loss of a particular freedom depends largely on point of view.
Do I detect flamage here? That was pretty colourful, Finn. I think we all have more in common here, politically, that merely reading this thread would have some believe.
I sense the good in you, the conflict. The American media hasn't driven it from you fully.
He's no Jedi Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME