jimpeel
Member
You mean like this?
John Kerry is NOT a liberal....
- Thread starter greyhound
- Start date
- Status
w4rma
member
The Republican leadership supports the Patriot Act I and II. The Patriot Act I and II = totalitarianism. The Republican leadership supports totalitarianism.
… Viet Dinh, the former assistant attorney general for the Office of Legal Policy at the Justice Department. He helped draft the Patriot Act …
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/terr...triot_8-19.html
…
In May 2001, with the appointment of Assistant Attorney General Viet D. Dinh, Attorney General John Ashcroft restored the name of the office as the Office of Legal Policy and confirmed its principal policy role within the Department.
http://www.usdoj.gov/olp/history.htm
A Chilly Response to 'Patriot II'
Feb. 12, 2003
Unlike its hastily passed predecessor, the Justice Department's wide-ranging follow-up to the Patriot Act of 2001 is already facing intense scrutiny, just days after a civil rights group posted a leaked version of the legislation on its website.
The legislation, nicknamed Patriot II, would broadly expand the government's surveillance and detention powers. Among other measures, it calls for the creation of a terrorist DNA database and allows the attorney general to revoke citizenship of those who provide “material support†to terrorist groups.
Privacy advocates said the bill “gutted the Fourth Amendment,†while prominent Democratic senators, including Patrick Leahy, ranking Democratic member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, immediately chastised the administration for its secrecy.
…
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,57636,00.html
Patriot Act II Resurrected?
Aug. 21, 2003
Congress may consider a bill that not only expands the government's wiretapping and investigative powers but also would link low-level drug dealing to terrorism and ban a traditional form of Middle Eastern banking.
The draft legislation -- titled the Vital Interdiction of Criminal Terrorist Organizations Act of 2003, or Victory Act -- includes significant portions of the so-called Patriot Act II, which faced broad opposition from conservatives and liberals alike and embarrassed the Justice Department when it was leaked to the press in February.
The Victory Act also seems to be an attempt to merge the war on terrorism and the war on drugs into a single campaign. It includes a raft of provisions increasing the government's ability to investigate, wiretap, prosecute and incarcerate money launderers, fugitives, "narco-terrorists" and nonviolent drug dealers. The bill also outlaws hawalas, the informal and documentless money transferring systems widely used in the Middle East, India and parts of Asia.
A June 27 draft of the bill, authored by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and co-sponsored by four fellow Republicans on the Judiciary Committee, has been circulating in Washington, D.C.
…
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,60129,00.html
… link to a draft of the Victory Act (89 pages, pdf) …
http://www.bespacific.com/mt/archives/003693.html
… Viet Dinh, the former assistant attorney general for the Office of Legal Policy at the Justice Department. He helped draft the Patriot Act …
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/terr...triot_8-19.html
…
In May 2001, with the appointment of Assistant Attorney General Viet D. Dinh, Attorney General John Ashcroft restored the name of the office as the Office of Legal Policy and confirmed its principal policy role within the Department.
http://www.usdoj.gov/olp/history.htm
A Chilly Response to 'Patriot II'
Feb. 12, 2003
Unlike its hastily passed predecessor, the Justice Department's wide-ranging follow-up to the Patriot Act of 2001 is already facing intense scrutiny, just days after a civil rights group posted a leaked version of the legislation on its website.
The legislation, nicknamed Patriot II, would broadly expand the government's surveillance and detention powers. Among other measures, it calls for the creation of a terrorist DNA database and allows the attorney general to revoke citizenship of those who provide “material support†to terrorist groups.
Privacy advocates said the bill “gutted the Fourth Amendment,†while prominent Democratic senators, including Patrick Leahy, ranking Democratic member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, immediately chastised the administration for its secrecy.
…
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,57636,00.html
Patriot Act II Resurrected?
Aug. 21, 2003
Congress may consider a bill that not only expands the government's wiretapping and investigative powers but also would link low-level drug dealing to terrorism and ban a traditional form of Middle Eastern banking.
The draft legislation -- titled the Vital Interdiction of Criminal Terrorist Organizations Act of 2003, or Victory Act -- includes significant portions of the so-called Patriot Act II, which faced broad opposition from conservatives and liberals alike and embarrassed the Justice Department when it was leaked to the press in February.
The Victory Act also seems to be an attempt to merge the war on terrorism and the war on drugs into a single campaign. It includes a raft of provisions increasing the government's ability to investigate, wiretap, prosecute and incarcerate money launderers, fugitives, "narco-terrorists" and nonviolent drug dealers. The bill also outlaws hawalas, the informal and documentless money transferring systems widely used in the Middle East, India and parts of Asia.
A June 27 draft of the bill, authored by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and co-sponsored by four fellow Republicans on the Judiciary Committee, has been circulating in Washington, D.C.
…
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,60129,00.html
… link to a draft of the Victory Act (89 pages, pdf) …
http://www.bespacific.com/mt/archives/003693.html
grampster
Member
The trouble with most Democrats is that they tend
to "talk" about issues. Correct. They just never do anything
about them except to create another government subsidized
socialist program that drowns everything in red ink, fraud and generally
makes everyone worse off that before. Democratic programs depend on people
being beholden to the government. Democrats are truly the divisive
party because they need victims to support their powerbase. They are the party
of discrimination, race baiting, diversity as a means of grabbing and holding
power, and the whole spectrum of the "nanny state". Conservatives may not
be pure, but at least they stand more for individualism; which built our country
and made is great. It is easier for me to avoid the greedy robber baron. It
is difficult to avoid the long arm of the State. You are never penalized for
not shopping at Standard Oil. Try not paying your taxes and see what happens.
to "talk" about issues. Correct. They just never do anything
about them except to create another government subsidized
socialist program that drowns everything in red ink, fraud and generally
makes everyone worse off that before. Democratic programs depend on people
being beholden to the government. Democrats are truly the divisive
party because they need victims to support their powerbase. They are the party
of discrimination, race baiting, diversity as a means of grabbing and holding
power, and the whole spectrum of the "nanny state". Conservatives may not
be pure, but at least they stand more for individualism; which built our country
and made is great. It is easier for me to avoid the greedy robber baron. It
is difficult to avoid the long arm of the State. You are never penalized for
not shopping at Standard Oil. Try not paying your taxes and see what happens.
fallingblock
Member
w4rma was actually typing in some thoughts there.....
and then. pow!
A ten paragraph cut-and-paste.
and then. pow!
A ten paragraph cut-and-paste.
WonderNine
member
Oh poo poo, you couldn't be bothered to read that.
Too bad.
w4rma IMO a "progressive" is a communist in disguise. I do not believe in tyranny of the majority.
Too bad.
w4rma IMO a "progressive" is a communist in disguise. I do not believe in tyranny of the majority.
patentnonsense
Member
"Liberal" comes from Latin "liber," i.e. "free (rather than enslaved)";
it originally meant "having the virtues of a free man," e.g. generosity, integrity, courage.
This label seems hilariously inapplicable to e.g. Teddy Kennedy.
Perhaps "totalitarian" would be a better label.
To "conserve," on the other hand, means to save old things.
In our country the label "Conservative" seems hilariously inapplicable to a party which has taken away so many of our Constitutional guarantees. Perhaps "totalitarian" would be a better label for them too.
But wait, we can't have two "Totalitarian" parties!!
I know, let's label them "TotaliDEE" and "TotaliDUM" - we can flip a coin to see which group gets which label!
it originally meant "having the virtues of a free man," e.g. generosity, integrity, courage.
This label seems hilariously inapplicable to e.g. Teddy Kennedy.
Perhaps "totalitarian" would be a better label.
To "conserve," on the other hand, means to save old things.
In our country the label "Conservative" seems hilariously inapplicable to a party which has taken away so many of our Constitutional guarantees. Perhaps "totalitarian" would be a better label for them too.
But wait, we can't have two "Totalitarian" parties!!
I know, let's label them "TotaliDEE" and "TotaliDUM" - we can flip a coin to see which group gets which label!
fallingblock
Member
Sure, Wondernine...I could read it....
************************************************************
"Oh poo poo, you couldn't be bothered to read that.
Too bad."
************************************************************
but then I still don't know what w4rma has to say.
We want to encourage w4rma to formulate original thoughts and discuss them, not just subject us to cut-and-pastes from every "progressive" publication out there.
************************************************************
"Imho, a progressive is trying to progress towards more democracy, more balance between public and private interestes, more scientific advancement with more accessability for that technology to more people, more education, knowledge and understanding and more power to more individuals."
************************************************************
Thank you, w4rma. We can discuss that with some level of interaction.
Your opinion' list of "progressive" goals reads like the left's vague shopping list for the 'good of humanity'.
"More democracy"?
Is this to be with or without protection for minority rights?
"More balance between public and private interests"?
Could this mean bringing private assets into 'public' domain?
"More scientific advancement"?
The better to control those who do not conform?
"More education"
Quality of education is important; quantity without it is redundancy.
"More power to more individuals."
It would be helpful to know if this refers to individual freedom, or merely more "progressive" bureaucrats.
The goals are subject to interpretation, but just HOW the "progressive" proposes to attain them is fairly predictable.
Dollars to donuts the "progressive" approach involves taking wealth from those who have and 'giving' it to those deemed to be without.
Including lots of "progressives" along the path.
History has not demonstrated much success with that approach, and often an awful lot of folks who don't agree with the "progressives" lose their wealth, and even their lives.
(Stalin considered himself a "progressive")
Co-opting a name is easy. Changing hard-wired ideology is not.
Today's "progressives" are suspiciously similar in character to the socialists of not so long ago.
************************************************************
"Oh poo poo, you couldn't be bothered to read that.
Too bad."
************************************************************
but then I still don't know what w4rma has to say.
We want to encourage w4rma to formulate original thoughts and discuss them, not just subject us to cut-and-pastes from every "progressive" publication out there.
************************************************************
"Imho, a progressive is trying to progress towards more democracy, more balance between public and private interestes, more scientific advancement with more accessability for that technology to more people, more education, knowledge and understanding and more power to more individuals."
************************************************************
Thank you, w4rma. We can discuss that with some level of interaction.
Your opinion' list of "progressive" goals reads like the left's vague shopping list for the 'good of humanity'.
"More democracy"?
Is this to be with or without protection for minority rights?
"More balance between public and private interests"?
Could this mean bringing private assets into 'public' domain?
"More scientific advancement"?
The better to control those who do not conform?
"More education"
Quality of education is important; quantity without it is redundancy.
"More power to more individuals."
It would be helpful to know if this refers to individual freedom, or merely more "progressive" bureaucrats.
The goals are subject to interpretation, but just HOW the "progressive" proposes to attain them is fairly predictable.
Dollars to donuts the "progressive" approach involves taking wealth from those who have and 'giving' it to those deemed to be without.
Including lots of "progressives" along the path.
History has not demonstrated much success with that approach, and often an awful lot of folks who don't agree with the "progressives" lose their wealth, and even their lives.
(Stalin considered himself a "progressive")
Co-opting a name is easy. Changing hard-wired ideology is not.
Today's "progressives" are suspiciously similar in character to the socialists of not so long ago.
Sean Smith
Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2002
- Messages
- 4,925
Kerry voted for the Patriot Act, too.
Langenator
Member
w4rma, you're saying basically that Democrats are above labels? So I guess that's why Republicans always seem to have the label "conservative" attached to them by the media, while Democrats never seem to get any descriptive label at all?
WonderNine
member
I'm so surprised. No I'm in shock really....
I hope some more brainwashed lemmings post about how Democrats are good and republicans are evil and that will really sway my vote from Lib to Dem in short order. In fact if somebody posts another Newsmax story I'm gonna vote Bush no questions asked. It's all up to you out there. Come on............
make the difference!!!!
7.62FullMetalJacket
Member
Wondernine,
I would attempt to purchase your soul and vote with a pithy but partisan "news" article, but I am busy with World Domination
I would attempt to purchase your soul and vote with a pithy but partisan "news" article, but I am busy with World Domination
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
And based on YOUR definition of a progressive, who do you think is more progressive of the potential Presidential candidates? As noted, John Kerry voted for the Patriot Act, he voted for to heavily restrict private firearms ownership, he supported Campaign Finance reform, which is an abortion of the First Amendment.
Based on your definition, it looks like there are no progressive candidates running and John Kerry is the least progressive of the them all.
Destructo6
Member
No, communism is the concentration of power in the government in the public good. You misunderstood what I said.
Robespierre once said, and I paraphrase, "The will of the people cannot be denied. If you are against the will of the people, you are the enemy. (Doesn't sound too bad so far.) A committee may act in the interest of the people in lieu of a general vote. How can it be determined that the committe truly acts in the will of the people? Simple, there is no dissent against the actions of the committe."
So, you may see that the committee represents the will of the people, whose decisions cannot be opposed.
This is the kind of "Democratic" thinking that is the basis of the Terror, Soviet purges, the Killing Fields, etc.
greyhound
Member
Sounds like they're hiding FROM a label.
Once again, has "liberal" been polled or something as negative (in addition to Dukakis and the 1988 election)?
Even given the "not wanting to hide behind a label" stuff, why do Democrats go ape when called "liberals" but not "progressives"? Aren't they both labels?
Yeah, but that was when the smart thing to do was vote for it. Now he opposes it.
Sean Smith
Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2002
- Messages
- 4,925
But that's the definitive Kerry move: vote for something so you can oppose it later.
Kerry is a gun grabber. His canned upland bird "hunt" during the primary no more makes him our friend than Clinton's duck "hunt" when he was a presidential candidate.
Kerry has voted for any gun control legislation that came before him. As president, he would sign any gun control legislation that reaches his desk and would shill for it as well.
He's a gun grabber and anyone who says otherwise is a liar or a fool.
Kerry has voted for any gun control legislation that came before him. As president, he would sign any gun control legislation that reaches his desk and would shill for it as well.
He's a gun grabber and anyone who says otherwise is a liar or a fool.
w4rma
member
Every Senator voted for the Patriot Act except for Sen. Russ Feingold, a Democrat.
A better policy to examine to determine where police state policy is coming from is the Patriot Act II. The Patriot Act II is being pushed by the right-wingers and opposed by most Democrats. Judges are only being nominated by Bush if they will uphold the Republican leadership's Patriot Acts.
I think it's whacked that folks here complain that government is getting more and more totalitarian and blaming this on liberals while the Republican Party has majority control of all three branches of government.
JohnBT
Member
The problem is that we think that it would be worse with the Democrats in power. Am I speaking slowly enough? The concept is quite simple.
John
John
Sean Smith
Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2002
- Messages
- 4,925
So does that mean Kerry will, or won't, vote for it? Considering that he voted for the war (but not funding it once shots were fired at US forces), and for the Patriot Act (but now says it is bad)...?
I'm sure rasing gas taxes by $0.50 like he wanted to & raising taxes will improve the economy, too.
- Status
