PATRIOT Act to be renewed today; where's the Tea Party?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 08, 2011 6:57 PM GMT
    Key provisions of the PATRIOT Act will be renewed today in the Republican-controlled House. Provisions include:

    language that gives the FBI authority to use roving wiretaps;

    a “lone wolf” provision that allows the government to monitor targets who are not connected to an identifiable terrorist group, and most troublingly,

    a provision allowing the government to access, without judicial review, “any tangible items” such as library records that it deems relevant to an ongoing terrorism investigation.

    I thought the Tea Party was against this kind of government overreach. So where's the protest?

    Why aren't they marching on the House and demanding the Reps they elected vote against these obviously unconstitutional assaults on our civil liberties?

    Have the Tea Party supporters on this site contacted their Reps, as I did, to ask them to vote against it?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 08, 2011 7:08 PM GMT
    The kind of government overreach we're concerned about deals with spending, government-takeover of things best done privately, excessive regulations that impede growth of the private sector.

    Law enforcement and border control are legitimate functions of government. As far as potential intrusion is concerned, remember: If you are truly innocent, you have nothing to be concerned about. icon_biggrin.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 08, 2011 7:09 PM GMT
    socalfitness saidThe kind of government overreach we're concerned about deals with spending, government-takeover of things best done privately, excessive regulations that impede growth of the private sector.

    Law enforcement and border control are legitimate functions of government. As far as potential intrusion is concerned, remember: If you are truly innocent, you have nothing to be concerned about. icon_biggrin.gif


    I agree with this assessment. This is one of the chief roles of government. The anger is over the fact that the government would be taking over sectors that should remain private.

    I do have some issues with the patriot act though and how intrusive to privacy it is. That being said, there are necessary evils in this world from time to time. I tend to lean heavily anti-war whenever possible. I guess it's the libertarian in me.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 08, 2011 7:16 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    socalfitness saidThe kind of government overreach we're concerned about deals with spending, government-takeover of things best done privately, excessive regulations that impede growth of the private sector.

    Law enforcement and border control are legitimate functions of government. As far as potential intrusion is concerned, remember: If you are truly innocent, you have nothing to be concerned about. icon_biggrin.gif


    I agree with this assessment. This is one of the chief roles of government. The anger is over the fact that the government would be taking over sectors that should remain private.

    I do have some issues with the patriot act though and how intrusive to privacy it is. That being said, there are necessary evils in this world from time to time. I tend to lean heavily anti-war whenever possible. I guess it's the libertarian in me.


    So you're both fascists who believe in unfettered corporate freedom but are fine with civil liberties for citizens being constrained? icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 08, 2011 7:25 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    mocktwinkie said
    socalfitness saidThe kind of government overreach we're concerned about deals with spending, government-takeover of things best done privately, excessive regulations that impede growth of the private sector.

    Law enforcement and border control are legitimate functions of government. As far as potential intrusion is concerned, remember: If you are truly innocent, you have nothing to be concerned about. icon_biggrin.gif


    I agree with this assessment. This is one of the chief roles of government. The anger is over the fact that the government would be taking over sectors that should remain private.

    I do have some issues with the patriot act though and how intrusive to privacy it is. That being said, there are necessary evils in this world from time to time. I tend to lean heavily anti-war whenever possible. I guess it's the libertarian in me.


    So you're both fascists who believe in unfettered corporate freedom but are fine with civil liberties for citizens being constrained? icon_rolleyes.gif


    Economic freedom results in different corporations competing which creates better things. If one corporation acts badly it hurts them because another corporation may give incentives for people to work for them instead. There are always possibilities. If you're angry with a corporation, leave and work for someone else.

    And why would I be fine with civil liberties for citizens being constrained? People should be able to do whatever they want as long as it isn't infringing on the freedoms of others. We have a government to enforce the law and ensure that anyone infringing on another or hurting or harming someone is punished for doing that. For all the sticky stuff like "should I have the freedom then to stand on my own property yard naked with the neighbors seeing me?", the courts can decide.

    The government also has to decide on certain environmental laws which could have ramifications for the whole population. A corporation can't have the freedom to pollute as much as they want because they are harming others directly. Thus, they need to be regulated.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 08, 2011 7:30 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    Christian73 said
    mocktwinkie said
    socalfitness saidThe kind of government overreach we're concerned about deals with spending, government-takeover of things best done privately, excessive regulations that impede growth of the private sector.

    Law enforcement and border control are legitimate functions of government. As far as potential intrusion is concerned, remember: If you are truly innocent, you have nothing to be concerned about. icon_biggrin.gif


    I agree with this assessment. This is one of the chief roles of government. The anger is over the fact that the government would be taking over sectors that should remain private.

    I do have some issues with the patriot act though and how intrusive to privacy it is. That being said, there are necessary evils in this world from time to time. I tend to lean heavily anti-war whenever possible. I guess it's the libertarian in me.


    So you're both fascists who believe in unfettered corporate freedom but are fine with civil liberties for citizens being constrained? icon_rolleyes.gif


    Economic freedom results in different corporations competing which creates better things. If one corporation acts badly it hurts them because another corporation may give incentives for people to work for them instead. There are always possibilities. If you're angry with a corporation, leave and work for someone else.

    And why would I be fine with civil liberties for citizens being constrained? People should be able to do whatever they want as long as it isn't infringing on the freedoms of others. We have a government to enforce the law and ensure that anyone infringing on another or hurting or harming someone is punished for doing that. For all the sticky stuff like "should I have the freedom then to stand on my own property yard naked with the neighbors seeing me?", the courts can decide.

    The government also has to decide on certain environmental laws which could have ramifications for the whole population. A corporation can't have the freedom to pollute as much as they want because they are harming others directly. Thus, they need to be regulated.


    Hey - You said you agreed with Socal and his position is the definition of fascism. The PATRIOT Act goes far beyond law enforcement and border control to infringing on citizens civil liberties.

    In any event, neither of you have answered the question as to why the Tea Party isn't fighting the Act.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 08, 2011 7:43 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    mocktwinkie said
    Christian73 said
    mocktwinkie said
    socalfitness saidThe kind of government overreach we're concerned about deals with spending, government-takeover of things best done privately, excessive regulations that impede growth of the private sector.

    Law enforcement and border control are legitimate functions of government. As far as potential intrusion is concerned, remember: If you are truly innocent, you have nothing to be concerned about. icon_biggrin.gif


    I agree with this assessment. This is one of the chief roles of government. The anger is over the fact that the government would be taking over sectors that should remain private.

    I do have some issues with the patriot act though and how intrusive to privacy it is. That being said, there are necessary evils in this world from time to time. I tend to lean heavily anti-war whenever possible. I guess it's the libertarian in me.


    So you're both fascists who believe in unfettered corporate freedom but are fine with civil liberties for citizens being constrained? icon_rolleyes.gif


    Economic freedom results in different corporations competing which creates better things. If one corporation acts badly it hurts them because another corporation may give incentives for people to work for them instead. There are always possibilities. If you're angry with a corporation, leave and work for someone else.

    And why would I be fine with civil liberties for citizens being constrained? People should be able to do whatever they want as long as it isn't infringing on the freedoms of others. We have a government to enforce the law and ensure that anyone infringing on another or hurting or harming someone is punished for doing that. For all the sticky stuff like "should I have the freedom then to stand on my own property yard naked with the neighbors seeing me?", the courts can decide.

    The government also has to decide on certain environmental laws which could have ramifications for the whole population. A corporation can't have the freedom to pollute as much as they want because they are harming others directly. Thus, they need to be regulated.


    Hey - You said you agreed with Socal and his position is the definition of fascism. The PATRIOT Act goes far beyond law enforcement and border control to infringing on citizens civil liberties.

    In any event, neither of you have answered the question as to why the Tea Party isn't fighting the Act.


    I just said I have some issues with the act. Didn't you read? That I have theoretically more libertarian ideas about these things, including war and foreign interference.

    I'm not sure why the tea party isn't getting in a frazzle. Maybe they aren't paying attention? Your OP was news to me.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 08, 2011 7:54 PM GMT
    socalfitness saidIf you are truly innocent, you have nothing to be concerned about. icon_biggrin.gif

    icon_eek.gificon_eek.gificon_eek.gificon_eek.gificon_eek.gif

    Meaning you don't mind being arrested for any arbitrary reason, it'll just get sorted out later? You hope? And your privacy being violated, privacies Americans enjoyed for over 200 years, meaning you in effect have no privacy left at all?

    And how about "truly innocent" people who are jailed for decades in the US, even get put on death row, because of law enforcement misusing their authority? In effect, framing them? Until DNA tests prove them innocent, and God help those still in prison because there was no DNA evidence available to exonerate them. We read of these cases every day, it's not hypothetical.

    Much of the US Revolution, and the US Constitution, were concerned about preventing just these sorts of abuses by government against citizens. Christian73 is right -- where's the Teabagger outrage? Where's their defense of Constitutional Rights, that they yelled & picketed about last November?

    It's clear, as many of us said back then, the Teabaggers are a sham. Bigoted people with little personal knowledge of what our US Constitution actually says, being manipulated like sheep by corporate and right-wing interests.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 08, 2011 9:02 PM GMT
    I quote Santorum again (who's right on, unfortunately):

    “I don’t think he [Mitch Daniels] understands what conservatism is all about," Santorum told conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt. "I don’t think he understands that Reagan’s three-legged stool is not just that we have three legs of the stool, the social conservative, the fiscal conservative and national security conservatives, but that the material made of all three parts of the stool is the same."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 08, 2011 9:09 PM GMT
    q1w2e3 saidI quote Santorum again (who's right on, unfortunately):

    “I don’t think he [Mitch Daniels] understands what conservatism is all about," Santorum told conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt. "I don’t think he understands that Reagan’s three-legged stool is not just that we have three legs of the stool, the social conservative, the fiscal conservative and national security conservatives, but that the material made of all three parts of the stool is the same."


    He's very incorrect on that. Social conservatism and fiscal conservatism may be compatible but they can also be very different in terms of what a person espouses -- people like me are living proof that he's dead wrong. What is true, however, is that in order for the GOP to win they do need all three parts voting.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 08, 2011 9:19 PM GMT
    socalfitness saidThe kind of government overreach we're concerned about deals with spending, government-takeover of things best done privately, excessive regulations that impede growth of the private sector.

    Law enforcement and border control are legitimate functions of government. As far as potential intrusion is concerned, remember: If you are truly innocent, you have nothing to be concerned about. icon_biggrin.gif

    OK, I do have to come clean. But first I must ask, where is JP when you need him? He is often around when you don't, but now, he would come in handy. He has a sense of humor, or at least seems to understand mine, and could provide some explanation from an ally you can trust.

    I have a sister who is very much into women's rights, formerly called a women's libber. I would say, "I very much support equal rights and pay for women, but only after the house is cleaned and laundry is done." She would seethe. I would ask her why so angry, when she knew I was joking. She would not be mollified and reply, "Yes, I knew you were joking, but you shouldn't joke about this."

    My comment in the earlier post was a way, humorous for me at least, to get a rise out of some of you. While you don't know me well or have any appreciation for my form of humor, you might possibly have recognized my statement as humor, possibly pathetic humor to you all. I'm sure JP would have recognized it as such. Similar to saying court trials should be very brief. They are only formalities as we know the police are very busy and don't need to waste time arresting innocent people. Note: The previous statement was also a joke, ok?

    My true opinion is a cop out, I'm sure you will believe. I think there need to be safeguards to protect individual rights, but law enforcement must not have both hands tied behind their back. There needs to be a balancing act, and I don't offer a simple remedy.

    As far as the Tea Party is concerned, it is a movement with a specific focus that I was serious about in the earlier post. It is not a political party that needs to have a stated position in other areas.
  • tongun18

    Posts: 593

    Feb 08, 2011 9:29 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    socalfitness saidThe kind of government overreach we're concerned about deals with spending, government-takeover of things best done privately, excessive regulations that impede growth of the private sector.

    Law enforcement and border control are legitimate functions of government. As far as potential intrusion is concerned, remember: If you are truly innocent, you have nothing to be concerned about. icon_biggrin.gif

    OK, I do have to come clean. But first I must ask, where is JP when you need him? He is often around when you don't, but now, he would come in handy. He has a sense of humor, or at least seems to understand mine, and could provide some explanation from an ally you can trust.

    I have a sister who is very much into women's rights, formerly called a women's libber. I would say, "I very much support equal rights and pay for women, but only after the house is cleaned and laundry is done." She would seethe. I would ask her why so angry, when she knew I was joking. She would not be mollified and reply, "Yes, I knew you were joking, but you shouldn't joke about this."

    My comment in the earlier post was a way, humorous for me at least, to get a rise out of some of you. While you don't know me well or have any appreciation for my form of humor, you might possibly have recognized my statement as humor, possibly pathetic humor to you all. I'm sure JP would have recognized it as such. Similar to saying court trials should be very brief. They are only formalities as we know the police are very busy and don't need to waste time arresting innocent people. Note: The previous statement was also a joke, ok?

    My true opinion is a cop out, I'm sure you will believe. I think there need to be safeguards to protect individual rights, but law enforcement must not have both hands tied behind their back. There needs to be a balancing act, and I don't offer a simple remedy.

    As far as the Tea Party is concerned, it is a movement with a specific focus that I was serious about in the earlier post. It is not a political party that needs to have a stated position in other areas.


    Oh man Socal! I'm sooo glad you posted this! I didn't immediately recognize your first statement as a joke and I was so disappointed and about to go on a very long tirade. icon_biggrin.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 08, 2011 9:30 PM GMT
    The Sheeples say "KEEP US SAFE" while the government creates the problems costing the Sheeples children their lives, NEO CON's BushCheney, Beating war drums to get us into Iraq and Afghanistan, saying "they hate us for our freedoms","we have to fight them over there rather than here", saying over and over again how much danger we're in from the terrorists, to get their "PATRIOT ACT" enforced, Propaganda to create fear so the Sheeples cry out "keep us safe", then the sheeples will go along with anything to be "kept safe". Worked pretty good didn't it, and the Tbaggers cannot see further than the Koch Bro's financial support for their signs and rallies against their own interests. WHAT DUMB FUCKS !!!!!!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 08, 2011 9:32 PM GMT
    tongun18 saidOh man Socal! I'm sooo glad you posted this! I didn't immediately recognize your first statement as a joke and I was so disappointed and about to go on a very long tirade. icon_biggrin.gif

    But I did use a smiley face; that should count for something! I'm just a playful, mischievous character.
  • tongun18

    Posts: 593

    Feb 08, 2011 9:38 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    tongun18 saidOh man Socal! I'm sooo glad you posted this! I didn't immediately recognize your first statement as a joke and I was so disappointed and about to go on a very long tirade. icon_biggrin.gif

    But I did use a smiley face; that should count for something! I'm just a playful, mischievous character.


    Yes you did, I see that now. I almost jumped the gun, I just tend to get a little zealous when it comes to privacy rights.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 08, 2011 9:54 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    tongun18 saidOh man Socal! I'm sooo glad you posted this! I didn't immediately recognize your first statement as a joke and I was so disappointed and about to go on a very long tirade. icon_biggrin.gif

    But I did use a smiley face; that should count for something! I'm just a playful, mischievous character.


    I'm glad you were joking, but I can't abide putting the rights of corporations ahead of actual citizens.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 08, 2011 10:01 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    socalfitness said
    tongun18 saidOh man Socal! I'm sooo glad you posted this! I didn't immediately recognize your first statement as a joke and I was so disappointed and about to go on a very long tirade. icon_biggrin.gif

    But I did use a smiley face; that should count for something! I'm just a playful, mischievous character.


    I'm glad you were joking, but I can't abide putting the rights of corporations ahead of actual citizens.
    I agree comparing individual rights with corporations. The issue I was addressing, or trying to address, was the need to have a balance between individual rights and public safety. In general, I think the balance is best achieved by procedures that get judicial review.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 09, 2011 1:05 AM GMT
    I thank the 26 Republicans who voted no.

    http://www.salon.com/wires/us/2011/02/08/D9L8TSC80_us_patriot_act/index.htmlHouse rejects extensions of Patriot Act provisions
    By JIM ABRAMS, Associated Press

    In a misstep for the new Republican leadership, the House has rejected legislation to extend for nine months three key surveillance tools that are part of the nation's post-Sept. 11 anti-terror law.

    The Republicans brought the bill to the floor Tuesday under a procedure requiring a two-thirds majority for passage. But with 26 Republicans joining Democrats in opposing the extension of the USA Patriot Act provisions, the vote was 277-148, seven short of what was needed for passage.

    The bill would have extended until Dec. 8 provisions dealing with roving wiretaps, FBI access to business records and surveillance of non-U.S. "lone wolf" terrorist suspects. The provisions expire on Feb. 28 without House and Senate actions.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 09, 2011 1:16 AM GMT
    http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1854969139042&set=o.138529979532186
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 09, 2011 1:26 AM GMT
    q1w2e3 saidI thank the 26 Republicans who voted no.

    http://www.salon.com/wires/us/2011/02/08/D9L8TSC80_us_patriot_act/index.htmlHouse rejects extensions of Patriot Act provisions
    By JIM ABRAMS, Associated Press

    In a misstep for the new Republican leadership, the House has rejected legislation to extend for nine months three key surveillance tools that are part of the nation's post-Sept. 11 anti-terror law.

    The Republicans brought the bill to the floor Tuesday under a procedure requiring a two-thirds majority for passage. But with 26 Republicans joining Democrats in opposing the extension of the USA Patriot Act provisions, the vote was 277-148, seven short of what was needed for passage.

    The bill would have extended until Dec. 8 provisions dealing with roving wiretaps, FBI access to business records and surveillance of non-U.S. "lone wolf" terrorist suspects. The provisions expire on Feb. 28 without House and Senate actions.



    Yes. I just saw this. Good on them for putting their money where their mouths are.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 09, 2011 1:26 AM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    Christian73 said
    mocktwinkie said
    socalfitness saidThe kind of government overreach we're concerned about deals with spending, government-takeover of things best done privately, excessive regulations that impede growth of the private sector.

    Law enforcement and border control are legitimate functions of government. As far as potential intrusion is concerned, remember: If you are truly innocent, you have nothing to be concerned about. icon_biggrin.gif


    I agree with this assessment. This is one of the chief roles of government. The anger is over the fact that the government would be taking over sectors that should remain private.

    I do have some issues with the patriot act though and how intrusive to privacy it is. That being said, there are necessary evils in this world from time to time. I tend to lean heavily anti-war whenever possible. I guess it's the libertarian in me.


    So you're both fascists who believe in unfettered corporate freedom but are fine with civil liberties for citizens being constrained? icon_rolleyes.gif


    Economic freedom results in different corporations competing which creates better things. If one corporation acts badly it hurts them because another corporation may give incentives for people to work for them instead. There are always possibilities. If you're angry with a corporation, leave and work for someone else.

    And why would I be fine with civil liberties for citizens being constrained? People should be able to do whatever they want as long as it isn't infringing on the freedoms of others. We have a government to enforce the law and ensure that anyone infringing on another or hurting or harming someone is punished for doing that. For all the sticky stuff like "should I have the freedom then to stand on my own property yard naked with the neighbors seeing me?", the courts can decide.

    The government also has to decide on certain environmental laws which could have ramifications for the whole population. A corporation can't have the freedom to pollute as much as they want because they are harming others directly. Thus, they need to be regulated.
    You are in serious conflict with my Governor(crook) then..icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 09, 2011 2:29 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    q1w2e3 saidI thank the 26 Republicans who voted no.

    http://www.salon.com/wires/us/2011/02/08/D9L8TSC80_us_patriot_act/index.htmlHouse rejects extensions of Patriot Act provisions
    By JIM ABRAMS, Associated Press

    In a misstep for the new Republican leadership, the House has rejected legislation to extend for nine months three key surveillance tools that are part of the nation's post-Sept. 11 anti-terror law.

    The Republicans brought the bill to the floor Tuesday under a procedure requiring a two-thirds majority for passage. But with 26 Republicans joining Democrats in opposing the extension of the USA Patriot Act provisions, the vote was 277-148, seven short of what was needed for passage.

    The bill would have extended until Dec. 8 provisions dealing with roving wiretaps, FBI access to business records and surveillance of non-U.S. "lone wolf" terrorist suspects. The provisions expire on Feb. 28 without House and Senate actions.



    Yes. I just saw this. Good on them for putting their money where their mouths are.


    And it was stated on NPR this morning that it was because of Tea Party influence and support to have the measure fail. So much for your thread, huh?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 09, 2011 3:28 PM GMT
    Socal said,
    "I have a sister who is very much into women's rights, formerly called a women's libber. I would say, "I very much support equal rights and pay for women, but only after the house is cleaned and laundry is done." She would seethe. I would ask her why so angry, when she knew I was joking. She would not be mollified and reply, "Yes, I knew you were joking, but you shouldn't joke about this."

    lol, present humour aside, your sister had a point.


    As well, if your humour becomes too veiled it becomes obscured rather than subtle and you'll be misunderstood, as tongun18 nearly did. icon_wink.gif

    -Doug

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 09, 2011 3:39 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    mocktwinkie said
    And it was stated on NPR this morning that it was because of Tea Party influence and support to have the measure fail. So much for your thread, huh?


    Well, since liberal NPR reported it, I guess this thread is now over. icon_razz.gif


    I don't, and never have, listened to NPR. It's the cure for insomnia.

    As I said above, I think it's great that they are upholding small government principles when it comes to civil liberties as we as business.

    That said, I haven't and am still not seeing the kind of broad-based agitation from the Tea Party on the PATRIOT Act that we've seen on taxes and economic "liberty."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 09, 2011 4:49 PM GMT
    Christian73's question in the OP was:

    "Why aren't they marching on the House and demanding the Reps they elected vote against these obviously unconstitutional assaults on our civil liberties?"

    He was talking about the loudmouthed Teabaggers in the streets from before the November election, not House Members, who would not march on Congress themselves. But even so, the 26 Republicans who voted against it only included 7 identified as strongly associated with the Tea Party, but still members of the Republican Party. So it wasn't all the Teabaggers, just a handful of them, and not representative of their entire movement. Which remains silent on the streets, and that was Christian73's point.

    But the number in favor of renewing these Patriot Act provisions was still very high: 277 to 148. It only failed because the novice Republican House leadership miscalculated and made a tactical error.

    In their rush to get this thing approved quickly they fast-tracted it, using a procedure that requires a super 2/3 majority instead of a simple majority. Had they not been so hasty they would have had their Patriot Act approval (and this is only for certain more controversial parts of it) by a very wide margin.

    It seems quite possible the Repub leaders will now take the slower route to approval, knowing that a simple majority vote for it is guaranteed.