Life At New Animal Farm Won’t Be All That Bad

shagdrum

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2005
Messages
6,568
Reaction score
44
Location
KS
Life At New Animal Farm Won’t Be All That Bad

By July, we will come to feel that 2009 will be one of the most upbeat years in our history, as what used to be the news media∗ begins to get behind America and report on all the mysteriously wonderful things that are suddenly taking place.

All the campaign talk of the Great Depression, a Vietnam-like war, and our shredded Constitution will now thankfully subside as the Obama administration assumes office and solves problems with conciliation, dialogue, and multilateral wisdom, rather than shrillness, unilateralism, preemption, and my-way-or-the-highway dogmatism. We will hear that by historical levels unemployment is still not that bad, that GDP growth is not historically all that low, and that deficits, inflation, interest rates, and housing starts are all within manageable parameters. “Depression” will transmogrify into “recession” which in turn by July will be a “downturn” and by year next an “upswing” on its way to boom times.

Indeed, almost supernaturally crises will be solved with the departure of the hated Bush: no more flooding streets from cracked water mains that were a result of a President’s neglect of infrastructure, and no more spontaneous crashes of Mississippi River bridges due to diversions of critical federal aid from cash-strapped states to Iraq. And when the temperatures rise or drop, the wind howls, the clouds burst forth or go away, the snow melts or piles up, it will be, well, nature that caused the havoc, not the current occupant of the White House who failed to sign Kyoto.

As we watch the innocent die from natural mayhem, it will be due to the breakdown of local responders who now suddenly kill people, not federal inaction—except perhaps for an occasional few Bush federal holdovers that have not yet been rooted out. Human nature, of course, now will be seen more culpable, more selfish, as in needlessly resisting wise and caring federal interventions, rather than being inherently noble but shunned by an uncaring Washington. Yes, when dikes collapse and planes collide on crowed run-ways, it will be due to a cruel and unpredictable nature, or intrinsic design flaws, or improper local use and maintenance, or the past President’s nefarious legacy, not current government policies. (But if you still must bash the government, it will be wise to do it in 1950s style of inattentive state and local officials, prone to regional and tribal prejudices, blocking the infinite wisdom of a caring federal government.)

Some military action abroad could be necessary—and necessarily reported on as measured and reluctant, rather than cowboyish and gratuitous. European whining will be a result of miscommunications or the Euros’ unfair caricatures of Americans, not Bush’s alienation of allies. If radical Islam strikes, it will be, well, radical again and sometimes even dangerous, not a figment of neocon pipe dreams. If an administration official quits, goes on 60 Minutes, and writes a nasty tell-all book about Obama’s insensitivity and his government’s directionless ennui, he will be a heretic, a whiner, a turncoat, not a truth teller or brave maverick who blew the whistle in need of a bestseller hyped from NPR to the New York Times. We will come again to hate the filibuster, obstructionist Congressional policies, and the occasional loud-mouthed Senator who voices slurs against our nation in unpatriotic fashion.

Those around Barack Obama understand that precisely those measures most derided during the campaign—wiretaps, the interrogation of prisoners in Guantanamo, the decimation of al Qaida members in Iraq and Afghanistan, overseas detentions—probably account likewise most for the absence of another 9/11-like attack. In other words, as the Obamians privately ignore the media hype about flushed Korans and hundreds of innocents caught in the cauldron of war and unfairly detained, and instead examine the sort of killers who are presently in Guantanamo, the type of intelligence gathering that led to prevention of dozens of planned attacks since 9/11, and those who turned up and were killed or arrested in Iraq and Afghanistan, they will realize how dicey it will be to follow through with campaign rhetoric about Bush, Inc. torching the Bill of Rights, fighting made-up enemies abroad, and generally alienating our allies.

So all that will change for now will be the sudden absence of shrill complaints that we live in an America without a Constitution. Static, same-old, same-old government policy will, of course, be said to have altered radically (”hoped and changed”), but it will also be refashioned in the media as “sober” and “judicious”, as the administration moves “in circumspect fashion” to probe and explore “complex” and often “paradoxical” matters of national security that “indeed at the end of the day have no easy answers”.

Expect much of the same on the economic front. For all the campaign hysteria about greedy Bu:q:q:q:qes who destroyed the economy, Obama realizes that in fact the seeds of the current financial weeds were sown years ago, and watered and fertilized by an array of both Democratic and Republican facilitators in Congress and hacks in government-affiliated mortgage sinecures. So expect the bailouts to continue. We will see Wall Street in about 24 hours after January 20 transmogrified from Gordon Gecko’s habitat into a sort of the old Robert Rubin/Warren Buffet-like necessary institution about which a Sen. Schumer or Chris Dodd can offer invaluable advice and consultation.

Socially, we will get a mix of Maya Angelou, Oprah, and Rick Warren, a rich diversity of therapeutics that appeals to everyone’s popular feel-my-pain tastes. Rev. Wrights and Father Plegers are “that was then, this is now” has-beens (not that they and their Blago-ilk with a memoir or wierd disclosure won’t try to crash the party from time to time), replaced by the bromides of the Purpose-Driven Life. The Left will once again see the U.S. as the last, best hope for mankind, a flawed, often errant nation that nevertheless in its heart always showed the world what was right in the end. “Diversity” and “progressive” themes will replace Bush’s hokey old-time patriotism, as we return to a more nuanced and sophisticated love of country that at last “came home.”

In other words, one can also at last enjoy that nice wood-floored study, tastefully granite-countered kitchen, with plenty of stainless steel appliances, in a mostly un-diverse neighborhood, still send your kids to a mostly predetermined racially-appropriate school, and still make a pretty good salary, drive a comfortably large car (though please—preferably a Volvo or Mercedes SUV rather than a Tahoe or Yukon), and feel like you are out there on the barricades of radical environmental, cultural, and political change (and hope too!).

Al Gore will be courted, get an occasional photo-op head-pat—but when he gets too loud quietly sent back upstairs to the closet. Ditto the uncouth Sharpton and Jackson, snapping pit bulls muzzled and dispatched to the kennels. Jimmy Carter will once again be wierd old jet-setting Jimmy Carter, a meddler, a spoiler, a PR junkie on the verge of senility rather than the principled Nobel laureate of the Carter Center.

Those inside the big house change, the commandments on the barn wall subtly are crossed out and updated, but the farm for us animals stays about the same.

______________

∗ I say used to be the news media, since when they report good news about the Divine Obama we have no idea whether it’s encomium or fact; and if they are ever slightly negative, we don’t know whether the complaint derives from His real error or merely that they are stung by past criticism and ostensibly trying to be periodically balanced. In short, the age of Murrow is over—and the divine era of Augustus with his Livy and Dio is upon us.
 
I love the harbingers of doom that live at NRO - Although, I don't think even NRO would print this particular piece of Victor's bile...

However they have forgotten that we have lived for 8 years under another, and more telling piece of Orwellian fiction... 1984

War is Peace

Freedom is Slavery

Ignorance is Strength


I don't believe that Animal Farm is around the corner, but I do believe that we can look forward to finally being free from the constant oppression of George Bush's and Dick Cheney's version of Big Brother government.
 
Foxpaws will be part of the media spin machine telling us that President Cokehead is awesome and we need to get back to work so we can supply more tax money for the good of the state.
 
Ken, I certainly realized that during this last administration I was living in 1984 - from a war that was designed to never end, to the systematic removal of my rights and freedoms. The last 8 years we have been living with newspeak - it's a beautiful thing, the destruction of words by Bush (sorry Eric Blair).

Now, with a black president we have a chance to actually put to rest the most central of the intendments in Animal Farm - could we get to the point where finally it can be self-evident that all men are created equal?
 
Ken, I certainly realized that during this last administration I was living in 1984 - from a war that was designed to never end, to the systematic removal of my rights and freedoms.
Absolutely nonsense. Every element of that statement is simply wrong. It's catchy, it's fun to repeat, but it's completely untrue.

There is no war designed to "never end." And there has not been a systematic removal of our rights by the design of the administration, particularly associated with the war on terror. To perpetuate that campaign point is to perpetuate a LIE.

The last 8 years we have been living with newspeak - it's a beautiful thing, the destruction of words by Bush (sorry Eric Blair).
I'd rather be a man with a clear vision who lacked eloquence than an eloquent speaker with nothing of substance to say.

Bush's effectiveness certainly was hurt by his lack of finese. But, I think this has been overstated. Bush was ultimately quite effective communicating while campaigning and that demonstrates my point. Bush didn't engage in a two four year long Presidential campaigns. He won office, served, and only turned the campaign machine on at the last minute. Conservatives should fault this as an ineffective use of his soap box, but liberals think it was some sign of ignorance.

Now, with a black president we have a chance to actually put to rest the most central of the intendments in Animal Farm - could we get to the point where finally it can be self-evident that all men are created equal?
Good, so now that this issue has been resolved- can we all agree that it's no longer necessary to discuss race, to establish programs or policies that given an institutional advantage to minorities, or allow it to be used as an excuse for failure.

A black man won the highest office in the land, the most powerful position in the world, with a majority of the voting population. Race is now, officially, NOT AN ISSUE IN THIS COUNTRY. Get the word out to the poverty pimps and the race baiters.
 
Originally Posted by foxpaws
Ken, I certainly realized that during this last administration I was living in 1984 - from a war that was designed to never end, to the systematic removal of my rights and freedoms.
At least during the Bush administration I was allowed to buy and carry guns. Let's see you spin your way out of explaining Cokehead's actions when he and Hairplugs start pushing more gun control laws. And don't give me some bullcrap about the 2nd Amendment 'collective right' and 'Scalia' ad nauseum. I could do the exact same thing with your fallacious and nonsensical arguments about whatever rights and freedoms Bush has supposedly removed. You can't even substantiate your argument.
 
Foss---
It'll never happen. The Messiah was at pains to tell the voting public that he's a staunch defender of the Second Amendment.
KS
<edit to add> :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Foss---
It'll never happen. The Messiah was at pains to tell the voting public that he's a staunch defender of the Second Amendment.
KS

Perhaps you should add a smiley to that to indicate the apparent sarcasm.
 
There is no war designed to "never end."

As the Ingsoc Party stated in 1984

War is Peace

In 1984 the state was continually at war against an ambiguous enemy. A permanent war. Very similar to our current undefined and apparently unending (during the Bush administration) “war on terrorism.”

War keeps the warmongers in power. In democracies (including ours) only a few leaders have ever been removed during wartime. Let's not look at what is happening to our our poor, our education system, our dismal disaster relief, heck, we are in a war, and that is all that should matter.

"The war is merely an imposture. The war is waged by each ruling group against its own subjects, and the object of the war is...to keep the structure of society intact. The primary aim of modern warfare is to use up the products of the [economy] without raising the general standard of living" 1984, Orwell

The rich get richer, and the poor get to die for their country. What better way to keep everyone where you want them?

War increases the blind loyalty of the citizens. No one wants to look 'unpatriotic' during the time of conflict. It is OK that the Patriot Act is in effect, we need it for our 'protection' Who knows what could have been next - are we going to be tried as traitors for 'thoughtcrimes'?

And there has not been a systematic removal of our rights by the design of the administration, particularly associated with the war on terror.
Ah, time to look at Orwell's third exhortation in 1984

Ignorance is Strength.

I think if you look at our current administration's policy of warrant-less monitoring of phone conversations, Internet usage, business transactions and library reading records, you will see Big Brother at work. Let's look at the bright side though - law enforcement no longer needs to be burdened with such thing as probable cause.

Calabrio did you willing go down the 'it's for our own good' yellow brick road the Bush administration conveniently paved when they explained their reasons for stripping the Fourth Amendment? Maybe you forgot that one of the last 'straws' that brought the colonists to war was a replica of this law that the British enforced in the American colonies - the "writs of assistance' that allowed British soldiers to write their own search warrants. Just like in today's 1984 society our federal agents are allowed to write their own search warrants thanks to the Patriot Act. Warrants that a judge never needs to look at or approve. Odd that we revolted against the monarchy when they inflected this on us, but we were like sheep when the Bush administration did the exact same thing.

And then the Bush administration proceeded to strip away the first amendment as well - our freedom of speech. The Patriot Act makes it a felony for the recipient of an agent written search warrant to reveal it to anyone. So when your banker, post office, lawyer, or doctor is served with that 'agent written' warrant, and they tell anyone they received it, they can be prosecuted for a felony. And if you receive one of these warrants (known as 'national security letters') you aren't even allowed to discuss it with lawyer, or even to answer to a federal judge in a federal courtroom that you received one. The law is requiring you to commit perjury.

And of course the 5th and 6th Amendments got their chance at being dismembered. The Patriot Act has made the writ of habeas corpus meaningless. Now a person can be incarcerated indefinitely without a warrant and without legal counsel if they are labeled "terrorist". Probable cause or proof of terrorist activities are not necessary for apprehension and imprisonment. Forget Miranda, forget the concept of "innocent until proven guilty", and forget about having access to your loved ones if you happen to be incarcerated under the Patriot Act.

As Ben Franklin said "those who sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither".

And foss - once again, you are putting the cart before the horse. Let's look at gun control if it gets to the floor. You and I will still be allowed to buy and carry guns. I guess you have had your head somewhere down a large bore when it comes to understanding where I stand on the 2nd amendment. ;)
 
In 1984 the state was continually at war against an ambiguous enemy. A permanent war. Very similar to our current undefined and apparently unending (during the Bush administration) “war on terrorism.”
Misleading. The War on Terror is simply a way of framing things in an ambiguous P.C. way, it's not an unending war. Furthermore, the country has not been in a state of war. The larger operations have had little to no impact on our daily lives, and everything else in far off lands has been covert. So, the analogy doesn't work. This "state of war" nonsense is simply leftist scaremongering and a left-over explanation for John Kerry losing in 2004.

If the public honestly still felt we were in a state of war, they wouldn't have elected Obama.



War keeps the warmongers in power. In democracies (including ours) only a few leaders have ever been removed during wartime.
Again, you've undermined your position here. If the conditions or psychology of a state of war were being thrust upon the public, then the Democrats, widely understood to be weak on defense, would never have gained political power in these past two years.


Let's not look at what is happening to our our poor, our education system, our dismal disaster relief, heck, we are in a war, and that is all that should matter.
Would you like a shovel to continue digging this hole of yours?

I think if you look at our current administration's policy of warrant-less monitoring of phone conversations, Internet usage, business transactions and library reading records, you will see Big Brother at work. Let's look at the bright side though - law enforcement no longer needs to be burdened with such thing as probable cause.
Gross misrepresentation of current laws. I'll extend you the courtesy of just presuming your wrong and not outright lying about it. Because of the hour, I can't go through your rhetoric paragraph by paragraph right now.

However, regardless how you feel about the Patriot Act, you're demonizing it as a "Bush" thing. As though he were solely responsible for it and had applied it through tyranical measures. You fail to note that it was passed by the congress, it expired, and it was reauthorized.

So, who are some of the Senators who voted to reauthorize the bill?
Joe Biden
Barrak Obama
and you're favorite- Hillary Clinton

http://www.votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_member.php?cs_id=V3801
 
The War on Terror is simply a way of framing things in an ambiguous P.C. way, it's not an unending war. Furthermore, the country has not been in a state of war. The larger operations have had little to no impact on our daily lives, and everything else in far off lands has been covert.

Tell that to 140,000 (active troops) families that the war has had no impact on their daily lives or the 4,200 families who have lost a member to the war effort. How about the tens of thousands of soldiers that have been permanently maimed, or the large number of soldiers who are coming home with very damaging psychological problems. And what about the $620,000,000,000 that this war has cost - you don't think that hasn't had an impact on all of our daily lives?

And I think because of our continuing, and appearing to be never ending, state of war is one of the major reasons this country has turned the tables on the Republicans. I didn't state we 'never' remove leaders during wartime - it is rare. And we didn't 'remove' Bush, we held on to him in 2004. Republicans have shown that they don't understand what their continuing support of a increasing unpopular war is doing to them (sounds like the early to mid 70s here?) and the public has finally had enough.

Gross misrepresentation of current laws.
Really - want to point out the misrepresentation? Those are the points of the Patriot Act. How did I misrepresent them? An FBI agent can write out their own warrant (national security letter) have it approved by a superior FBI agent (ah, what happened to the idea of checks and balances in the 4th Amendment?) serve that warrant, and then, if you are served, you aren't allowed to complain or tell anyone (including those same federal judges that were left out of the warrant approval process to begin with). I can feel my rights being trampled on by an act that is wrapped in red white and blue, to appeal to my 'patriotism'. However, Cal, maybe you have been beguiled by the bunting and the false appeal to your sense of flag waving loyalty.

However, regardless how you feel about the Patriot Act, you're demonizing it as a "Bush" thing. As though he were solely responsible for it and had applied it through tyranical measures. You fail to note that it was passed by the congress, it expired, and it was reauthorized.

The Bush administration has continually used the 'unpatriotic' label on those members of congress who don't vote for the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act by its very name defies individuals to disagree with it, for to do so would be "unpatriotic." If you are into Orwellian newspeak - how doublethink is that? Strong arm tactics at their very best are at play here. And I do think it is awful that those you listed (especially Hillary) didn't stand against it. I believe she could have withstood the onslaught of 'unpatriotic' epitaphs placed at her door if she had voted against it. I think only 9 senators voted against it when it was re-adopted. However, aren't many of you Ron Paul fans - and he certainly didn't vote for the Patriot Act.

And shouldn't we be worried about a law that evokes 'patriotism' within its very name? Should our 'patriotism' be legislated, put into law?

And remember, unlike in George Bush's delusional definition of the presidency, his first job is NOT to keep us safe - his first job is to keep us free, by upholding the constitution.

That puts as at the 2nd of the treatises by Orwell in 1984...

Freedom is Slavery.

"If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." James Madison

With the strongest military and best technology on Earth, I think that our democracy can stand up to terrorism without stripping away our rights. We then become a slave to our 'freedom', allowing it to be squashed in the name of 'safety'. The founders knew all about oppressive government, and placed the highest value on individual liberty.
 
Tell that to 140,000 (active troops) families that the war has had no impact on their daily lives or the 4,200 families who have lost a member to the war effort.
You seemed to have missed my point entirely.
But while we can talk about 140,000 active troops, why don't you talk about the 300,000,000 million other Americans. Because we're not talking about the all volunteer military right now.

And, on what could be considered a separate subject, those are the 140k votes that Democrats so often like to see discarded or rejected when their absentee ballots reach their respective polling locations.


And I think because of our continuing, and appearing to be never ending, state of war is one of the major reasons this country has turned the tables on the Republicans.
So you're acknowledging that the graphic scenario you just presented as reality is, even in your own opinion, not taking place.

Would you like a bigger shovel?

Really - want to point out the misrepresentation? Those are the points of the Patriot Act.
Having been through these debates countless times, I don't feel like having to go down that path again. If you want to go through the trouble of providing specific examples, we can address them. Otherwise, you're talking about a specific piece of legislation, passed with overwhelming bipartisan support, that has not been abused.

The Bush administration has continually used the 'unpatriotic' label on those members of congress who don't vote for the Patriot Act.
First of all, provide some specifics. Who has been called unpatriotic for not supporting the Patriot Act for patriotic reasons. And if you find an example, who made the claim.

And what is your point, that Hillary, Obama, and Biden all supported the REAUTHORIZATION of the patriot act because of name calling by some anonymous,unaffiliated, proxy figure from the Bush administration?

You're argument is fundamentally flawed and discredited the moment you try to frame this civil liberty/patriot act issue in partisan terms.

If you want to talk about federal abuse of power and expansion, that's an excellent issue. Unfortunately, it's one you only embrace when you can attribute some rhetoric to the issue in an effort to smear Republicans. The rest of the time, you embrace large federal government, the expanding concentration of power in Washington, and the erosion of both our civil liberties and responsibilities.

And remember, unlike in George Bush's delusional definition of the presidency, his first job is NOT to keep us safe - his first job is to keep us free, by upholding the constitution.
And the response to this is that you don't keep the country free if you can't keep it strong and safe. All Presidents in times of crisis face this very challenge. Lincoln and Roosevelt both faced these challenges like this too. You knowingly mislead in your efforts to persuade.

With the strongest military and best technology on Earth, I think that our democracy can stand up to terrorism without stripping away our rights.
Explain how we'll do that if we're not legally allowed to utilize any of that technology in order to prevent terrorist attacks? If the government isn't allowed to intercept international phone calls from known terrorists. If they aren't allowed to use face scanning technology in open places. If they aren't allowed to engage in covert surveillance of suspected terrorists.

Using your short sited, flawed logic, the only effective use of that technology is cleaning up the mess afterward and possibly figuring out what happened after the fact....
 
You seemed to have missed my point entirely.
But while we can talk about 140,000 active troops, why don't you talk about the 300,000,000 million other Americans. Because we're not talking about the all volunteer military right now.

So, your point was - that we aren't affected by the war - correct? Aren't you dancing around my reasons that we are all affected by this war? You and I are incredibly impacted by the immense cost of this war - and the continuing cost that this war will entail. Healthcare and benefits for those veterans that are returning to us physically or mentally damaged will continue to be a burden on the government coffers for decades to come. The amount of foreign aid that we will be pouring into Iraq will be staggering.

And, on what could be considered a separate subject, those are the 140k votes that Democrats so often like to see discarded or rejected when their absentee ballots reach their respective polling locations.
Not just 'considered' but IS a separate subject - trying to throw out some red herrings to detract from this part of the argument? This has nothing to do with the impact of the war on the American people or the ramifications of the patriot act. Sorry - open another thread if you want to discuss this Cal...

So you're acknowledging that the graphic scenario you just presented as reality is, even in your own opinion, not taking place.
Would you like a bigger shovel?

The war does 'appear' to be never ending. From no clear cut idea on how to win the war, or what a 'win' would entail, to never having a exit strategy, the war does appear to be never ending. We captured Saddam - but apparently that was only one of many goals. The American people doesn't know what the current goals are, and so, it looks like the war won't end. There is no shovel here - what constitutes a 'win', and is it feasible within the current parameters of the war we are engaged in?

Having been through these debates countless times, I don't feel like having to go down that path again. If you want to go through the trouble of providing specific examples, we can address them. Otherwise, you're talking about a specific piece of legislation, passed with overwhelming bipartisan support, that has not been abused.

So, you can't debate this - I understand - it is difficult to debate the 'rightness' of having our rights stripped away for our own good. And then there is always the 'abused' part. Want 'abused'? How about telling me how many international terrorists have been convicted because of the enactment of the 'Un' Patriot Act?

"Very, very few actual terrorists have been identified and prosecuted at all in the United States, since 9/11, in fact the only Islamic terrorist who has been convicted in the United States for attempting to engage in a terrorist act, is Richard Read, the shoe bomber. And of course he wasn't captured through any Patriot Act innovation but simply because an alert airline attendant saw this strange-looking guy trying to light his shoe on a plane flying from the UK to the US. But apart from him, all of the other 'terrorist prosecutions' in the United States have been not for engaging in terrorist activity, not for aiding or abetting terrorist activity, not for attempting to engage in terrorist activity, but they've almost all been under a statute that was expanded by the Patriot Act, that makes it a crime to provide what they call material support to any group that has been labeled terrorist."

So, the answer is ZERO.

But, the department of justice has gotten people to plead guilty, to fold, and convicted many on drug trafficking, white slavery, prostitution, gambling, domestic terrorism and political corruption charges. Now, those are all bad things - but, the law, that was specifically enacted to protect us from international terrorism, is now being turned against our own citizens. How wrong is that?

A few of the court cases that have struck down the Patriot Act (Calabrio, you did request 'specific' examples).

In ACLU Case, Federal Court Strikes Down Patriot Act Surveillance Power As Unconstitutional

Court Strikes Down 2 Key Patriot Act Provisions

Judges Question Patriot Act in Library and Internet Case

Court sides with ACLU, strikes down Patriot Act gag provision


Or, how about the Inspector General's own investigation into the abuses of the FBI regarding a key part of the Patriot Act - the National Security Letters:
The Justice Department's inspector general told a committee of angry House members yesterday that the FBI may have violated the law or government policies as many as 3,000 times since 2003 as agents secretly collected the telephone, bank and credit card records of U.S. citizens and foreign nationals residing here.

Inspector General Glenn A. Fine said that according to the FBI's own estimate, as many as 600 of these violations could be "cases of serious misconduct" involving the improper use of "national security letters" to compel telephone companies, banks and credit institutions to produce records.


First of all, provide some specifics. Who has been called unpatriotic for not supporting the Patriot Act for patriotic reasons. And if you find an example, who made the claim.

"Talking about [democrats] cutting back on the Patriot Act, talking about cutting back on electronic surveillance..." Giuliani said. "I don't know that I've ever seen anything more irresponsible than that."

Ed Gillespie, Republican National Committee chairman, wrote in a recent memo to party officials -- Republicans hope to convince voters that Democrats are too indecisive and faint-hearted -- and perhaps unpatriotic -- to protect US interests,


And, once again, since you don't seem to grasp the irony of 'doublethink'. Just naming the act 'Patriot' implies that if you aren't 'for' the Patriot Act then you are 'un' patriotic - The congress certainly understands this - they were afraid of being branded as such if they voted against it. Labeling it as the "Patriot Act" was a stroke of genius on the part of the Bush administration. If it were labeled as the 'Suspension of the first, fourth, sixth, and fourteenth amendments' it probably wouldn't have made it through congress the first time. But, since truth in labeling doesn't apply to government bills... the American people were duped as well.

If you want to talk about federal abuse of power and expansion, that's an excellent issue. Unfortunately, it's one you only embrace when you can attribute some rhetoric to the issue in an effort to smear Republicans. The rest of the time, you embrace large federal government, the expanding concentration of power in Washington, and the erosion of both our civil liberties and responsibilities.

Ah, I don't remember saying that I believe in an ever expanding federal government - I think I have stated the opposite. And I don't smear all Republicans - duh. I do however think that the current administration has overstepped its bounds when it comes to expanding the executive branch's powers. Heck, you attack FDR on his expansion of executive power, but turn a blind eye to Bush doing the same thing. Both did it to 'save the country' and both were/are wrong.

And the response to this is that you don't keep the country free if you can't keep it strong and safe. All Presidents in times of crisis face this very challenge. Lincoln and Roosevelt both faced these challenges like this too. You knowingly mislead in your efforts to persuade.

I did not mislead - I have stated before (in some thread about the new 'New Deal') I think that FDR overstepped using his executive powers, and it was good when he was reigned in by congress.

Explain how we'll do that if we're not legally allowed to utilize any of that technology in order to prevent terrorist attacks? If the government isn't allowed to intercept international phone calls from known terrorists. If they aren't allowed to use face scanning technology in open places. If they aren't allowed to engage in covert surveillance of suspected terrorists.

Using your short sited, flawed logic, the only effective use of that technology is cleaning up the mess afterward and possibly figuring out what happened after the fact....

If you remove the patriot act - we will go back to allowing the constitution to work 'for' us.

Under the constitution the government is 'allowed' to use all the technology at their disposal -however they need to get warrants - from a judge. The government needs to obey its own regulations of checks and balances. It can intercept all the phone calls it wants, it just needs to prove 'just cause'. They can employ face scanning technology with no repercussions. The Bill of Rights requires the government to follow certain procedures and laws to 'legally allow' them to impinge on our rights.

"I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of the rights of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation." James Madison
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top