More terrorism from Asscroft and Orrin Hatch

[Chest Rockwell]

[b]Bastards! [/b] :mad: :mad: http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/WorldNewsTonight/victory_act030820.html

[Zeke Smith.]

Frickin' everyone is a terrorist all of a sudden. Before long, highway speeders will be "terrorists." Just like the Iraq invasion was part of the "war on terror." I'm all for more efficient crime interdiction, but not at the cost of fundamental freedoms. There's a lot of weasel-words in that excerpt alone. And to think, the GOP supposedly is for LESS government intrusion. Apparently only if it involves the environment and if it plays into the hands of big business pals. I didn't have much use for Clinton, but if the other party would put a candidate on the ballot worth voting for, I'd do it. I don't know if America can withstand another 4 years of this without truly irreparable harm. I'm no left-wing liberal either. Born into a Republican family, and moderately conservative/libertarian. But I've had quite enough, thank you.

[Guruman]

That is flat out terrible. But yet it's par for the course. The double-speak is being written into the laws, and it will take generations to undo all of the damage that has been done to our great country since Bush became a "wartime president." Fuck him. :(

[rumpelstiltskin.]

[quote]by John Ashcroft: [b]We have built a new ethos of justice, one rooted in cooperation, nurtured by coordination and focused on a single overarching goal: the prevention of terrorist attacks. All of this has been done within the safeguards or our Constitution, and the guarantees that our Constitution provides, protecting American freedom.[/b][/quote]how can he lie like that with a straight face? what is constitutional or american about the patriot act? why don't politicians or the supreme court understand the ninth and tenth ammendments? i may have to vote democrat (instead of libertarian) in order to do my part to get rid of bush. i, too, cannot bear the thought of another bush presidency. robb.

[whitefang]

Zeke, let me go over the list of what the Republican party means by "less government" and less "government intrusion"... Less government means that the government will no longer supply those services that cannot be comfortably afforded by the taxpayers to begin with. Less government means that fewer competent people will be employed to handle the operations of those services not cut in the final stage, thereby making them less efficient. Therefore... Less government will mean the elimination of those remaining services due to said inefficiency. Less government intrusion means that any large private industry or public utility whose closely watched functions translate into safety and comfort for those relying on their products or services will no longer have anyone to answer to, save the shareholders, who really don't give a shit for anything but their dividends. Less government intrusion somehow translates to Republicans that the individuals' lifestyle and private behavior must in some way be controlled though legislation. Less government intrusion means that the Republican controlled house will maintain a clear separation of church and state, unless some religious group tells them what they want. Less government intrusion means that no Republican will tell industry that it might be a good idea to make sure they keep the air and water as clean as possible. Less government intrusion means that you'll be forced lest you be punished by law to wear a seat belt while you drive, citing it's for your safety, while practicing foriegn policy manuevers that put your life in danger even when you're NOT driving. Hope this helps... Whitefang

[Franknputer]

Next up is the FEAR (F*ck Every American's Rights) act, soon to be followed by the PAIN (Prosecuting Anyone I Need) Act. [i]Daddy - what was it like when America was a free country?[/i] :mad:

[Biggus]

[quote]I'm no left-wing liberal either. Born into a Republican family, and moderately conservative/libertarian. But I've had quite enough, thank you. [/quote]Agreed.

[Super 8]

That's a pretty good assessment, Whitefang. Allthough, I do have mixed emotions regarding seatbelt laws. I certainly don't see anybody complaining about the madatory childseat laws. But I think you are pretty on about tighter social controls and relaxed regulations on business. Ultimately, it all about pleasing the people who elected you -and can keep you elected... And obviously it goes the same way for the Dems as well. I guess that's why we have to speak up and tell government what we want -or- become part of government ourselves. The Patriot II thing sounds like a complete load of shit, in my opinion.

[realtrance]

Oh, and lest we forget: more than 50% of the pseudo-science trotted out as "clinical drug trials" by the pharmaceutical companies are driven entirely by profit motive. The "researchers" and "scientists" doing these trials are just paid hacks for the for-profit pharmaceutical industry. So you can assume _any_ drug released in the next few years will be utterly suspect and basically there for beta test on the general public. There's little left that hasn't been utterly corrupted by corporate interest at this point. And the whole gist of the current "Republican" administration's focus is on "removing the intrusions of government" from the pursuit of greed by the few at the expense of the rest of us. I think it's time we impeach Bush and do away with the whole rotten club he's got strangling what's left of our American democracy at this point. We are truly in danger of having our form of government usurped by a repressive force that is not representative of the rights of the citizens of the United States. If we don't act soon, we will deserve every form of tyranny we will suffer as a consequence of our inaction, in the next thirty years ensuing. rt

[GZsound]

Very enlightening information posted here. Gee, I didn't realize Ralph Nader and the ACLU were such radical right wing Republican organizations. And now those damn Republicans have made abortions for kids legal with no parental consent, sodomy and multiple partner marriage are all right, you better not dare recite the pledge of allegiance, you better not celebrate Christmas, don't dare cut down your own tree, don't worry about the ambulance getting to your house for an emergency in the stalled traffic, the paramedics can take light rail, free health care and education for illegal aliens, a legal system with no controling authority whatsoever, labor unions that hold companies hostage, teachers unions that spend 75% of the education budget on management, government employee unions that are now larger than any private sector union, lawsuits with astronomical awards, environmental groups that block all rational attempts to thin the forests and stop the wildfires, skyrocketing malpractice insurance, a complete removal of personal responsibility, lower educational standards so the kids seem smarter, massive attempts to legalize drugs, all forms of pornography, pass massive social programs that don't work, never end and are rife with fraud and punish the successful by taking most of their earnings and redistributing it to those who don't, won't, can't support themselves. etc. etc. Those darn Republicans sure have screwed up everything, huh? We should just turn America over to the Sierra Club and the ACLU and everything will be just fine. What nonsense.

[Super 8]

[quote]Originally posted by realtrance: [b] The "researchers" and "scientists" doing these trials are just paid hacks for the for-profit pharmaceutical industry.[/quote][/b] I find that to be highly doubtful. First of all, there is nothing wrong with being 'for profit'. If you don't have a profit motive, you won't survive long. Secondly, just because researchers and drug companies work together doesn't mean the researchers are just "hacks". There are far too many standards boards and concerned physicians watching for drug companies to just throw some Estrogen into a bottle and label it Testosterone. [quote]Originally posted by realtrance: [b]I think it's time we impeach Bush and do away with the whole rotten club he's got strangling what's left of our American democracy at this point. [/b][/quote]I think it's time we come back to reality and abandon this ridiculous line of thinking. I'm sorry but Bush is NOT going to be impeached. Deal with it, and move on...

[alcohol]

GZ School management and teacher unions are two separate organizations, just like a company and it's union. Teachers have unions to protect their interests, school management is a separate organization and sets its own administration needs separate from the teacher union. School administrations run the schools and set the goals, curriculum and materials used in the classroom, not the unions. The teacher unions do the typical things like negotiating salaries, establishing work rules, negotiating classroom size and other union like work. The idea that the teacher unions have something to do with the size of the administration is erroneous.

[Guruman]

GZ, I'm curious...are you ok with the proposed law that started this thread?

[GZsound]

Alcohol, you are correct. The teachers unions establish teachers salary, working conditions, etc. and do not have much to do with administration. My issue is with the system. The teachers unions go out on strike for more money, smaller class sizes, etc. and the legislature raises our taxes. Then we find out the administrators all got an 8% raise. My issue with school systems is twofold, one, you cannot get an accurate answer as to the exact cost per student or the amount of money per student they recieve (all funds budget), and second, there is no impartial audit of where the money goes..no accountability whatsoever. As to these "new" anti terrorist laws, I have mixed feelings. A lot of them are just updating similar laws that have been on the books for a long time. Wiretaps, for example. In the pre 9/11 days, you had to get a court order to tap a phone and could only tap a specific phone. Now the court order follows the perp. You can tap any phone the suspect uses. Since terrorists use multiple cell phones, I like the idea. The other issues are of a concern if you might be breaking the law. If you don't break the law, you should be fine. I actually wish we would enforce more of the laws we already have on the books.

[Guruman]

GZ: [quote]As to these "new" anti terrorist laws, I have mixed feelings. [/quote]in the remainder of your post, I only saw one side of your mixed feelings. You implied that something about the new law bothered you, but you never specified what it was. I agree that once a person becomes a legitimate suspected terrorist that phone taps should be allowed to follow that person around. If the person in question has demonstrated activity that would cause legitimate suspicion, then that only makes sense. What doesn't make sense is classifying people as terrorist who have absolutely no link to terrorism. My problem with the law is that the standards on the [i]first[/i] step of the process have been greatly reduced. Investigators no longer have to show probable cause to excercise many of the new powers given to them. The increased latitude denies any accountability they may have to the public, and in my opinion negates any good that the law sets up. Example: I am an outspoken and powerful opponent of whatever administration is in power. Under the new laws, regardless of my absence of links to terrorism, all that the administration would have to do is "suspect" me anyway, and presto - they can wiretap me and videotape me without my knowledge, and freeze my accounts without explanation. They can then use anything recorded regardless of context in a court of law to prosecute me for whatever they want. If I had been committing no crime, it was irrelevant becuse my finances were frozen, and my name was smeared anyway. Before the Patriot Act, this was not possible because it had to be proven to a justice that I was dealing with terrorists before any of the subsequent actions could be taken. If I had been committing no crime, they couldn't proceed and I would be protected.

[the stranger]

[quote]Originally posted by Guruman: [b]GZ: [quote]As to these "new" anti terrorist laws, I have mixed feelings. [/quote]in the remainder of your post, I only saw one side of your mixed feelings. You implied that something about the new law bothered you, but you never specified what it was. I agree that once a person becomes a legitimate suspected terrorist that phone taps should be allowed to follow that person around. If the person in question has demonstrated activity that would cause legitimate suspicion, then that only makes sense. What doesn't make sense is classifying people as terrorist who have absolutely no link to terrorism. My problem with the law is that the standards on the [i]first[/i] step of the process have been greatly reduced. Investigators no longer have to show probable cause to excercise many of the new powers given to them. The increased latitude denies any accountability they may have to the public, and in my opinion negates any good that the law sets up. Example: I am an outspoken and powerful opponent of whatever administration is in power. Under the new laws, regardless of my absence of links to terrorism, all that the administration would have to do is "suspect" me anyway, and presto - they can wiretap me and videotape me without my knowledge, and freeze my accounts without explanation. They can then use anything recorded regardless of context in a court of law to prosecute me for whatever they want. If I had been committing no crime, it was irrelevant becuse my finances were frozen, and my name was smeared anyway. Before the Patriot Act, this was not possible because it had to be proven to a justice that I was dealing with terrorists before any of the subsequent actions could be taken. If I had been committing no crime, they couldn't proceed and I would be protected.[/b][/quote]And it will be up to YOU to disprove the accusation. And this was going on long before the Patriot Act. They've been doing all of these things prior under various drug laws. You can be accused of a violation of federal drug law. The accusation alone is the only thing they have to have to seize ALL of your assets. And it is not mandatory that they charge you with any crime. The accusation warrants a seizure, you are obligated to disprove it, and even if they don't file any charges, you still don't have any legal recourse to have your assets returned. This is the truth. Check into government seizures and start to see what is really going on. The feds are making big money with very little investment. Accurate figures on government seizure are not kept in any certain record. The feds, states, and localities all conduct these seizures withgout any oversite or accountablity. It is estimated that 80% of government seizures stems from accusations that never lead to any charges being filed. I have spent a lot of time trying to research this and it seems unreasonable to even try to estimate the total dollar number of seizures by the federal government between 1990 and 1999. This doesn't include states and locality seizures. If anybody can direct me to any comprehensive information regarding seizures in this country since 1985, let me know. I feel that this is one issue that needs brought to the forefront. The government has written laws that enable what would be considered theft by any other entity.