Debates
20 Apr 04
20 Apr 04
2 edits
I just watched two doofs on CNN actually debate the following question for five minutes...
'Is the Patriot Act a vital tool for fighting terror OR a threat to the civil liberties of citizens?'
What is wrong with this question? Anyone see silliness here?
The obvious answer is that it is both. So, being good adults we have to weigh the issue and make up our minds as to supporting or opposing it. Just like deciding whether to let your daughter get in a car with some idiot to go to a dance. Trust me on this... all males are idiots where your daughter is concerned. ðŸ˜
Risks and rewards. If you take no risks your daughter will hate you and probably run away anyway.
I am willing to use it for the duration of the war. Then I want it recinded. I still hate people who oppose it without actually reading it. Of the five major intrusions into our privacy that it allows... any and all actions are predicated on a lawful court order from a United States district judge. The same as criminal law has always demanded of State and local courts. The burden is still on the agency to prove need before the federal judiciary... WHICH can then approve or deny the requested action. In simple terms, it equates criminal law and sedition law for now.
I know that this issue has been discussed before. I am not so interested in the issue as in our culture. How can people set and argue the above stated issue and never once consider that the word 'OR' is not even an appropriate condition? Is there any hope for our poor strangulated civilization? I sometimes doubt it. We need basic education to return. Somehow.
26 Mar 06
Originally posted by StarValleyWyThe FBI need only state that it is needed for an investigation, they do not need to demonstrate "probable cause." You need both to read the act more carefully, and to learn a bit more about our justice system before you pound the keys insensibly.
I still hate people who oppose it without actually reading it. Of the five major intrusions into our privacy that it allows... any and all actions are predicated on a lawful court order from a United States district judge. The same as criminal law has always demanded of State and local courts. The burden is still on the agency to prove need before the f ...[text shortened]... or deny the requested action. In simple terms, it equates criminal law and sedition law for now.
SEC. 215. ACCESS TO RECORDS AND OTHER ITEMS UNDER THE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT.
Title V of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1861 et seq.) is amended by striking sections 501 through 503 and inserting the following:
`SEC. 501. ACCESS TO CERTAIN BUSINESS RECORDS FOR FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE AND INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM INVESTIGATIONS.
`(a)(1) The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or a designee of the Director (whose rank shall be no lower than Assistant Special Agent in Charge) may make an application for an order requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution.
`(2) An investigation conducted under this section shall--
`(A) be conducted under guidelines approved by the Attorney General under Executive Order 12333 (or a successor order); and
`(B) not be conducted of a United States person solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
`(b) Each application under this section--
`(1) shall be made to--
`(A) a judge of the court established by section 103(a); or
`(B) a United States Magistrate Judge under chapter 43 of title 28, United States Code, who is publicly designated by the Chief Justice of the United States to have the power to hear applications and grant orders for the production of tangible things under this section on behalf of a judge of that court; and
`(2) shall specify that the records concerned are sought for an authorized investigation conducted in accordance with subsection (a)(2) to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.
`(c)(1) Upon an application made pursuant to this section, the judge shall enter an ex parte order as requested, or as modified, approving the release of records if the judge finds that the application meets the requirements of this section.
`(2) An order under this subsection shall not disclose that it is issued for purposes of an investigation described in subsection (a).
`(d) No person shall disclose to any other person (other than those persons necessary to produce the tangible things under this section) that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has sought or obtained tangible things under this section.
`(e) A person who, in good faith, produces tangible things under an order pursuant to this section shall not be liable to any other person for such production. Such production shall not be deemed to constitute a waiver of any privilege in any other proceeding or context.
26 Mar 06
Originally posted by Wulebgrwell i'm not going to bother to read all this. if bush says it's ok, then i trust him.
The FBI need only state that it is needed for an investigation, they do not need to demonstrate "probable cause." You need both to read the act more carefully, and to learn a bit more about our justice system before you pound the keys insensibly.
SEC. 215. ACCESS TO RECORDS AND OTHER ITEMS UNDER THE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT.
Title V of the ...[text shortened]... hall not be deemed to constitute a waiver of any privilege in any other proceeding or context.
27 Mar 06
Originally posted by StarValleyWySince there are no "doofs" on FOX news, just hot, intelligent babes, telling the news in a 'fair-and-balanced' format, I suggest you watch that network. As an added bonus Bill O'Reilly puts a stop on 'spin'....
I just watched two doofs on CNN actually debate the following question for five minutes...
'Is the Patriot Act a vital tool for fighting terror OR a threat to the civil liberties of citizens?'
What is wrong with this question? Anyone see silliness here?
The obvious answer is that it is both. So, being good adults we have to weigh the issue and ...[text shortened]... strangulated civilization? I sometimes doubt it. We need basic education to return. Somehow.
27 Mar 06
1 edit
Originally posted by chancremechanicFOXnews is balanced news reporting. It must be true, they tell us themselves.
Since there are no "doofs" on FOX news, just hot, intelligent babes, telling the news in a 'fair-and-balanced' format, I suggest you watch that network. As an added bonus Bill O'Reilly puts a stop on 'spin'....
27 Mar 06
Originally posted by slimjimFOX is the only place I've seen the news itself call something 'incorrect politics'.
Well unlike Crescent Communications Network (CNN) they do report both sides of a story.
(It was in the intro to a story, "During a speech at an old person's home so and so detailed his incorrect political views." )
27 Mar 06
Originally posted by Wulebgryeah, what are the chances that fox is the only network that tells the truth and it's the rest of the networks that lie? probably about the same chance that christianity is the one true religion and the rest of religion is a lie! evidently the best way to find out the truth is just to believe the person that is trying hardest to convince you.
I doubt there's a single person in the world who watches both CNN and the BBC, but nothing else. On the other hand, the FOX cult has many exclusive viewers.
27 Mar 06
Originally posted by nomindFOX does a tolerable job of reporting. They are easily the 8th or 9th best network in the USA. When it comes to their opinion shows, however, FOX is horrid.
yeah, what are the chances that fox is the only network that tells the truth and it's the rest of the networks that lie? probably about the same chance that christianity is the one true religion and the rest of religion is a lie! evidently the best way to find out the truth is just to believe the person that is trying hardest to convince you.