Post by: Mulliga on October 10, 2005, 06:59:01 PM
Thanks in advance.
Post by: natedog on October 10, 2005, 08:31:26 PM
Post by: Telperion on October 10, 2005, 09:02:43 PM
In this case, why not start out with the government's evil propaganda site, http://www.lifeandliberty.gov ?
Post by: Mulliga on October 11, 2005, 04:50:37 AM
Quote
Well, the skilled debater should be able to argue both sides of any issue.
Bingo. Being a libertarian, I don't like the idea of it, but there must be some reasons for it passing and continuing to be law.
Post by: telewinz on October 11, 2005, 06:25:55 AM
To survive, the Israeli version has worked for them for decades. The World has changed, to ignore that change might mean extinction. Thomas Jefferson would support the Patriot Act as a prudent measure IMHO.
Post by: charby on October 11, 2005, 06:58:43 AM
Post by: Justin on October 11, 2005, 07:28:24 AM
Quote
In this case, why not start out with the government's evil propaganda site, http://www.lifeandliberty.gov ?
Wow. That utterly fails the PDR of... test.
Post by: mtnbkr on October 11, 2005, 08:39:42 AM
Quote
The World has changed
What a nifty argument. We can use that for a lot of things.[anti] The World has changed, you no longer need that gun for your protection[/anti]
See? It works quite well.
Chris
Post by: Jamisjockey on October 11, 2005, 09:59:01 AM
Also, the fact that the Government refuses to enforce the laws (such as immigration) it already had on the books makes the Patriot act just another piece of lip service.
Post by: telewinz on October 11, 2005, 11:41:25 AM
Quote from: mtnbkr
Quote
The World has changed
What a nifty argument. We can use that for a lot of things.[anti] The World has changed, you no longer need that gun for your protection[/anti]
See? It works quite well.
Chris
Post by: K Frame on October 11, 2005, 11:50:43 AM
That's one of your friends.
How many words do you think your enemies would quote to justify the actions they take?
To be realistic, those four words are the crux of your entire argument. Everything else is simply justification.
I also have to take umbrage at your claim that to ignore how the world has change means extinction. There's no way to validate that claim other than to accept your enemy's goals as inevitable outcomes.
There are always many possible outcomes no matter what course of action is either adopted, debated, or rejected.
For example, extinction of western culture is still a potential outcome even though the Patriot Act has been adopted.
Another equally valid possbile outcome would be the extinction of Muslim culture.
But to blindly accept inevitability based on the assumption of overwhelming danger is exactly what Benjamin Franklin was warning about when he said that those who trade liberty for security get, and deserve, neither.
Post by: telewinz on October 11, 2005, 01:24:06 PM
Main Entry: um·brage
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin umbraticum, neuter of umbraticus of shade, from umbratus, past participle of umbrare to shade, from umbra shade, shadow; akin to Lithuanian unksme shadow
1 : SHADE, SHADOW
2 : shady branches : FOLIAGE
3 a : an indistinct indication : vague suggestion : HINT b : a reason for doubt : SUSPICION
4 : a feeling of pique or resentment at some often fancied slight or insult
Can you also read mtnbkr's mind and speak for him? I feel a sense of umbratus.
Post by: mtnbkr on October 11, 2005, 01:29:37 PM
Quote
Can you also read mtnbkr's mind and speak for him?
Normally it works the other way around.Anyway, I keyed in on those four words because they are the point of your statement. The first sentence doesn't matter because Israel is a different situation with it's own issues. I ignored the second half of the second sentence because it's a opinion only. The final statement was simply nonsense. Your point was that SOMETHING HAS TO BE DONE. Well, maybe so, but the USA PATRIOT ACT wasn't what we needed.
Chris
Post by: stevelyn on October 11, 2005, 04:16:55 PM
Quote
Need help with a defense of the PATRIOT Act.
The .gov also needs help defending it too. So far no one has been able to legitimately defend that intrusive piece of unConstitutional totalitarian garbage.
Post by: Mulliga on October 11, 2005, 05:32:25 PM
No need for hyperbole.
Post by: K Frame on October 11, 2005, 07:17:46 PM
Did you open the dictionary all by yourself?
What was it, the Heavily Abridged Semi-literate's Guide to Wordification?
Try a REAL dictionary, such as the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. It's even online at dictionary.com, where we find this as the primary definition for umbrage:
1. Offense; resentment: took umbrage at their rudeness.
A scholarly, up-to-date dictionary is a thing of beauty. Avail yourself of one.
I put no words in mtnbkr's mouth, nor did I find the need to read his mind. His intent was clear from the words that he chose to quote, and the reason he chose those words was obvious for anyone, or almost anyone I guess, to see.
Post by: Justin on October 11, 2005, 09:01:26 PM
Post by: Guest on October 11, 2005, 11:18:48 PM
A sort of all-encompassing argument would be that the act itself really only victimizes people who have something to hide. Sure, an innocent person might get their phone tapped or their hosue searched, but they will really suffer no actual consequences. Your really only going to get hurt if you have something to hide, and as a society we dont really benefit from people keeping secrets anyways. Most of the arguments against the Act are based on idiology rather than practicality.
You could also note that most of the abuses of the act have been carried out by local authorites rather than federal ones, and that an easy solution would be the inclusion of more oversight rather than altering the act itself. Also point out that the fast majority of the act does NOT relate to restrictions on civil liberties and that most of it simply appropriates funds in acceptable (and perhaps beneficial) ways.
Its really a hard thing to argue in favor of The Patriot Act without sounding like a total prat, but it can be done. The trick is to be willing to sound like a total prat with out letting on that you hate yourself for doing so, the audience will pick up on that, and they will hate you too. It helps if you approach the whole thing like your a socialist. Always weigh the value of "the society" above all else, and the value of the individual as, not only expendable, but nearly contemptable. As an added benefit, if your arguing in an academic setting its likely that your audience is already coming from this direction anyways.
Post by: K Frame on October 12, 2005, 05:56:10 AM
Wow.
OK, I smoke, but I smoke Salem Ultra Lights. Camels make me dizzy. I definitely do NOT smoke in my house, though. I smoke on the front porch.
Bourbon? Sorry, I'm not at all a fan of whiskey. It would have to be a gin & tonic, and I drink so rarely that it's not even funny. My last G&T was sometime in June, and my last beer was on Labor Day.
As for bashing the keyboard, I actually have a rather light touch on the keys. When you type as much as I do (I'm a writer/editor by profession) you need a light touch or you kill your keyboards and develop nasty carpal tunnel. Since 1981 I've been on the computer almost every day, and as best as I can tell I don't have carpal tunnel syndrom. I don't have an ergonomic keyboard, either.
"All the while alternately muttering under his breath about the eTards he puts up with, and chortling out loud at some particularly inventive bit of vitriol." You got me there...
Oh yeah, I HATE working on a computer in a dark room. Hurts my eyes. I use a swingarm desk lamp for task lighting and a lamp behind me for general lighting.
Post by: K Frame on October 12, 2005, 06:03:19 AM
Oh my god is that funny but true!
Post by: charby on October 12, 2005, 06:10:29 AM
Quote from: Justin
while bashing the ever-loving tar out of a plastic hunk that was, at one time, recognizable as a Microsoft Ergonomic Keyboard. All the while alternately muttering under his breath about the eTards he puts up with, and chortling out loud at some particularly inventive bit of vitriol.
I was thinking the same thing myself too. I think I need a Mike Irwin voodoo doll. Charby
Post by: K Frame on October 12, 2005, 06:13:02 AM
Oh yeah, that's a great replacement for well constructed and presented arguments.
mutter mutter mutter mutter...
Post by: natedog on October 12, 2005, 07:04:53 AM
Post by: charby on October 12, 2005, 08:01:39 AM
Quote from: Mike Irwin
"I was thinking the same thing myself too. I think I need a Mike Irwin voodoo doll."
Oh yeah, that's a great replacement for well constructed and presented arguments.
But what about the enjoyment I would get from sticking pins in it when you go on the offensive.Oh yeah, that's a great replacement for well constructed and presented arguments.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on October 12, 2005, 08:22:35 AM
Much of the P.A. involves removing the barriers that prevent the various investigative/intelligence/military/law enforcement agencies from sharing information. Various federal agencies had the Sept 11 plot figured out almost in its entirety. The problem was that all of the "pieces of the puzzle" were distributed amongnst different agencies. No one organization had enough pieces to see the big picture. Before the P.A. they weren't allowed to share their various puzzle pieces, and we were rewarded with 3,000 dead Americans. After the P.A. the government is allowed to cooperate with itself when it comes to preventing attacks. Hopefully the P.A. will make it possible for us to identify and prevent the next big attack before it kills thousands of innocent people.
Much of the P.A. makes it illegal to do things that are obviously wrong, but never before needed to be codified into law. The instance a few months (years?) ago where a guy shined a laser into th cockpit of a passenger jet comes to mind. Without the P.A. there was no law making this a prosecutable crime. After the P.A. this guy can be charged with the crime of endangering public transportation (or something along those lines). It's just an effort for the law to keep pace with the new types of crime that are now possible to commit.
Much of the P.A. codifies what was already common practice or common sense. For instance, nobody in his right mind would expect his library records to be considered confidential. They never have been (legally), and even without the P.A. they ever would have been. Yet people blather about how evil it is for the government to now be able to review your library history without a warrant.
The only truly offensive parts of the P.A. deal with new/stringent powers granted to investogators trying to penetrate terrorist plots. If an individual (or group of individuals) is identified as a "terrorist", the investigators now have much greater leeway than if they were investigating mere criminals. Most of these new poweres are borderline reasonable, when applied against legitimate terrorists. The problem is that there aren't any safeguards to make sure that these powers aren't applied against non-terorists. What may reasonable be to do to a terrorist is obsene when done to an honest citizen.
This is the crux of the matter. It's the prime source of rational objection to the P.A. (There are all sorts of irrational/knee-jerk objections, but I won't get into that). The P.A. could easily be modified to include sensible. constitutional checks on the investigative powers meant only for terrorists. Until those checks are added, the Patriot Act is morally/constitutionally wrong. But if they were fixed, the P.A. would be entirely appropriate and acceptable.
Post by: K Frame on October 12, 2005, 08:27:20 AM
It's not fat enough, it has too much hair, and it's not well enough hung.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on October 12, 2005, 08:36:05 AM
Remeber further that Article III deals with treason (which is essentially when an American attacks the U.S.). Congress has power to decide how treason is punished. It is fully constitutional and proper for treason to be punished differently than ordinary crime.
Bona fide terrorists are enemies of the U.S. They fall into one of the two catagories above, depending on their citizenship. In either case is it innapropriate for them to receive the same rights we want honest men to receive.
So long as the P.A. is applied exclusively to bona fide terorists, there are no constitutional or moral problems. Again, the only real problem is that there are no assurances that only terorists will receive this treatment.
Post by: mtnbkr on October 12, 2005, 08:40:36 AM
Quote
the only real problem is that there are no assurances that only terorists will receive this treatment
Exactly. And once they're labled as terrorists, they don't have much in the way of rights. All it takes is the govt SAYING you're a terrorist and, bingo, you are one. No rights, no trial, nothing.They're still holding Padilla...
Chris
Post by: K Frame on October 12, 2005, 09:03:52 AM
Anyone have a copy of the Constitution?
I need to wipe my ass, since that's apparently all that it's good for in the "newer, better, safer, United States of America."
Post by: mtnbkr on October 12, 2005, 09:17:41 AM
Chris
Post by: K Frame on October 12, 2005, 09:30:40 AM
Post by: K Frame on October 12, 2005, 12:09:23 PM
Erm, that could easily be taken out of context."
(Diet Lime Pepsi squirting out of nose..."
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHaHAHAHAHA!
Post by: KenH on October 12, 2005, 03:59:40 PM
Post by: Justin on October 12, 2005, 09:23:22 PM
Quote
I was thinking the same thing myself too. I think I need a Mike Irwin voodoo doll.
Yeah, but I meant it as a compliment.
Post by: K Frame on October 13, 2005, 07:10:32 AM
Mind if I hijack that description of me for my signature here and on TFL?
I love it!
Post by: Justin on October 13, 2005, 09:36:41 AM
Post by: K Frame on October 13, 2005, 10:04:49 AM
Thanks. Dang, I can't use it here. Even with editing to shorten it, signatures can only be 100 characters. If I edit it back to 100 characters...
Sigh.
Post by: mtnbkr on October 13, 2005, 01:02:48 PM
Quote from: Blackburn
I want my impression, dammit.
http://www.imdb.com/gallery/ss/0374900/Ss/0374900/nap-livingroomc.jpg?path=gallery&path_key=0374900Hey, you asked.
Chris
Post by: Justin on October 13, 2005, 01:33:07 PM