Yes however your reasoning is exactly what I would use to show the patriot act 'could' be bad. Bob buying a gun because he 'could' commit a murder is totally different than the government taking away guns a constitutional right because it could 'prevent' a murder. I see your example actually supporting my position.
It is funny this coming from you, master of mush room clouds over USA, Prophet of Apocalypse that posts Bacterial, Atomic and chemical weapons are every where, and all countries and Muslims are going to attack USA in next 30 minutes.
Which goes back to the argument being speculative. Viscious circle, isn't it? Anything "could" be bad. For example, some may oppose it because they want terrorists to have rights. Just because it "could" be bad, doesn't mean it is. Which was my point. If the government DID take away our right to buy a gun, you might have a point. As it stands, that is not the case. In fact, the automatic weapons ban was lifted about a year ago, enabling me to purchase a Colt LE 6920. I have not yet, but it's on my list of purchases. Way too much speculation going on.
Not realy as #1 I still believe issues within the patriot act do go against the constitution, #2 other areas could be abused to an extent that far outweight a simple erosion of rights, #3 a 'could' basis on a citizens rights I do not believe is a reason to take a constitutonal right, or the possibility of such away from any citizen while #4 a 'could' by the federal government is by far a sure fire way in my opinion to cancel out any power given to the federal government. I give the citizens of the US more credit and or power, leadway, or however you wish to call it than the federal government when it comes to rights and the 'coulds' 'if's or 'facts'. Guns, while the assault weapons ban was lifted there are still many laws on the books I believe erode the very fundamental right to bear arms. I find it funny that so many republicans are so against 'big government' however when it fits their agenda they have absolutely no problem with it. I see this as a case of such. The use of the patriot act worded for ONLY terrorists and or non US citizens again for the 50th million time is perfect in my opinion, terrorists even US citizens who have contracted with a foreign entity could easily be stated a 'treasonous' act of which the act could apply with no argument on my part. I don't see why those yet again drumming the beat of it's good for stopping 'terrorism' will not also call on it for not being used against US citizens in any way shape or form, this is my only argument against it.
National average retail regular gasoline price was 290.3 cents per gallon or $2.90 No Wonder the Gasoline Components History for the month of September took so long to be released. The national average retail regular gasoline price was 290.3 cents per gallon. In January, 2000, the month George W Bush became president, the national average retail regular gasoline price was 128.9 cents per gallon. The math. 290.30 - 128.90 = 161.40 / 128.90 = 1.25213343677 or 125.21% The raw price of gas is up 125.21% since George W Bush took office. What cost $1.289 when Bush took office would cost $1.4881 in 2005 dollars, according to the Inflation Calculator. 290.30 - 148.81 = 141.49 / 148.81 = 0.9508097574 or 95.08% The national average retail regular gasoline price is up 95.08% when adjusted for inflation. Bush Lies Responsible for 2,000 US Deaths in Iraq Bush's Death Toll Exceeds Expectations On October 10, 2005 CaseAgainstBush.com predicted the 2,000 dead milestone by November 1, 2005 based on the previous number of deaths in Iraq at that time. Unfortunately, George W Bush's dubious distinction arrived seven days early. Number of U.S. troops killed passes 2,000 Lt. Col. Steve Boylen, a spokesman for the Army, downplayed the significance reaching the 2,000 mark. In an e-mail message to reporters, he called it "an artificial mark on the wall set by individuals and groups with specific agendas and ulterior motives." Most of the U.S. deaths in Iraq have occurred since the president declared "major combat" to be over in 2003. Car bombings and shootings have killed thousands of Iraqi civilians, and U.S. and foreign contractors and soldiers from coalition partners stationed in Iraq have also died. More than 14,000 U.S. troops have been wounded, about half of them suffering permanently disabling injuries. Death toll of U.S. soldiers hits 2,000 in Iraq Nevertheless, the 2,000 mark was reached amid growing doubts among the American public about the Iraq conflict, launched in March 2003 to destroy Saddam's alleged weapons of mass destruction. None was ever found. The number of Iraqis who have died since the U.S.-led invasion looms much larger. No one knows an exact number, but there is some consensus, including from a U.S. military spokesman and outside experts, that an independent count of roughly 30,000 is a relatively credible tally of Iraqi civilians killed. In Washington, the U.S. Senate observed a moment of silence in honour of the fallen 2,000. Two Term Post-World War II Presidents & the Stock Market President_________S&P 500 Bush___________-8.50% Clinton__________+117.21% Reagan___________+39.78% Nixon_____________+28.20% Eisenhower_______+118.71%
Yes, really. Way too much speculation and personal opinion. Virtually everything is based on "could be, might could, what if." Guns are not banned nor has anyone taken away our rights to have them. Moot point, unless you are speculating that some day it "might could" happen. Not even sure why you are ringing that bell. I can go down to Walmart and buy a gun anytime I want. As far as the wording, you are setting your own criteria there. If it were "this, that, the other, I would be happy with it." But it seems that only speculation makes you unhappy with it. But then it's not about pleasing either you, nor I. It's purpose is to fight terrorism and it's done very well at doing that. As for calling on it to not be used against citizens, then you would be supporting the right of a terrorist to detonate a dirty bomb in Chicago, killing hundreds of thousands of people, just so that he had the right to do so. I disagree with that. You position is clear. Mine is clear. What more could there possibly be to it?
The math wizard has shown up to celebrate the dead. How surprising. And spam up the forum with backlinks
Again no it is not, I do see errosion of rights of US citizens which I have previously laid out to an extent. There is a HUGE difference from an erosion of a right, to an all out destruction of a right is there not? I am not nor have I stated a right has fully been taken away, an erosion of rights however especially in the instance of guns has taken place. If it's full purpose was to fight terrorism than why does it have other issues raised in it other than terror? Why does it give the government powers beyond terror? Again have you ever read it? Nope actually this is an outright lie, when have I ever stated this? Not even going to tackle the big government question? Our positions are actually very similiar, I however have a problem with US citizens rights being trampled, I think this is the only difference.
And again, it is. Your arguments have been based on what ifs, could be's, and you even noted whether we sould question the governement. It is speculative. You may not wish it were, but that's how I read it. You've continued to suggest gun rights have been taken away and made it an issue. If you need to reclarify what you stated, then do so. We have the right to bare arms. Fully or partially makes me no difference. If you are going to bring it up, justify it when it's challenged. Perhaps you'd like to share those issues other than terror? Wouldn't doing so make your argument somehow better? I never said you did state it. In the case of Jose Padilla, a US Citizen who was also a member of al qaida, is being detained on terrorism charges for a plot to detonate a dirty bomb. If you are against using the patriot act on US Citizens, then you would have supported his right to conduct his terrorism plot (edit: want to make sure you understand I'm not calling you a terrorist supporter here. I do not have that impression in the least bit about you. But if it were not for the patriot act on US citizens, this terrorist would not have been apprehended). It's an example of how your exclusiveness would have gone in a direction for the worse. What's to tackle? As if I can personally change the world and how we live in it? What rights are being trampled? What right have you or I lost? Don't tell me you laid them out before. I specifically like to know what right, from the constitution, you believe the patriot act has taken away. Not some posting about how the FBI arrested somone by spying, etc. Just list a right and say "this right is taken away right here, in the patriot act."
Gtech I gotta get going but don't worry I'll gladly be responding tomorrow Good night for now though.
I already sourced and provided FACTS THAT THE FEDERAL COURTS THEMSELVES RULED SECTIONS OF THE PATRIOT ACT UNCONSTITUTIONAL. There's no speculation, no ifs, no buts, UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Taking away our most basic freedoms, and guess who supports it???? (hint: not me )
I believe you sourced wiki. A place where most anyone can add to the content. I take no exceptions to court rulings on such. If I had, I would have let you know about it. Actually, I support going after terrorists, which the patriot act has done very well with. I'm sure you have valid reasons for not wanting to find terrorists. There is plenty of speculation. Plenty of "what ifs, could bes, might could" throughout the last ten pages. If you are unable to locate them, I'll gladly point them out.
Since you don't like wiki, try CNN: Federal judge rules part of Patriot Act unconstitutional If CNN is to "biased" and unreliable for you, how about washingtonpost.com? Key Part of Patriot Act Ruled Unconstitutional And just in case those are both to sketchy for you, try CNET Judge disarms Patriot Act proviso I'm in favor of giving the government all the power they need to catch terrorists as long as it doesn't break the constitution and infringe on American's rights. You're one to accuse me of "selling out" my country, but by supporting things like the patriot act you're the one that's actually selling out on our rights and our freedoms that make this country what it is....
Actually your position and Gtech position is not similar at all. You are a logical conservative while Gtech is ideologically a fascist (for those who get upset by word fascist, it is not a bad word, it describes a way of thinking and an ideology). The problem is Gtech is either too ignorant to know this or he is too shy to openly admit it but all his post support that philosophy. You think it is too much speculation when people think that when a government passes laws that destroys Constitutional rights, they actually intent to use it but you have no problem when the government speculates about non existence WMD, get your country involved in a war that so far has cost over $200,000,000,000 dollar and caused the death of 2000 American soldier. We can see how logical you are, in regards to patriot act, everything is speculation even when courts rule against it but speculation about WMD is fine and true even when it is proved that it was just a big lie.
Why try any of them? Apparently you just skimmed right past my comment: I take no exceptions to court rulings on such. If I had, I would have let you know about it. Being that you are so young, I'll further clarify it for you. I have no issue with anything regarding the patriot act struck down in a court of law. I'm in favor of giving the government the tools they need to catch terrorists. And the patriot act has done such, many times over. Let me know when some perceived right that others fought for you to have has been infringed. http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-07-20-oppose_x.htm Ah, yes, like your right to have someone else defend and protect your interests by using the very act you claim infringes on some perceived right that you can't name. But there was a post where you said there were some things you wouldn't sell your country out on. Sounds to me like there are some you would. Blame America first!
Yet the questions in my signature remain unanswered. You'll forgive me, I'm sure, for cancelling my subscription to "Blame American First, weekly." And cheers to you! You held out longer than I expected on celebrating the death of the soldiers you so often ridicule.
Now that sounds pretty difficult. It's like saying I'm in favour of lending you my car as long as long as you don't touch it. In other words, there has to be a balance between rights and security and that's determined on the basis of the actual situation. Thanks to the terrorist current threat we have to give up on something if we want to feel safer. Unfortunately, you don't decide on that, the government does. If they get it wrong, that is if the people think they've done wrong or are going to do wrong, or would do worse than their political counterparts, they to loose the elections. Guess what? The Republicans won so if you want to support democracy, learn to live with it and vote against and again next time. That's if you really want to blindly support "the bitch on wheels" as someone called her... Remember, the first right that citizens have is life and a future! The rest is a plus necessary only when possible, so please fight the terror (rightly called as such) with us and the...US!
Here you are, joining Gtech in selling out our Constitutional rights and freedoms in the name of "terrorism". I wouldn't give up my constitutional rights for anything, little lone, the extra tiny bit you may think it stops some terrorism. Why don't one you answer this... how is the Iraq war going prevent terrorists from going to mexico and walking right across our border without resistance? You really think we couldn't spend $200 billion better than a occupying Iraq... give me a fuckin break.
I will, that pisses me off too. I'm not American so I sometimes have to go through lengthy questionings and stuff as I enter the US. I won't tell you of when I (temporarily) lost my passport upon landing in the US. At least the national guard should be right on the borders with Mexico not only to stop terrorists (you can't really stop them but you can make their life difficult).