• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Should The "Patriot" Act By Completely and Totally Abolished?

Should the "Patriot" Act be Completely and Totally Abolished?

  • The "Patriot" Act should be kept as is in it's current form

    Votes: 1 6.7%
  • The "Patriot" Act should have some provisions taken out and then passed into law a second time

    Votes: 4 26.7%
  • The current "Patriot" Act should have more security measures added.

    Votes: 2 13.3%
  • The traitor "Patriot" Act should be completely and totally done away with.

    Votes: 8 53.3%

  • Total voters
    15

TimmyBoy

Banned
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
1,466
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
It's no secret based on how I put Patriot in quotation marks in my title as to my personal feelings on this issue. Lawmakers claim that the Patriot Act is what is needed to prevent a terrorist attack. I, on the other hand believe in the viewpoint of founding father Benjamin Franklin who talked about how those who would trade some of their freedom for temporary secruity deserve neither. I believe that the best protection we have against terrorism is freedom and that freedom is our most powerful weapon against the terrorists. If you destroy freedom through the "Patriot" Act you destroy your most powerful weapon you have against the terrorists. Not only that, but we will also eventually lose our security under the unpatriotic "Patriot" Act as well. What is your take?
 

Calm2Chaos

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
3,967
Reaction score
7
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Not really sure if Ben had any real concept of what the world and the security issues would be in modern times. Not really sure he had any concept about the problems we have concerning illegal immigration our completely open borders, planes flying into buildings, nuclear weapons, anthrax, a dirty bomb, martry bombs, throat cutters and kid killers, hatred of our way of life on a biblical scale. I do believe that if they were constructing our constitution and our countries policies during this time we would have a whole different set of rules and or laws. There just was no forseeing the security concerns of today a few hundred years ago. And as terrorist use our freedoms against us to hunt and kill us like cattle. Maybe we just might begin to realize that you have to crack a few egs to make an omlet
 

M14 Shooter

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
2,622
Reaction score
68
Location
Toledo-ish OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
"Completely and totally abolished" necessitates that there isnt anything worth keeping.

Is that an argument those of you that voted to "completely and totally abolish" the act want to make? If so, then please do.
i
Note that if something isnt worth keeping, then its also not worth bringing back through another act...
 

TimmyBoy

Banned
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
1,466
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I believe that the "Patriot" Act is a threat to the national security of the United States and the American people.
 

Calm2Chaos

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
3,967
Reaction score
7
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I believe allowing terrorist and possible terrorist to use our freedoms against us is a threat to our national security. And that if they can make a legitimate argument for looking into a persons email to protect the greater good then so be it. I do not want the government to have sweepeing powers with no oversight. But if the the cause is there I want them to be capable of doing what needed to stop the threat. If your planning harm to this country and or its citizens then I don't see you having any right anyway. If you are an American citizen that is planning on the wholesale murder your neighbors then your life and liberties need to be curtailed severly for the sake of the general public. But whatever the problem, they need to be able to submit a solid case for bypassing certain checks and balances
 

TimmyBoy

Banned
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
1,466
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Calm2Chaos said:
I believe allowing terrorist and possible terrorist to use our freedoms against us is a threat to our national security. And that if they can make a legitimate argument for looking into a persons email to protect the greater good then so be it. I do not want the government to have sweepeing powers with no oversight. But if the the cause is there I want them to be capable of doing what needed to stop the threat. If your planning harm to this country and or its citizens then I don't see you having any right anyway. If you are an American citizen that is planning on the wholesale murder your neighbors then your life and liberties need to be curtailed severly for the sake of the general public. But whatever the problem, they need to be able to submit a solid case for bypassing certain checks and balances
But these terrorists become more powerful when foreigners see that we are not a free country when such laws that destroy freedom are passed. We lose our moral high ground against these people by destroying the freedom here at home in our efforts to protect ourselves. The best protection we have against the terrorists is by maintaining our freedom here in this country so we maintain our moral high ground and thus prevent future people from joining the terrorists. It is also important to promote freedom abroad. But destroying it here at home will make the terrorists stronger and they will still be able to find ways to attack us. Not only that, in addition to the terrorists, we face inevitability that somebody in government will abuse these new powers and violate the rights of innocent ordinary citizens.
 

Calm2Chaos

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
3,967
Reaction score
7
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
TimmyBoy said:
But these terrorists become more powerful when foreigners see that we are not a free country when such laws that destroy freedom are passed. We lose our moral high ground against these people by destroying the freedom here at home in our efforts to protect ourselves. The best protection we have against the terrorists is by maintaining our freedom here in this country so we maintain our moral high ground and thus prevent future people from joining the terrorists. It is also important to promote freedom abroad. But destroying it here at home will make the terrorists stronger and they will still be able to find ways to attack us. Not only that, in addition to the terrorists, we face inevitability that somebody in government will abuse these new powers and violate the rights of innocent ordinary citizens.
The moral high ground does nothing for stoping a plane a boat or a car when being used to kill you or your children. The only thing I see empowering these terrorist are our own politians and the people that our media decides to promote. Slandering our presidents and our troops is what emboldens the murderers to strike again.

I see no reason to afford freedom to a person looking to steal the ultimate right of our citizens in a mass attack. The terorrist don't see the patriot act and think there winning. hey hear the likes of cindy shehan saying they aren't terrorist they are freedom fighters and we are the terrorist. Various democratic leaders Calling the president Hitler and our troops nazi's. Thats what is empowering them. Seeing the leaders of this country openly in the media and on TV turn against each other and actualy argue the terrorist cause.
 

TimmyBoy

Banned
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
1,466
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Calm2Chaos said:
The moral high ground does nothing for stoping a plane a boat or a car when being used to kill you or your children. The only thing I see empowering these terrorist are our own politians and the people that our media decides to promote. Slandering our presidents and our troops is what emboldens the murderers to strike again.

I see no reason to afford freedom to a person looking to steal the ultimate right of our citizens in a mass attack. The terorrist don't see the patriot act and think there winning. hey hear the likes of cindy shehan saying they aren't terrorist they are freedom fighters and we are the terrorist. Various democratic leaders Calling the president Hitler and our troops nazi's. Thats what is empowering them. Seeing the leaders of this country openly in the media and on TV turn against each other and actualy argue the terrorist cause.
The moral high ground can do alot to stop a plane or boat or car from killing innocent people, because the moral high ground denies the terrorists the people, the recruits and the brainpower, the planning and the will to accomplish such a crime.
 

M14 Shooter

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
2,622
Reaction score
68
Location
Toledo-ish OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
TimmyBoy said:
The moral high ground can do alot to stop a plane or boat or car from killing innocent people, because the moral high ground denies the terrorists the people, the recruits and the brainpower, the planning and the will to accomplish such a crime.

It took less than 100 people to plan and execute the WTC attack.
You really think 'taking the moral high ground' (as YOU put it) will deprive the terrorist organizations of their last 100 people?
 

TimmyBoy

Banned
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
1,466
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
M14 Shooter said:
It took less than 100 people to plan and execute the WTC attack.
You really think 'taking the moral high ground' (as YOU put it) will deprive the terrorist organizations of their last 100 people?
It will deprive them of their will. These last 100 people didn't eat their rice krispies one morning as you like to think and say "Gee, you know, let's take down the WTC, just for kicks, just for no reason at all. We'll do it because the Americans did nothing to us. We'll do it just for sport." That's not how it happenned. When you examine what happenned on September 11, it took alot of dedication, motivation, planning and a strong will to accomplish such a strong feat of terrorism on the most power nation in the world. What gave them the will, the motivation and dedication to accomplish such an act was the fact that the US HAS NOT been taking the moral high ground in the past.
 

Hoot

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2004
Messages
1,686
Reaction score
18
Location
State of Confusion
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
M14 Shooter said:
It took less than 100 people to plan and execute the WTC attack.
100 and 1, counting Bush ignoring all the warnings he was given.

For the record, I voted the Patriot Act be totally and completely abolished. This nation was founded on individual freedoms and the Patriot Act is a direct assault on the Bill of Rights...most especially the right to Due Process.
 

MrAchilles

New member
Joined
Jul 2, 2005
Messages
29
Reaction score
0
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
The Patriot Act should be burned and anyone who speaks of it again should be charged with treason against human rights. This act is just another of the many steps that are being taken to set up a World Government or New World Order for the educated people.

P.S.- W.G. and N.W.O are bad things.
 

TimmyBoy

Banned
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
1,466
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
MrAchilles said:
The Patriot Act should be burned and anyone who speaks of it again should be charged with treason against human rights. This act is just another of the many steps that are being taken to set up a World Government or New World Order for the educated people.

P.S.- W.G. and N.W.O are bad things.
I don't know about World Government or this "New World Order." Sounds pretty wacked and crazy if you ask me. But I certainly agree that anybody who speaks of it again should be charged with treason against human rights. But governments are not moral agents. They do not do things that are moral and it is the reason why it is so important to limit the scope and size of government and to keep it restrained. It is the enemy of freedom and can become a threat to human rights.
 

Calm2Chaos

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
3,967
Reaction score
7
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
TimmyBoy said:
The moral high ground can do alot to stop a plane or boat or car from killing innocent people, because the moral high ground denies the terrorists the people, the recruits and the brainpower, the planning and the will to accomplish such a crime.

Tell that to the family members of those that had to jump from a 100 story building
 

Calm2Chaos

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
3,967
Reaction score
7
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Hoot said:
100 and 1, counting Bush ignoring all the warnings he was given.

For the record, I voted the Patriot Act be totally and completely abolished. This nation was founded on individual freedoms and the Patriot Act is a direct assault on the Bill of Rights...most especially the right to Due Process.
Make that 2... Clinton had multiple offers for bin laden and refused....
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
The Patriot Act was set up as an extension of RICO laws that were earlier passed decades ago to infiltrate the mafia...Anyone who thinks it should be completely abolished should've been having a coniption fit for awhile now...
 

Deegan

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
5,528
Reaction score
2
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
cnredd said:
The Patriot Act was set up as an extension of RICO laws that were earlier passed decades ago to infiltrate the mafia...Anyone who thinks it should be completely abolished should've been having a coniption fit for awhile now...
Great point, that was something that everyone could get behind, partisan politics have blinded many to the actual dangers, hence the attacks on 9/11!:doh

The wall, what a huge mistake, and decided on simple paranoia, I often wonder what's next for our citizens.:shock:
 

aquapub

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 16, 2005
Messages
7,317
Reaction score
344
Location
America (A.K.A., a red state)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
There are precisely four things one needs know when analyzing adolescent liberal drivel over the Patriot Act:



1) Everything Democrats support works against America and for our enemies.

2) Democrats have sided with every single enemy America has had for the last fifty years (probably more).

3) There is no right to privacy mentioned or implied anywhere in the Constitution, so this hysterics-based pity party Democrats are (and have been) throwing for terrorists who have had to endure the tragedy of airline inconveniences is baseless. The Patriot Act in no way violates the Constitution.

4) Cutting red tape and untying the hands of FBI from liberal idiocy (like Janet Reno's rule against letting the CIA and FBI communicate about terrorists) is critical for our national security.

Get over it, traitors.

:roll:
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
aquapub said:
There are precisely four things one needs know when analyzing adolescent liberal drivel over the Patriot Act:



1) Everything Democrats support works against America and for our enemies.

2) Democrats have sided with every single enemy America has had for the last fifty years (probably more).

3) There is no right to privacy mentioned or implied anywhere in the Constitution, so this hysterics-based pity party Democrats are (and have been) throwing for terrorists who have had to endure the tragedy of airline inconveniences is baseless. The Patriot Act in no way violates the Constitution.

4) Cutting red tape and untying the hands of FBI from liberal idiocy (like Janet Reno's rule against letting the CIA and FBI communicate about terrorists) is critical for our national security.

Get over it, traitors.

:roll:
Are you expecting an intelligent response when using terms like "adolescent liberal drivel", "liberal idiocy" & "traitors"?

If you are, I suggest you change your style of debate because you won't get anything but the same inflammatory remarks...

If not, then I suggest that this isn't the best forum for you to espouse your mannerisms...
 

aquapub

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 16, 2005
Messages
7,317
Reaction score
344
Location
America (A.K.A., a red state)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
There is no better way to provide aid and comfort to our enemies than to oppose the Patriot Act. We simply cannot fight terror without roving wire taps, and the ability to get less judicial interference in getting warrants and such. We should have to go through all that red tape for common criminals, but not people trying to commit mass murder.

It's not rocket science.
 

BWG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 29, 2005
Messages
4,373
Reaction score
1,602
Location
South Coast
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
aquapub said:
There is no better way to provide aid and comfort to our enemies than to oppose the Patriot Act. We simply cannot fight terror without roving wire taps, and the ability to get less judicial interference in getting warrants and such. We should have to go through all that red tape for common criminals, but not people trying to commit mass murder.

It's not rocket science.
I prefer checks and balances.
They're kinda like locks, it helps keep honest people honest. ;)
 

Hoot

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2004
Messages
1,686
Reaction score
18
Location
State of Confusion
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Calm2Chaos said:
Make that 2... Clinton had multiple offers for bin laden and refused....
Prove it. The man that offered binLaden to Clinton had no authority and was not a representative of the Sudan government. This Clinton/bin Laden garbage has been proven false so many times it's really gets tiring.
 

Hoot

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2004
Messages
1,686
Reaction score
18
Location
State of Confusion
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Back to topic...The Patriot Act ( Boy, is that ever an oxymoron) allows the U.S. government to hold, indefinitely, anyone it deems a threat, without benefit of counsel or even having charges brought against them, including U.S. citizens.

This is supposed to be America, folks. Don't be so quick to throw your rights down the tubes.
 
Top Bottom