Redstate

Code naming and labeling are a way to attack the messenger and give people a crutch to ignore an argument. I am not a Ronulan or whatever other cute label you feel like applying. I am a free thinking former US Marine patriot who would die for this country. Have the respect to debate ideas and condemn ad hominum attacks.

1. I believe that you do not to have something to hide to value your privacy. The patriot act lowers the bar for warrants for searches and interception of internet data. It, and new laws passed since, have strengthened the federal police powers on eavesdropping as well. We should not trust the government to only violate the civil rights of bad guys.

2. Ron Paul has never voted for any unconstitutional spending. He has led the way in congress by showing that you need not betray the constitution to get re-elected. He has proposed many bills that you should ask your congressman to support instead of implying that Ron Paul is ineffective because he does not horse trade.

3. Ron Paul believes that congress has a responsibility to earmark their money, lest it be left to an unelected bureaucrat. However, he votes against the earmarks and the bills passage. This should show you he is a realist with principles.

4. Are you implying we should fight for oil? If we had a free market it would address transportation and we shouldn't subsidize oil by going to war.

I just saved a ton of money on my government by switching to Ron Paul!

1. When I grew up the law enforcement agencies had considerably more power than they do now under the patriot act. Are you saying that Eisenhower ran a police state ? Perhaps Truman or Kennedy ?

Oh and please show me the civil rights violations you speak of ? Sorry not even the bad guys have had theirs violated much to the regret of our dead.

2. And he has accomplished nothing. What he has shown is you can be completely useless and get reelected. (He probably isnt the first to do this, but certainly the first in this manner)

3. Rofl. Oh ok, god forbid that the contracts be put up for competitive bidding.

4. Well Yes seeing as its vital to our nation. What would you have us fight for gold ? Lets face if we ever did go to a gold standard thats exactly what we would have to do. At least oil is useful.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

You have a signature with a quote from Thomas Paine while you argue with me about who took more of your freedoms.

Are you arguing that the Patriot Act does not take any extra freedoms and liberties from you? Or, are you saying that Eisenhower, Truman and Kennedy took more, in your opinion, so that makes it Okay?

I think that Ron Paul has accomplished more than if he had sold out his principles and our constituion. "Congress shall make no law", remember that lil' chestnut? Making a law that violates our bill of rights is not an accomplishment.

I have seen a lot of competitively bid contracts but that's another story... Congress should dictate how the money is spent. Earmarking is not the answer, the whole system is flawed, but having him earmark a bill that he is voting against shows you that he lives in the real world.

Okay, so you say we should go to war for oil. Do you think the president should at least say that and ask for a declaration of War? Would we need to go to war for oil if we respected property rights here at home?

P.S.
Once again you hit me with another very clever insult, very impressive.

I just saved a ton of money on my government by switching to Ron Paul!

Absolutely on the Thom Paine. He would cringe at our current rules of evidence, so would most of the rest of the revolutionary crowd that built this nation. As a matter of fact they have said so repeatedly.

So you object to the patriot act ? What parts ?

Do you object letting the FBI and the CIA talk to each other ?
Do you object to eavesdropping on overseas phonecalls to known terrorists ?
Do you object to having your library card audited ?

Sorry once again in the America I grew up in if a policeman had a question for a librarian the librarian would have been happy to help. But back then we thought the police were important and helpful parts of society.

Do you object to no knock warrants ? They do need a court order.

The rest of what you call privacy violations are nothing compared to what I can do with equifax access, autotrak, infousa, and the other public records online databases. Personally I would much rather something be done about marketers having my personal information available.

Making a law that violates the bill of rights

Do you have an example ? And if so the accomplishment would have been for RP to stop its passage. Oddly enough if such a law exists the Doctor has failed.

Congress should dictate how the money is spent ? LOL Why don't we just give congressmen a budget for repaying their cronies. It would be cheaper in the short and long run.

Just how has not respecting property rights here made us go to war for oil ? I am really lost on your logic chain there.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Property rights would allow us to drill in the US for the oil. Instead the government forbids oil drilling in parts of the country.

Do you object letting the FBI and the CIA talk to each other ? Not at all

Do you object to eavesdropping on overseas phone calls to known terrorists? Who judges a known terrorist? Is half of that call in the US? My answer is that it depends but it looks fishy even if the goal is laudable.

Do you object to having your library card audited? Absolutely! What business is it of the government's what I am reading? Again, good intentions bad judgment.

The constitution is a tool to restrain government. When it is not followed we suffer. The government is supposed to protect your privacy, if it is invading your privacy you have no recourse. This is also my answer to your question regarding equifax access, autotrak, infousa, and the other public records online databases. If they are violating your privacy you can sue them. You will have less luck suing the government.

The fact that you can now see earmarks means that any bribery will be easier to trace. I am not in favor of this method of distributing money at all to be honest. I would rather the federal government was reduced to it's proper scope and that earmarked money was in our wallets.

On the insults subject... I am sure many Ron Paul or even other party supporters come here to flame and get flamed. Not me, I believe in treating people respectfully as if we were face to face. Too many times people use the anonymity of the online world to be the bully they cannot be in real life. I do not mean you, but generally.

If we really believe in issues and we are not just rooting for our favorite team, there is no reason we cannot just debate the issues. I do not pretend to have perfect knowledge or to have everything figured out, but I do like what I have heard from Ron Paul. I am ready to have my beliefs challenged and I have put blind faith in no one.

I just saved a ton of money on my government by switching to Ron Paul!

Who owns a national park ?

Show me in the constitution where this right to privacy exists ?

It only seems to be in the Magic Eye Edition of the constitution.

As to the marketers once again just where is your right to not have people know things about you ? And just what kind of a police state do you think it will take to make that happen ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

And you are asking me where the constitution protects your privacy? You can't represent the majority view here can you?

1st Amendment - privacy of beliefs
3rd Amendment - privacy of your home against it's use to house soldiers
4th Amendment - privacy against unreasonable searches
5th Amendment - protects the privacy of personal info from self incrimination

The founders did not believe that you should bare all to the government. That can't be lost on everyone here.

this is just lunacy.

Exactly none of these amendments say what you are arguing.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

You mean to say that the 5th amendment does not protect privacy? Or the 4th? I am not sure how to respond. Since I will not use the uh huh defense as a rebuttal I'll just declare you the winner.

I just saved a ton of money on my government by switching to Ron Paul!

Show how the patriot act or any law you have brought up violates anyone of those amendments ?

But then again you have exhibited a pattern.
1. Make a claim
2A. Talk about something else
2B. Present an irrelevant counter argument.

So once again, where is this right not to have data collected ?

Where is your right to private transactions in a library ?
Is there a librarian privelege I am not aware of ?

Lets See wife , Check
Doctor Check
Lawyer Check
Librarian ??? nope don't see it.

And yes it is a conservative site. Don't put things in the constitution that aren't there.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

neither mention privacy and neither talk about privacy.

For instance, the fourth only protects against "unreasonable" searches and seizures. You misrepresent the prohibition against the quartering of troops because it only applies in peacetime (gee, guess those Founding Fathers, unlike you and Ron Paul, understood the difference between war and peace). The right against self incrimination is not a right to privacy because by the simple granting of transactional immunity you can be compelled under penalty of law to testify.

I'd also point out that contrary to your learned discourse on the notion of a declaration of war, the first war of this nation was carried out under one of the Founders without a declaration of war. Ditto for Thomas Jefferson and the First Barbary War and James Madison and the Second Barbary War. So that makes three of the Founders engaging in wars without a declaration of war. We'll leave aside the idiocy of the presumption that there is actually a format for such a declaration.

I'm sure you've really amused yourself with this bogus series of arguments and your abuse of our hospitality and bandwidth. Go away.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

Second, you've not answered my question.

Third, my my - that's an awfuly thin skin you've got there. You might want to drop the 'tude if you're planning on lasting till morning.

Fourth, were you a denizen of this site for more than today you would completely understand the "nicknaming".

Look kid, if you're going to answer entirely in generalities and hypotheticals then we can end this conversation right now.

-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

I am 33yrs old. I can take about any insult you could dish out but I do believe that these type of personal attacks take away from the debate. It is a way to pigeon hole a person without saying anything of substance. Yes, today is my first day on here, but hopefully not my last.

Specifics from section 215 of the Patriot Act.
# Section 215 allows the FBI to order any person or entity to turn over "any tangible things," so long as the FBI "specif[ies]" that the order is "for an authorized investigation . . . to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities."
# Section 215 vastly expands the FBI's power to spy on ordinary people living in the United States, including United States citizens and permanent residents.

* The FBI need not show probable cause, nor even reasonable grounds to believe, that the person whose records it seeks is engaged in criminal activity.
* The FBI need not have any suspicion that the subject of the investigation is a foreign power or agent of a foreign power.
* The FBI can investigate United States persons based in part on their exercise of First Amendment rights, and it can investigate non-United States persons based solely on their exercise of First Amendment rights.
o For example, the FBI could spy on a person because they don't like the books she reads, or because they don't like the web sites she visits. They could spy on her because she wrote a letter to the editor that criticized government policy.

I just saved a ton of money on my government by switching to Ron Paul!

In fact, it reads like someone's interpretation of statute - a particularly paranoid interpretation, if you ask me. Care to provide a link to where this came from?

But in spite of this you've still not yet told me what right has been thrown away. Come on, chum. Spell it out for me. I'm giddy with anticipation and have to retire soon for the night (0500 is gonna come mighty quick tomorrow morning).

And sorry, anyone who drops the word "insult" as quickly as do you has transparently thin skin. And FWIW, you're doing just fine "pigeon holing" yourself without any help from JO and I - believe me.

-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

See the problem with the language below is that is allows immunity for a company that violates your privacy agreement based on an emergency request, or a court order. What is an emergency request and who is it from? If it is not a court order who ordered it?

The reading of the act is very complicated because in many instances is just beefs up other laws and regulations. Many of these add ons add these loopholes to justify wiretapping without a court order and searches without a warrant.

SEC. 225. IMMUNITY FOR COMPLIANCE WITH FISA WIRETAP.

Section 105 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1805) is amended by inserting after subsection (g) the following:

`(h) No cause of action shall lie in any court against any provider of a wire or electronic communication service, landlord, custodian, or other person (including any officer, employee, agent, or other specified person thereof) that furnishes any information, facilities, or technical assistance in accordance with a court order or request for emergency assistance under this Act.'.

I just saved a ton of money on my government by switching to Ron Paul!

when from this text comes the interpretation you presented previously.

It's past my bedtime and this is going precisely nowhere, so let me cut to the chase...

Got a problem with FISA? Fine. I don't. If my neighbor is on the phone with a jihadist in Pakistan, I want someone listening on the call. We pay a fair number of civil servants a pretty fair wage ostensibly to know the difference between a known or suspected jihadist and a grandma from Calcutta. Then again, you don't seem to be a big fan of the civil service seeing as how you don't seem to have a problem with earmarks, so perhaps that's the loggerhead.

My bottom line is that all my rights don't mean a damn if I'm dead and I do not believe that the Constitution is a suicide pact. And honestly, I don't truck with people who believe otherwise.

Adios.

-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

And in this quote we reach pay dirt my friend. Please go off to your bed and sleep safely. Please know that many many men have paid for that safety with their blood and many more will.

Our nation is filled with people who would have said just the opposite and I am one of them.

One of my favorite patriots and American Presidents said the following on the subject, " You and I know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery. If nothing in life is worth dying for, when did this begin--just in the face of this enemy? Or should Moses have told the children of Israel to live in slavery under the pharaohs? Should Christ have refused the cross? Should the patriots at Concord Bridge have thrown down their guns and refused to fire the shot heard 'round the world? The martyrs of history were not fools, and our honored dead who gave their lives to stop the advance of the Nazis didn't die in vain."

Night night, docj. I hope you sleep well.

I just saved a ton of money on my government by switching to Ron Paul!

but it doesn't do a thing to illustrate the "right to privacy" that you've whipped up from nowhere.

http://www.redstate.com/blogs/bcmiller/2007/sep/03/the_real_threat_to_ou...

I just saved a ton of money on my government by switching to Ron Paul!

"refusing to answer the question" defense, which you are employing quite well.

______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

ANd I generally don't make sport of the dead, but in your case I will make a well deserved exception - so let me close by saying 1) I slept quite soundly and survived my appalling commute without incident, thank you very much, 2) you never answered a single question put to you by me or others with more juice - well done, and 3) I need not be lectured in such a manner by the likes of you, kid. Go peddle your tripe with the other Freepers - there are grown-ups here talking about important stuff.

Happy trails in whatever fantasy land you live in, where life in America 2007 resembles that of the Jews under Pharaoh's slavery, or even 1775 Massachusetts. Yours is an object lesson for me to never triffle with those who see chains everywhere, a bureaucrat under every bed and attached to every phone line, and the practicality of electing perhaps the most ineffective and ineffectual legislator in several generations to be Commander and Chief in a time of war.

Happy trails, indeed.

You won't be missed.

-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

Your questionable interpretation and unfounded assertions regarding Section 215 of the Patriot Act fail to withstand scrutiny and an examination of the facts:

The Patriot Act Reader: Understanding the Law's Role in the Global War on Terror

Section 215: Libraries

Section 215 mirrors, in the intelligence-gathering context, the scope of authority that already exists in traditional law enforcement investigations. Obtaining business records is a long-standing law enforcement tactic. Ordinary grand juries for years have issued subpoenas to all manner of businesses, including libraries and bookstores, for records relevant to criminal inquiries.

For example, in the 1997 Gianni Versace murder case, a Florida grand jury subpoenaed records from public libraries in Miami Beach. Likewise, in the 1990 Zodiac gunman investigation, a New York grand jury subpoenaed records from a public library in Manhattan. Investigators believed that the gunman was inspired by a Scottish occult poet, and wanted to learn who had checked out books by that poet. In the Unabomber investigation, law enforcement officials sought the records of various libraries, hoping to identify the Unabomber as a former student with particular reading interests.

Section 215 merely authorizes the FISA court to issue similar orders in national security investigations. It contains a number of safeguards that protect civil liberties.

• First, Section 215 requires FBI agents to get a court order. Agents cannot compel any entity to turn over its records unless judicial authority has been obtained. FISA orders are unlike grand jury subpoenas, which are requested without court supervision and are subject to challenge only after they have been issued.

• Second, Section 215 has a narrow scope. It can be used only (1) “to obtain foreign intelligence information not concerning a United States person” or (2) “to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.” It cannot be used to investigate ordinary crimes, or even domestic terrorism. Nor can it be used in any investigation premised solely on “activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution.”

This is narrower than the scope of traditional law enforcement investigations. Under general criminal law, the grand jury may seek the production of any relevant business records. The only limitation is that the subpoena may be quashed if the subpoena recipient can demonstrate that there is no reasonable possibility that the category of materials the Government seeks will produce information relevant to the general subject of the grand jury’s investigation.” There is no necessity of showing a connection to foreign intelligence activity nor any limitation against investigation of United States persons. Thus, unlike under Section 215, the grand jury may inquire into potential violations of any federal crime with effectively limitless authority.

Opponents make two particular criticisms of this provision: that the judicial review it provides for is a chimera, and that the provision of Section 215 imposing secrecy on the recipients of subpoenas issued pursuant to the section imposes a “gag rule” that prevents oversight of the use of the section’s authority. Neither criticism, however, withstands close scrutiny.

Section 215 provides for judicial review of the application for a subpoena for business records. The language provides, however, that upon application, the court “shall” issue the requested subpoena. From the use of the word “shall,” critics infer that the obligation to issue the requested subpoena is mandatory and, thus, that the issuing court has no discretion to reject an application. Of course, if this were true (which, as discussed below, it is not), then the absence of any judicial ability to reject an application would reduce the extent of judicial oversight.

But critics who make this argument (even if it were the case) miss the second-order effects of judicial review. It imposes obligations of veracity on those seeking the subpoenas, and to premise an objection on the lack of judicial review is to presuppose the mendacity of the subpoena affiants. It is also to presuppose the absence of any internal, administrative mechanisms in order to check potential misuse of the subpoena authority. And, most notably, it presupposes that the obligation to swear an oath of truthfulness, with attendant perjury penalties for falsity, has no deterrent effect on the misuse of authorities granted.

But even more significantly, this criticism misreads the statute, which, while saying that the subpoena “shall” issue, also says that it shall issue as sought or “as modified.” The reviewing judge thus explicitly has authority to alter the scope and nature of the documents being sought—a power that cannot be exercised in the absence of substantive review of the subpoena request. Thus, the suggestion that the provisions of Section 215 preclude judicial review is simply mistaken. To the contrary, Section 215 authorizes judicial review and modification of the subpoena request which occurs before the subpoena is issued. This is a substantial improvement over the situation in traditional grand jury investigations where the subpoena is issued without judicial intervention and the review comes, at the end, only if the subpoena is challenged.

***

“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan

You just listed a bunch of conflicts to say what? All sweeping sucesses?

I will have to assume that you mean to defend President Bush since you did not make a specific point. I'll say this, I do not single out this president and this crisis. President Clinton used the IRS as a political weapon and he also launched us into war without declaration.

Also, a declaration of war is not the same as an authorization to use force. Congressman Paul called on congress to vote up or down on a war declaration and they refused. The difference lies in stating the case for the war and what defines success, normally a peace treaty.

I just saved a ton of money on my government by switching to Ron Paul!

"The track record of our declared wars versus our undeclared wars tells the sad tale."

It is not sad that: we defeated the Brabary Pirates and ended their tribute demands to sail in the Mediterranean; Andrew Jackson took Florida for the US; Lincoln saved the Union; South Korea is free; etc

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

Nice try, but shaking an angry-looking cardboard cut out of Sen. Clinton doesn't scare me into submission when Giuliani backers do it, so it's certainly not going to work when Paul people do it.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
I voted Harry Browne in 2000, but will never vote Ron Paul.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
I voted Harry Browne in 2000, but will never vote Ron Paul.

...the Wiki-entry was an interesting summary, and it explains why you and I don't seem to agree on much here.

Thanks, I'll make it a point to find a few more books of his at the library. In the mean time, I'll try to find common ground--unless you're trying to purge the conservative movement of radicals for capitalism the way William F. Buckley effectively isolated Ayn Rand and her followers from the conservative movement. If so, I move on--I don't think I'll change my mind much, but I like to be well-read.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
I voted Harry Browne in 2000, but will never vote Ron Paul.

______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
I voted Harry Browne in 2000, but will never vote Ron Paul.