• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Call to oppose PATRIOT act Renewal -- today!

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
Without warrants the gov is supposed to have no authority at all........ever.....

but Berretta you do make a point this laws does simply seem to codify what they were already doing.

This is why I have made a distinction between what the Government 'isn't supposed to do', and what the Government does do.

Legality v. Application, and how Authority plays a role in both. The Federal Governments Authority is the only reason why they are able to engage in act that might be illegal, with impunity. The Law can say one thing, and the Government can, at it's discretion, do what it deems 'necessary' under the guise of say, 'National Security."

How do you hold the Federal Government criminally accountable? The Federal Government IS the Law. Money means nothing to the Federal Government since the money is made possible from taxpayers. So, if you were to sue the Federal Government, you would be paying both for your attorneys fees, and the fees of the Federal Government.
 
Last edited:

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
"necessary? " Franky,sometimes, yes. Is it nice? No. But I dont recall having a disclaimer that what I may say may not always avoid harming someone's feelings.

It's not about hurting a persons feelings. It's about adding fluff that undermines the discussion. It is difficult enough for all of us to handle the discussion at hand, then having people slinging B.S. such as calling a person a 'simpleton'.

But hey, do whatever you like.
And you are right. The only things it really changed pertained more to lifting limitations on some things like warrants and types of warrants issued for certain investigations to better reflect the time-sensitive nature of terror-related cases.

The Government would have done that regardless, it's just that we wouldn't have heard about it. The CIA is there to do things that the average citizen is not aware of for the purposes of National Security.

Catching Joe Mafia at some white-collar finanacial crime is usually not quiet as time-sensitive,for example, as catching Muhammed Ragbar before he and his buddies detonate something nasty in a pre-school. Now, how the heck that effects Kinky boy above, is beyond me.

DHS is not affected by the Patriot Act?


For the other one here, Canadian border? And all this yapping of air travel-totally un-related to Patriot Act. DHS-enforced matters on travel, and restrictions on foreigners are not Patriot Act items most of the time. Apples and Oranges.
If you are going to decry the Act,at least do so based on what it actually covers. Better still-go back to the link provided and actually read the bloody thing before spouting off about what it does or does not do to anyone's freedoms.

Hence, simpletons. There's just no "touchy-feely" way to put it,sometimes.


"Most of the time?" Then, "apples and oranges?" Please explain.

The Patriot Act may not appear superficially to be broad, but the wording of the Patriot Act is.
 

j4l

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2011
Messages
1,835
Location
fl
It's not about hurting a persons feelings. It's about adding fluff that undermines the discussion. It is difficult enough for all of us to handle the discussion at hand, then having people slinging B.S. such as calling a person a 'simpleton'.

But hey, do whatever you like.


The Government would have done that regardless, it's just that we wouldn't have heard about it. The CIA is there to do things that the average citizen is not aware of for the purposes of National Security.



DHS is not affected by the Patriot Act?





"Most of the time?" Then, "apples and oranges?" Please explain.

The Patriot Act may not appear superficially to be broad, but the wording of the Patriot Act is.

Not everything is black and white. If there is info that a subject is moving into or out of the country, then yes it might cross over into DHS/TSA matters-such as airport checkpoints,etc.Otherwise,not very often,no.

CIA is outside conus activities. FBI/NSA handles domestic.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
Much as I like, and dislike, some aspects of the Act. The act has saved your asss more times than you will likely ever find out about. (and that too, is intentional-so no,there will be no "cites" or "links" ) Nonetheless, it remains a solid fact.

LOL!

Unless or until you conduct some activity or have ties to or connections to-knowingly or otherwise-some activity that puts you in their cross-hairs, no freedoms of yours, as an individual citizen are being-or will be- "erroded" or "violated".
Persons subjected to the act arent chosen at random. It's not a lottery.

And just how the hell do we know that? Blind faith?


The severely limited resources of the Intelligence and Investigative agencies of this land are not going out seeking random victims to torment for their amusement. They could care less if you like to talk dirty on the phone or internet with Aunt Milly. They could care less about the adult toys you purchase at the XXX store, or whatever other "privacy" issues you seem to think might be embarassing for them to see/hear.
That arent even looking in your direction.:rolleyes:
If only that were true...

Folks, this isnt the movies. The intel and investigations agencies dont have a Jack Bauer,they dont have satellites they can re-direct to look at your particular house with little more than a cell phone call.

You're right, it's all so much more petty than that.

They dont have anything like enough folks to sit and listen in to all your little phone/text/interweb chats 24/7.

Security by obscurity, huh? That works until it doesn't.

The folks they ARE looking for, and looking at, understand these limitations, and most of our own laws better than most of our own ,common citizens. The folks they are looking for are specifically trained to avoid detection and capture by operating within the loopholes and safeguards of those laws pre-Patriot Act. They exploit these freedoms we enjoy because they view them as a weekness they can use against us, and enable themselves to slip in, and live amongst us.
Wait, I thought you told me real life wasn't like TV?! Now I'm getting all confused!

Get over yourselves folks. Your not quiet important enough to get the Fed's or the CIA's attentions.Unless, or until you do something to deserve their attention. They lack the time, resources,funds,and reasons to "violate" you, the law-abiding, tax-paying citizen.
Exactly who else are they going to use all these powers on?

In the mean time- read the actual bill.

And you have, right? :lol:

Meantime, cite for me please, 1 instance of each example mentioned in the op, in which YOUR rights have actually suffered in some form.
What's the matter, your google broken?

http://www.google.com/m/search?oe=UTF-8&client=safari&q=patriot+act+violations&hl=en&start=0&sa=N
 

j4l

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2011
Messages
1,835
Location
fl
LOL!



And just how the hell do we know that? Blind faith?



If only that were true...



You're right, it's all so much more petty than that.



Security by obscurity, huh? That works until it doesn't.


Wait, I thought you told me real life wasn't like TV?! Now I'm getting all confused!


Exactly who else are they going to use all these powers on?



And you have, right? :lol:


What's the matter, your google broken?

http://www.google.com/m/search?oe=UTF-8&client=safari&q=patriot+act+violations&hl=en&start=0&sa=N

Not only read it, but have operated under the restrictions imposed by it. Very well aware of it's limitations. Trust me, buttercup, you really ARENT important enough to listen in on.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
Not only read it, but have operated under the restrictions imposed by it.
And this says all one needs to know. Thanks for dissolving your credibility, so we don't have to. Although I was looking forward to it...

Very well aware of it's limitations. Trust me, buttercup, you really ARENT important enough to listen in on.

Never said I was.

Oh, and something about you being a pansy. (You know, the plant.)
 

Dreamer

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Messages
5,360
Location
Grennsboro NC
CIA is outside conus activities.

Except when they get caught illegally operating inside the US, and get slapped on the wrists, or completely given a pass by the Courts...


FBI/NSA handles domestic.

Except when they operate outside the CONUS in "advisory" capacities, or in conjunction with the CIA providing support for "extraordinary renditions", or when they work with foreign intelligence and LE...
 

j4l

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2011
Messages
1,835
Location
fl
And this says all one needs to know. Thanks for dissolving your credibility, so we don't have to. Although I was looking forward to it...



Never said I was.

Oh, and something about you being a pansy. (You know, the plant.)

Lol credibility is 100% intact,buttercup.You lack the knowledge or the understanding to dissolve anyone's credibility on anything. No worries.
 

j4l

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2011
Messages
1,835
Location
fl
Except when they get caught illegally operating inside the US, and get slapped on the wrists, or completely given a pass by the Courts...




Except when they operate outside the CONUS in "advisory" capacities, or in conjunction with the CIA providing support for "extraordinary renditions", or when they work with foreign intelligence and LE...


1st part-blatantly false.

2nd part-reasonably accurate,yes.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
Lol credibility is 100% intact,buttercup.You lack the knowledge or the understanding to dissolve anyone's credibility on anything. No worries.


Why do you keep referring to Marshaul as 'buttercup'? You see, it's that type of crap that is not necessary.

Oh well, it was worth a shot.
 

Dreamer

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Messages
5,360
Location
Grennsboro NC
Why do you keep referring to Marshaul as 'buttercup'? You see, it's that type of crap that is not necessary.

"j4l" is working DIRECTLY out of the "Rules for Radicals" playbook, penned by Saul Alinsky. (which BTW, I recommend every 2A activist read, if for no other reason than to understand the duplicitous tactics of psy-ops warfare used by many of the opponents of liberty. And actually, there is a LOT of good info in this book about how to more effectively manipulate public perception, steer arguments, and put your critics IMMEDIATELY on the defensive in any discussion)

He never attacks people's facts with actual data, primary-source citations, or verifiable documentation--he attacks their sanity, their intelligence, their patriotism, and their manhood. Such emotive attacks are designed to provoke an emotional response, and therefore force the person being attacked to relinquish the intellectual upper hand.

He never actually cites any authoritative source for his gratuitous assertions--and yet when others do not cite their claims, he attacks their statements as being frivolous, fraudulent, or lies.

When people respond to his attacks with verifiable cites, he ignores them rather than admitting he is wrong, or apologizing for attacking them under his "mistaken positions".

He appeals to emotionally sensitive personal beliefs--patriotism, virility, intelligence, sanity, loyalty--but rarely uses proper logical debate techniques. When called out on this, his arguments immediately devolve into personal attacks, name-calling, and slander.

He is either a well-trained disinformation agent under Cass Sunstein's "cognitive infiltration" program, or he is a well-read and well-trained freelance globalist agent provocateur.

Perhaps the Mods should publish his ISP, or at least do a search on his IP address--dollars to donuts, it's "inside the beltway", and financially connected to the "intelligence community", the Executive branch, and/or Goldman Sachs...

Regardless of his political, social, or ideological pedigree, I am calling "j4l" out publicly for being an agent provocateur, or at the very least, a mean-spirited troll...
 
Last edited:

TheQ

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
3,379
Location
Lansing, Michigan
Undermining the intelligence of the opposition (while themselves not presenting a rational and concrete argument) and saying they are reckless and against safety -- another neo-con tactic.


"Safety is a tyrant's tool."
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
"j4l" is working DIRECTLY out of the "Rules for Radicals" playbook, penned by Saul Alinsky. (which BTW, I recommend every 2A activist read, if for no other reason than to understand the duplicitous tactics of psy-ops warfare used by many of the opponents of liberty. And actually, there is a LOT of good info in this book about how to more effectively manipulate public perception, steer arguments, and put your critics IMMEDIATELY on the defensive in any discussion)

So, this "Rules for Radicals" would apply to any side that first considers itself 'radical"? What if they aren't 'radicals', but merely disagree with your position?

There are plenty of books that I have read(e) which have premise that I don't agree with, but I wouldn't consider them 'radicals'.

He never attacks people's facts with actual data, primary-source citations, or verifiable documentation--he attacks their sanity, their intelligence, their patriotism, and their manhood. Such emotive attacks are designed to provoke an emotional response, and therefore force the person being attacked to relinquish the intellectual upper hand.

He never actually cites any authoritative source for his gratuitous assertions--and yet when others do not cite their claims, he attacks their statements as being frivolous, fraudulent, or lies.
When an individual is stating their view on any particular issue there is not always a reason to cite anything, since, well, it is their view on the issue. For example, if I were to cite Bush II as part of my argument on a particular issue, how would citing Bush II validate, or legitimize my argument, and point of view any more than me simply concluding that my view is what it is based on what I feel is a rational, logical, reasonable examination of the totality of the issue at hand.

When people respond to his attacks with verifiable cites, he ignores them rather than admitting he is wrong, or apologizing for attacking them under his "mistaken positions".
The whole 'wrong' or 'right' argument is rarely factually based. We are all 'wrong' and 'right' at the same time, or so it seems.

He appeals to emotionally sensitive personal beliefs--patriotism, virility, intelligence, sanity, loyalty--but rarely uses proper logical debate techniques. When called out on this, his arguments immediately devolve into personal attacks, name-calling, and slander.
Humans are emotional beings. What exactly do you consider "proper logical debate techniques." I think that individuals should be open to consider what responders have to say, and you either agree, or disagree. So, you quote them, and follow with a "+1," or "I do not agree, and this is why...."

He is either a well-trained disinformation agent under Cass Sunstein's "cognitive infiltration" program, or he is a well-read and well-trained freelance globalist agent provocateur.

Perhaps the Mods should publish his ISP, or at least do a search on his IP address--dollars to donuts, it's "inside the beltway", and financially connected to the "intelligence community", the Executive branch, and/or Goldman Sachs...
Are you serious? Let's get real here.
I think that pointing out private things about individuals is a bit much. Personally, I have met dozens of individuals on OC at gatherings where we all bring ourselves, and our families for dinner, BBQ, and such. Whatever degree an individual wishes to be known around here is, and should be up to them...don't you think?

What I have enjoyed about meeting others from OC, and sharing time with them is that even though we might go at it online here, we have met, and had wonderful interactions. And we all managed to do it live without 'drawing' our wagons during discussions.

Regardless of his political, social, or ideological pedigree, I am calling "j4l" out publicly for being an agent provocateur, or at the very least, a mean-spirited troll...
The term "troll" has run its course. As I stated before, you either agree with an individual or disagree. This is a forum where we have discussions about a broad range of issues that affect all of us. Now, you can either offer the best description of why you believe what you believe, or how you reached any particular conclusion, or you can ignore individuals. We are all agents of our own beliefs, and conclusions.
 
Last edited:

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
Undermining the intelligence of the opposition (while themselves not presenting a rational and concrete argument) and saying they are reckless and against safety -- another neo-con tactic.


"Safety is a tyrant's tool."

Safety CAN be a tyrants tool.

With regard to 'rational' or 'concrete' arguments, do you realize you just offered up two subjective things? We all know when someone is pitching bonafide tin-foil hats.

OMG, this happens every time, a year or so prior to elections, people start really digging in, and getting black, and white with issues. I hope we can all keep things in perspective here, and not go completely off the deep end during these discussions, particularly over the coming months when most people start feeling inclined to take the 'hard line'.
 
Last edited:

Dreamer

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Messages
5,360
Location
Grennsboro NC
So, this "Rules for Radicals" would apply to any side that first considers itself 'radical"? What if they aren't 'radicals', but merely disagree with your position?

There are plenty of books that I have read(e) which have premise that I don't agree with, but I wouldn't consider them 'radicals'.

Have you READ Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals?" It is considered by many to be the seminal work for ANY sort of activists--on the left, right, or way out. It is full of TONS of detailed info on grass-roots PR, psy-ops, and manipulation techniques for debate, discourse, and media interaction.

Alinsky is perhaps one of the most disgusting sorts of leftists--but the fact remains that this little book is indispensable for activists.

I recommend that ALL OC people read it--if for no other reason than to better understand how the "anti" media and "anti activists" like Brady and VPC use it's more unsavory techniques, and how to counter them.

We don't need to adopt ALL the techniques detailed in "RfR", but there are plenty of good ideas in this book that you can use and still have a clear conscience.

I'm not saying that anyone who uses this books tricks is a "radical", or is "bad"--quit the opposite. I'm saying that the techniques in this book are largely unknown outside of the very well-trained (or well-read) circles of hard-core dedicated activists and professional agent provocateurs (with the one exception being perhaps professionals in the PR field).

When an individual is stating their view on any particular issue there is not always a reason to cite anything, since, well, it is their view on the issue. For example, if I were to cite Bush II as part of my argument on a particular issue, how would citing Bush II validate, or legitimize my argument, and point of view any more than me simply concluding that my view is what it is based on what I feel is a rational, logical, reasonable examination of the totality of the issue at hand.

When an individual states that his POV is in line with the Law, and Court Rulings, but it is easily provable that he is lying, then they are no longer just stating an opinion. They are "appealing to authority", and when such a spuriously-attributed "fact" can be easily disproven, it should be not only corrected, but the promoter of that "fact" should rightly be chastised, and if they continue to do such things, they should be shunned and excluded from genuine debate and discussions.

At least that's how it works in academia. Since we are not just talking theory here--but matters of law, public policy, and historically verifiable precedents, I feel the same level of rigor should be applied to statements, assertions, and claims.

In other words, when people spew BS, and it is easy to prove as BS, the need to be called out--in fact calling them out is the DUTY of the members of this forum--much like it is the duty of the owners of the forum to expel trolls and spammers...


Humans are emotional beings. What exactly do you consider "proper logical debate techniques." I think that individuals should be open to consider what responders have to say, and you either agree, or disagree. So, you quote them, and follow with a "+1," or "I do not agree, and this is why...."

"Proper logical debate" means not using logical fallacies as a primary debating tactic. It means citing to authority when you make claims of law, history, or court precedent. It means not using ad hominem attacks when people call you out on such behavior, or prove your facts to be patently false.

This isn't rocket science, folks. Get to a library and check out a copy of Irving Copi's "Introduction to Logic". It is an indispensable guide to logic and rhetorical theory and practice.

http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Logic-Irving-M-Copi/dp/0130102024


The term "troll" has run its course. As I stated before, you either agree with an individual or disagree. This is a forum where we have discussions about a broad range of issues that affect all of us.

This isn't about disagreeing with a personal belief--its about someone who, as a RULE uses ad hominem attacks, routinely breaks Forum Rules in response to being called out for his bad behavior, refuses to offer any cites to his claims, and makes "tin-foil hat" accusations against anyone who CAN cite reliable sources in refutation of his bogus and erroneous claims.

When will the Mods do something about this guy? He is disruptive, he routinely breaks Forum Rules, and he refuses to cite authority when he makes his "appeal to authority" claims.

Please. Mods and Owners, we're begging you. Do something about "j4l".

He is NOT one of "us"...
 
Last edited:

nobama

New member
Joined
Mar 19, 2009
Messages
756
Location
, ,
This stuff confuses me. This isnt about just a difference of opinion. Its not like what color curtains to hang in the window. This is about liberty, freedom , and standing up for our constitution and what it stands for. The "left" not so much. The road to hell is paved by the lefts "good intentions" . Get ready for the ride.
 
Top