patrick.net

yea - 'cause if McCain were in office, it never woulda happened...

ah the disingeniousness of conservatives

don't extend PATRIOT and he's endangering us
extend it and he's the same as Bush

whatever; I'm not aware of anybody losing any actual freedom thanks to PATRIOT so this is just political theatre.

The PATRIOT act is an affront to the fourth amendment. Everyone has lost freedom since it was enacted, whether you realize it or not.

And, yes, Obama only goes for the extension because he knows if he didn't it would have served as yet another GOP talking point. It's sad, but expected.

Not, the Patriot Act makes it easier to confront terrorists. It was only an illusion that we had freedoms prior to its signings since martial law could be called upon when necessary.

....its all an illusion of granduer my friend. Only thing you have in your posession is your families love.

Cited from Wiki:

Martial law is the imposition of military rule by military authorities over designated region(s) on an emergency basis—and often, but not necessarily, only temporarily—when the civilian government or civilian authorities fail to function effectively (e.g., maintain order and security, and provide essential services), or when there are extensive riots or protests, or when the disobedience of the law becomes wide-spread. In most cases, Military forces are deployed to quiet down the crowds, secure government buildings and other key or sensitive locations, and maintain order. Generally, military personnel replace civil authorities and perform some or all of their functions. The constitution could be suspended, and in a full-scale martial law, a high-ranking military officer could take over, or be installed, as a military governor or as the head of the government.

@RAYAMERICA

Yeah, because if we elected Mccain we would still be finding backdoor ways to focus on big business instead of the issues facing the people. Thats what arch-conservatives like you and I do...We pose ourselves as being for the people but when we are elected we actually focus on issues that dont affect Joe the plumber. Thats why our tax breaks are for big business and Liberal give tax breaks to Joe the Plumber. We would rather give the wealthy a tax break under the auspice that the monies will trickle down to Joe the Plumber. And guess what, Joe the Plumber is dumb enough to believe that.

Not since Roosevelt in the early 1900's has a Republican/Conservative been concerned with social reform and instituting legislation that support the people. You can hate social security, welfare, medicare, and the new health care bills all you want...but at least they focus on our issues and not ENRON. Yeah, Obama bailed out the banks and GM, but thats what any pragmatic thinker would do. Less we allow another American industry to fail.

Name one piece of social legislation presented by Republicans in the past 60 years?.....you cant beause all we focus on is legislation for the rich.

4X says

Name one piece of social legislation presented by Republicans in the past 60 years?…..you cant beause all we focus on is legislation for the rich.

Just one? OK .... uhhhhh what about Bush's Senior Drug Bill? What about "No Child Left Behind?" Bush's $80 Billion African AIDS giveaway?? Bush and the Neocons expanded social spending more than any other president since LBJ. That's precisely why I say when it comes to spending, there's not a dime's worth of difference between the 2 major parties.

"ah the disingeniousness of conservatives

don’t extend PATRIOT and he’s endangering us
extend it and he’s the same as Bush

whatever; I’m not aware of anybody losing any actual freedom thanks to PATRIOT so this is just political theatre."

Really? Are conservatives complaining that the Democrats passed it and he signed it? Or are they complaining that after YEARS of repeated Bush/Republican bashing by Democrats/liberals after the bi-partisan bill was passed and signed, they are now utterly silent??????

I would argue strongly that the conservative complaint is precisely the latter.

Paralithodes says

I would argue strongly that the conservative complaint is precisely the latter

I think the better question is--"what aren't conservatives complaining about?"

"I think the better question is–”what aren’t conservatives complaining about?”

Maybe. But why not answer what the real question is, instead of the strawman. Why, after 8 years of complaining about it, are liberals all of a sudden NOT complaining about it? Is there a legitimate reason? Or was the original complaining illegitimate political attack, kind of along the lines of "what aren't liberals complaining about?" during the Bush years?

tatupu70 says

I think the better question is–”what aren’t conservatives complaining about?”

I think the better question is - " are there any conservatives in the GOP??" If so .... who?

Paralithodes says

Maybe. But why not answer what the real question is, instead of the strawman. Why, after 8 years of complaining about it, are liberals all of a sudden NOT complaining about it? Is there a legitimate reason? Or was the original complaining illegitimate political attack, kind of along the lines of “what aren’t liberals complaining about?” during the Bush years?

I obviously can't speak for liberals--I don't consider myself to be one. But, I can tell you that I understand why it was extended. I don't like it, but I live in the real world and understand that Democrats can't appear to be weak on national security in an election year because Republicans will use that against them. It sucks, but that's how the world works these days...

RayAmerica says

tatupu70 says
I think the better question is–”what aren’t conservatives complaining about?”
I think the better question is - ” are there any conservatives in the GOP??” If so …. who?

Who did you vote for in the last election? How about the one before that? And before that?

Progressives didn't like the Patriot Act under George Bush and still don't. Nobody I know has changed their mind on this because of who is in the Oval Office. The problem is in Congress in any case, which passed Patriot Act, and until they are swapped out with representatives who believe in truth & justice I wouldn't expect this to be struck down.

Although we are definitely moving in the right direction with treating mass-murdering criminals as what they are, which is plain old criminals. Our justice system has a pretty good record in general on convicting wingnut mass-murderers. To think otherwise says you don't believe in this country and it's people.

"The problem is in Congress in any case, which passed Patriot Act, and until they are swapped out with representatives who believe in truth & justice I wouldn’t expect this to be struck down."

Really? And who signed it into law?

"Although we are definitely moving in the right direction with treating mass-murdering criminals as what they are, which is plain old criminals. Our justice system has a pretty good record in general on convicting wingnut mass-murderers. To think otherwise says you don’t believe in this country and it’s people."

The argument is typically with the former, not the latter. However, are you saying that if some people are concerned that any evidence obtained from KSM before he was read his rights may not be admissible and he may not get the punishment he deserves due to that, then they are unpatriotic? Or are you saying that those who are not onboard with an administration putting someone up on trial as a civilian and definitively stating the outcome beforehand, aka "kangaroo court," then they are not patriotic? Sticking to the actual argument would have made your follow-on comments, and these response questions unnecessary.

"Progressives didn’t like the Patriot Act under George Bush and still don’t. Nobody I know has changed their mind on this because of who is in the Oval Office. "
Sure... They were just very vocal and loud about it before, never letting up on their anger and indignation about it. Now the very same law is simply something they don't like, but apparently tolerate because the Democrats passed it (again) and Obama signed it. Put a "D" in front of the very same thing and all of a sudden it's tolerable, I guess.

"BEFORE, people were at a 4.0 on the Indignation Scale, and now they are at 1.5."

You are just jibber-jabbering about a supposed level of purity you have absolutely no way to assess or prove. If it's just a "partisan thing" and you are a NeoCon then why do you care?

tatupu70 says

Who did you vote for in the last election? How about the one before that? And before that?

None of your business. But I'll give you a hint: I held my nose when I pulled the lever.

Liberals continue to prove they are hypocrites. They opposed the Patriot Act under Bush ... are pretty much silent when Obama extends it. BTW, Obama has continued the covert practice known as "rendition;" removing a terrorist suspect and transporting him to another friendly country so he can be tortured. The anti-war Liberals under Bush and the Neocons (and rightfully so) are generally not in favor of Obama's war expansion in Afghanistan. I guess as long as there is a " D " after the name, anything goes.

"You are just jibber-jabbering about a supposed level of purity you have absolutely no way to assess or prove. If it’s just a “partisan thing” and you are a NeoCon then why do you care?"

Maybe... But I'm still curious why you seem to blame the Patriot Act extension on Congress, despite that Congress didn't sign it into law.....

Paralithodes says

Sure… They were just very vocal and loud about it before, never letting up on their anger and indignation about it. Now the very same law is simply something they don’t like, but apparently tolerate because the Democrats passed it (again) and Obama signed it. Put a “D” in front of the very same thing and all of a sudden it’s tolerable, I guess.

So, your complaint is the volume of the discussion? Well, I'm yelling right now. Does that help?

"So, your complaint is the volume of the discussion? Well, I’m yelling right now. Does that help?"
Yelling at whom?

From the article you linked:

"the House voted 315 to 97 Thursday to extend the measure."

So the problem is pretty clearly in Congress.

Paralithodes says

“So, your complaint is the volume of the discussion? Well, I’m yelling right now. Does that help?”
Yelling at whom

The dog, actually, if you must know. She was in favor of the Patriot Act--she doesn't have a right to privacy so it didn't bother her.

This whole discussion is a bit ridiculous though. Of course there was more outcry when the bill was first written and passed. It was controversial and fresh. Now, it's old news. Doesn't mean anyone feels differently about it--just the way America works...

"“the House voted 315 to 97 Thursday to extend the measure.”"
"So the problem is pretty clearly in Congress."

So, Obama didn't sign it?

AFAICR, Congress overrides Presidential veto with 2/3 majority. Let's see 315/(315+97) = 76% which tells me the House has plenty margin for override. So it's pretty much irrelevant. Clearly Congress wins.

Vicente says

AFAICR, Congress overrides Presidential veto with 2/3 majority. Let’s see 315/(315+97) = 76% which tells me the House has plenty margin for override. So it’s entirely irrelevant.

True .... but did our Dear Leader campaign against the extension? He's the one that promised Hope & Change.

Politics is the Art of the Possible. You may have noticed the position of Ron "Doctor No" Paul, he's out standing in a field looking all lonesome, his own party considers him a loose cannon. You don't turn a supertanker around in a bathtub.

"The dog, actually, if you must know."
Poor dog! Did you yell at the dog about it when Bush was in office, or at Bush?

AFAICR, Congress overrides Presidential veto with 2/3 majority. Let’s see 315/(315+97) = 76% which tells me the House has plenty margin for override. So it’s pretty much irrelevant. Clearly Congress wins."

Wow, so you mean that Bush has absolutely no responsibility whatsoever for the original Patriot Act, since that ultra-partisan bill passed with 98 Senate votes (98%) and 357 House votes (82%)?????

Glad you finally admit, although indirectly, that Obama signed the Patriot Act... Though I'm not sure how it's irrelevant... Clearly, if he were against it, he could have vetoed it purely for the point of standing up for his beliefs.

Parlithodes, you are so RIGHT (but you knew that) and you have changed my life. I'm going to go back in time now and take a picture of Obama's birth certificate from before THEY changed it, and we are going to right matters so that John McCain is in the White House. Cheers!

Thanks, I know it must have been difficult to face up to the fact that your savior is not infallable ... Since a higher % of liberals are "truthers" than conservatives are "birthers," it might be good for you to just leave all of those conspiracy theories alone.

Tea Party seems fill with both Truthers and Birthers. You should join!

Vincente, you seem to be continuously trying to turn this into some type of flame war or personal attack of some sort, by throwing out stereotypes, etc. I'm sorry if you think that by doing so, you are somehow refuting facts. But I'm even more sorry if I made you feel uncomfortable with yourself for having to acknowledge that President Obama signed the Patriot Act, or the corollary position that you cannot, for consistency-sake, legitimately hold any negative feelings or criticism for President Bush's having signed the first one since his doing so was totally irrelevant. Hope you feel better....

I don't recall criticizing President Bush for signing original Patriot Act. Perhaps you should check your facts. You seem to have some obsession with signatures. There's a lot of stuff that happens before anything goes onto the Presidents' desk to be signed.

I might have an obsession with signatures, since usually they are an important part of the process, but that's besides the point. While I think it's absurd to entirely exonerate a President for any accountability whatsoever for signing a bill into law, I'm glad that at least you are consistent in that you hold neither Obama nor Bush responsible whatsoever for the Patriot Act, and have never criticized Bush about it, since their signatures were "irrelevant." As far as which facts I need to check... perhaps you can tell me which ones I may have missed?

That you "made me uncomfortable to acknowledge President Obama signed the Patriot Act".

I don't know how you would assess my discomfort through a screen, but feel free to keep diagnosing me!

He's a politician and like all of them has to pick his battlefields, or to use football analogy "take one for the team". Just today I had to sign off on a program that I think is utter garbage. I tacked on some negative comments but that train is leaving the station whether I'm on it or not, I do what I can to make it less evil and I move on to something else. Clearly Obama is critical of the Patriot Act and thus only key popular provisions were extended. We are moving in the right direction.

Interesting, and too bad for you about the program, but I'm still curious what facts you think I should be checking....

So since we're on the subject of FEELINGS and signatures, how do you feel about George Bush Junior signing off on MediCare Part D?

Since I didn't directly accuse you of criticizing Bush, but used it as a relevant example, I'm not sure what FACTS I misstated or violated. I can only speak of Medicare Part D superficially - having not followed it closely then or now to speak of it with any authority. But on its face, I "feel" like it was the wrong thing to do: fiscally liberal and probably Constitutionally as well. Bush was fiscally no different than today's typical Democrat. Of course, while folks like Paul Krugman (Enron advisor) called Bush's spending dangerous back then, he thinks Obama's spending isn't enough. It seems like just as with the Patriot Act, many things that Democrats/liberals thought was bad with Bush are just A-OK when done by Obama. You can certainly point to many Republicans as hypocrites on the spending/social entitlement matters as well, but not many conservatives. Wouldn't you agree?

Paralithodes says

You can certainly point to many Republicans as hypocrites on the spending/social entitlement matters as well, but not many conservatives. Wouldn’t you agree?

I'm not sure what I'd agree to there. I thought Republicans were supposed to be conservatives. At least so it says on campaign literature. I must have misread.

Paralithodes says

Of course, while folks like Paul Krugman (Enron advisor) called Bush’s spending dangerous back then, he thinks Obama’s spending isn’t enough

And Krugman is correct. Don't you agree that our economy is in a slightly different state now than it was under Bush? When the economy is growing and tax revenues are strong, you should be running a budget surplus. On the other hand, when the economy is in the tank, you need to add demand back into the system to make up for what is lost in the private sector. That's Econ 101.

Paralithodes says

It seems like just as with the Patriot Act, many things that Democrats/liberals thought was bad with Bush are just A-OK when done by Obama.

I've read all the posts here and have found no one who said it is A-OK that the Patriot Act was renewed. The posts I've read all are sad about it. Please try not to misrepresent... That's a typical Rush or Beck trick--I'd expect more from you.