[$tinkle]

it's quite a bit to wade through.
here's the full text.

also, they have michael moore's ringing endorsement (for whatever it's worth)

this is the last time i do research at my peril

 

[brock]

Are you disagreeing with their position?

 

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by brock
Are you disagreeing with their position?

more their rhetoric & word choice:
- shadowy
- overbroad
- "Stripping even native-born Americans of all of the rights of United States citizenship..."
- "terrorism" (yes, in scare quotes)
- unfairly targets immigrants
- "Completely abolishing fair hearings..."
- "Allowing the Attorney General to deport an immigrant to any country in the world, even if there is no effective government in such a country" (as if...)
- "The DOJ’s highly one-sided section-by-section analysis..."
- kicking around Dick Nixon one more time.


you get the idea. But hey, it's a position paper - an opinion piece. The only folks who have cause to worry about this...well, i worry about these people, & their possible desire to act inappropriately.

 

[brock]

Originally posted by $tinkle
more their rhetoric & word choice:
- shadowy
- overbroad
- "Stripping even native-born Americans of all of the rights of United States citizenship..."
- "terrorism" (yes, in scare quotes)
- unfairly targets immigrants
- "Completely abolishing fair hearings..."
- "Allowing the Attorney General to deport an immigrant to any country in the world, even if there is no effective government in such a country" (as if...)
- "The DOJ’s highly one-sided section-by-section analysis..."
- kicking around Dick Nixon one more time.

Yes I much prefer the rhetoric coming from the White House and the DOJ.

The only folks who have cause to worry about this...well, i worry about these people, & their possible desire to act inappropriately.

I'll never understand that line of thinking. It's people who think like that that worry me.

Yay for stifling dissent!

 

[Toshi]

Originally posted by brock
Yes I much prefer the rhetoric coming from the White House and the DOJ.



I'll never understand that line of thinking. It's people who think like that that worry me.

Yay for stifling dissent!

ah, thank you, brock.

"The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain
occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be
exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at
all. I like a little rebellion now and then. It is like a storm in the
atmosphere." --Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1787. FE
4:370

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7842/archives/revolutn.htm

hint: i am a card-carrying member of the eff.

 

[Silver]

I would have been happy if Congress would have read the original fvcking Patriot Act before passing the thing.

But why read bills before they become law anyway? Gets in the way of taking buckets of lobbyist money to the bank.

 

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by brock
Yes I much prefer the rhetoric coming from the White House and the DOJ.

such as...
(this is the part where you may choose to show me yours)

Originally posted by brock
I'll never understand that line of thinking. It's people who think like that that [sic] worry me.

Yay for stifling dissent!

as long as you're on the up-and-up, what's the problem? My point of view comes from having my privacy stripped during my 9 years in the military. Wanna watch me whiz in a cup - i say get in line...
seems we have different tolerances for privacy here. That's fair enough.

 

[brock]

Originally posted by $tinkle
such as...
(this is the part where you may choose to show me yours)

I'll read some white house press releases when I have some free time and get back to you on this.

as long as you're on the up-and-up, what's the problem? My point of view comes from having my privacy stripped during my 9 years in the military. Wanna watch me whiz in a cup - i say get in line...
seems we have different tolerances for privacy here. That's fair enough.

I hate the "as long as you are on the up and up" reasoning for this.

Here is my reason

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Are you a gun owner? If you are I bet you take the 2nd amendment pretty literally. You probably resist the "as long as your on the up and up" line of thinking when there is talk of making you register you weapons.

 

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by brock
I'll read some white house press releases when I have some free time and get back to you on this.

if you can stay awake - you're more ambitious than i

Originally posted by brock
I hate the "as long as you are on the up and up" reasoning for this.

Here is my reason <insert 4th amd here>

i believe our common ground is "reasonable search & seizure". It seems reasonable to me. However, i detect - and appreciate - skepticism by many like you.

Originally posted by brock
Are you a gun owner? If you are I bet you take the 2nd amendment pretty literally. You probably resist the "as long as your on the up and up" line of thinking when there is talk of making you register you weapons.

nope, never had one, but was/am a twice qualified expert w/ M-16. Gun ownership, like sexual orientation, is a rather boring yet personal topic to me. Grew up around a lot of folks w/ guns - both legal & illegal. I contemplated using my position while on active duty to get an assload of weapons just before the avalanche of legislation came down in the early 90's. But, then i actually thought about why the hell would i even need any of it, then opted to dump a buncha money into bikes instead.

Which crowd would you rather run with?

besides, who needs guns when "kickboxing is the sport of the future"