Should the Patriot Act be renewed?

I'm with Drgnlvr. It's tme for me to give this topic a break. I know it's volitile, and there's slim chance we're going to solve the crisis within the hallowed halls of AW. It's been a good discussion, though, and I appreciate the degree of civility in evidence.

Safe journeys, all.

LiamJackson said:

I'm not sure I understand the relevancy of the question to the Patriot Act issue. I've known many, many drug offenders who've done time without "learning" to commit criminal acts on their fellow inmates and/or staff. Most, in fact, do the time and re-enter society without taking up manslaughter as a hobby. I think a thorough search of the FBI Crime Index may answer many questions on this issue.

Click to expand...

Everything I know about our prison system, is that no one is "rehabilitated". People who end up in prison only learn how to be better criminals. That was what I was talking about.

Of course, I might not be following your logic with violent criminals as oppsed to non-violent drug offenders. How many of the violent criminals are there because of drug prohibition? We're talking gang warfare, etc, most often due to turf wars, and those have to to with territory of the drug dealers, correct?

How many of the violent criminals in prison would not be in prison if drugs were decriminalized? How many of them, because if the drugs were decriminalized, there would be no need for the acts of violence that are committed? Would the crack-addict have killed the shop-owner if he could buy crack legally?

After all, other than driving to the liquor store while intoxicated, no one actually commits crimes to get their hands on alcohol. The crimes committed while intoxicated are another story. But alcohol addiction is treated as a health issue, not a criminal issue. The crimes committed while intoxicated are a different issue. But the crimes commited in -aquiring- alcohol are not that many, IIRC. A guy isn't going to shoot the shop owner because he needs money to pay his supplier for that bottle of MD 20/20, IOW.

Think back to the violence during alcohol prohibition.

As for the recidivism rate, many violent criminals are repeat offenders and are "re-caught". It consumes just as much time, manhours (peoplehours?) and resources to catch a repeat offender as a first timer, and in many cases, more. For that matter, it can be argued that a person who just pulled 22 months (Yeah, 22 months) for 2nd degree murder has no business moving into your neighborhood because he took a plea bargain with some prosecutor eager for a quick and dirty conviction rate. This guy kills someone and is back on the street before you can earn an online degree. Crazy. Just crazy.

Click to expand...

Oh, don't even get me started about sexual predators getting out in 8 years, while the guy in Cali got LIFE for growing medicinal marijuana, as he was deputized to do by the state.

The point being, with the numbers of crimes reported, and actions taken by local law enforcement, there leaves damn little time to watch 500+ commercial airports, 340+ seaports, thousands of miles rail, highway, seacoasts, hard borders, and tens of thousands of soft and hard infrastructure targets.

Click to expand...

Oh, I know. But our people were doing a damn fine job before the PA. Yes, sometimes things slip through the cracks. It's horrible when it happens. But like Shawn mentioned in an earlier post...percentage-wise, we have MUCH fewer acts of terrorism on our own soil, than most other countries. And as much as we piss off the rest of the world, I would say that's a pretty darn good indicator that our people are doing their jobs, wouldn't you?

If the position is that we need a reallocation of resources, again, put the heat on politicians. For the record, law enforcement is aimed like a weapon by judges and prosecutors. You really want to know why a certain attitude or agenda seems to exist in certain communities? Most times, you have to look no further than your prosecuting attorney's office. You've got some people carrying badges who have no business in the profession. The last thing they need is prosecutor in pursuit of a non-mainstream agenda. And prosecutors dictate which cases are pursued and, very often, with what degree of aggressiveness.

Click to expand...

Oh, I agree with you, there.

We need to get the politician's off the backs of law enforcement, and let these people do their jobs.

My contention is that prohibition never sent a single murderer to prison. The individual must take responisbility for his own actions. If selling 5 pounds of weed is illegal and everyone in the country knows this, (meaning there's no ambushes) how can I conceivably blame a bad law because Joe Schmuck decided to rip of the dealer and put two bullets into him on the way out? Makes no sense to me.

The violent offender is there because he/she engaged in an activity that caused another person bodily harm. Not even a bad drug law can be held accoutable for that.

Oh, don't even get me started about sexual predators getting out in 8 years, while the guy in Cali got LIFE for growing medicinal marijuana, as he was deputized to do by the state.

Click to expand...

Yeah, that's one of the nuttiest things I've ever heard. The craziest thing is Oakland didn't bother to consider no state or city ordinance can superced federal law. That they deputized someone means nada. They never had the authority. I feel for Rosenthal. If anyone should be doing jail time over this, (and I'm saying I'm convinced that's the case) It should be the politicos that drafted Proposition 215 without researching the AGs opinion of it's compatability with federal law. That was inexcusable and Joe-Blow citizen is paying for it.

Regarding alcohol, yes, it is treated as an addiction/disease. It is ALSO treated criminally. There's a considerable prison population consisting of repeat DWI offenders in several states. Good law? Guess it depends on the viewpoint. However, if one of those guys kills someone with a shotgun, either before or after prison time, alcohol may be used to create mitigating circumtances, but it can't be allowed to excuse the action unless it becomes part of an insanity plea.

Final note, I promise. I think we need to stay ON the backs of law enforcement. Guess I should qualify that sentence.
There must be a degree of accountability any time you empower a segment of your population and allow them to exercise deadly force against citizens. I used to get sick of the glass-house scrutiny, but I understood it.

LiamJackson said:

My contention is that prohibition never sent a single murderer to prison. The individual must take responisbility for his own actions. If selling 5 pounds of weed is illegal and everyone in the country knows this, (meaning there's no ambushes) how can I conceivably blame a bad law because Joe Schmuck decided to rip of the dealer and put two bullets into him on the way out? Makes no sense to me.

Click to expand...

`Ah, but here is where we part, Dear. Up to a point, yes...Personal responsibility is key, yes. However...if Marijuana were legal, would Joe Schmuck even been in a situation to commit violence? This is the point I was trying to make.

The violent offender is there because he/she engaged in an activity that caused another person bodily harm. Not even a bad drug law can be held accoutable for that.

Click to expand...

No, violence is violence, I agree. My contention is that alot of these violent acts would have never occurred, if Joe Schmuck could just trot down to the local store and get a pack of reefers, or a baggie of crack.

Yeah, that's one of the nuttiest things I've ever heard. The craziest thing is Oakland didn't bother to consider no state or city ordinance can superced federal law. That they deputized someone means nada. They never had the authority. I feel for Rosenthal. If anyone should be doing jail time over this, (and I'm saying I'm convinced that's the case) It should be the politicos that drafted Proposition 215 without researching the AGs opinion of it's compatability with federal law. That was inexcusable and Joe-Blow citizen is paying for it.

Click to expand...

But what about states rights? Why didn't the Feds shut the whole operation down at the onset, instead of allowing Cali to do this? Someone was scapegoated, Dear.

Regarding alcohol, yes, it is treated as an addiction/disease. It is ALSO treated criminally. There's a considerable prison population consisting of repeat DWI offenders in several states. Good law? Guess it depends on the viewpoint. However, if one of those guys kills someone with a shotgun, either before or after prison time, alcohol may be used to create mitigating circumtances, but it can't be allowed to excuse the action unless it becomes part of an insanity plea.

Click to expand...

the DWI laws are separate from aquiring alcohol, though. You can get a DWI while on prescription drugs...legally aquired prescription drugs. I don't disagree with the validity of those laws, either. Any action that one takes that has the potential to victimize someone should be made illegal. Driviing while under the influence of any mind-altering drug has the potential to victimize someone. Smoking a doob while in the privacy of your own home does not.

Getting drunk, and beating your wife is victimizing someone. The man is arrested for beating his wife...-NOT- because he was drinking. The second action stemmed from the first, yes...but they are still separate issues.

Final note, I promise. I think we need to stay ON the backs of law enforcement. Guess I should qualify that sentence.
There must be a degree of accountability any time you empower a segment of your population and allow them to exercise deadly force against citizens. I used to get sick of the glass-house scrutiny, but I understood it.

Click to expand...

Oh, don't get me wrong, I agree that we need the checks and balances. I'm talking about spending man hours to hunt down some small-time pot supplier, because the DA is a big anti-drug guy, rather than hunting down that child molester down the street.

What's more important? The poor sap who just wants to relax after work, and his buddy who just happens to have a connection, but only buys an ounce or two for friends? Or the cretin who's victimizing all the kids in the neighborhood?

BradyH1861 said:

But if FISA was effective, why the need for the PA in the first place?

Brady H.

Click to expand...

Because in 1996, the Justice Department established a policy which effectively put a "wall" between different intelligence and federal institutions. That "wall" prevented the sharing of information that could have helped prevent (notice I said could - hindsight is 20/20) the attacks.

For the record, I do agree there are part of the PA that seem unnessary and even scary, but on the whole, it has been effective. My own personal opinion is redo it. Take out certain parts and renew other parts. I think agencies need to share information and I think it should not be so difficult to get a wire tap on a terrorist suspect, but why in the world do they need to track down what books I buy or borrow?

Unfortunately, the book part is the only one getting any press...

KP

The wall between Federal agencies existed long before 1996. I cannot recall a time when the Feds worked and played well with each other, or with local agencies.

The only Federal agency I have had any real dealings with is the ATF. I've worked with them on some arson investigations in the past, or, what I should say is that they have assisted us. I can tell you this, although they are skilled at what they do, they look down their long federal noses at those of us at the local level. Share information with us? ha ha ha That'll never happen. But of course, we are expected to share all with them.

The Patriot Act hasn't fixed that any.

But who knows, 20 years from now when another administration has taken the permanent PA to an all new level, people will wonder where we went wrong. I will leave you with a quote by a German minister named Martin Neimroller who lived through the Nazi era and did not take a stand when he had a chance to do so:

"First they came for the Jews, but I did not speak out because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the Communists, but I did not speak out because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists, but I did not speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me."

What does this have to do with the PA? Well, consider this:

"First they came from the terror suspect, but I did not speak out because I wasn't a terror suspect..."

Brady H.

drgnlvr said:

And, no offence, but IMO you're placing your faith in the wrong people. These people are not just self-serving liars...they're power-hungry, empire-building, terrifying despots. Any organization that is -that- sneaky, that often, is dangerous. And we're not talking about "pet projects" (ie; pork) getting slipped into a popular bill. This is where all politicians are self-serving liars. We're talking MAJOR changes to policy, and complete shredding of the Constitution.

We're talking a massive loss of freedoms that are gaining speed as this monster rolls down hill.

Click to expand...

Pffft!

The continued growth of government bureaucracies, particularly those dealing with the social services sectors and the IRS, have sapped more freedoms from us since the 1930's than any of the people you're worried about could even dream of doing. Once upon a time, your vote mattered; people in office could actually change things. Now, I'm afraid we've almost lost/surrendered too much freedom to the bureaucrats...

You can call George Bush the commander-in-thief, that's cool; but I can call Howard Dean a maniacal nut job, Ted Kennedy a sniveling coward, Hilary Clinton an two-faced socialist, Al Gore a...a...he's too lame to even get a name! The rest of the pandering populist anything for a buck politicians, well as a rule, if they dwell on class, the can dwell in hell. All of them want more from me; they expect me to pay for everyone else. Now I'm pretty active with my church; I donate alot of time and dough to charity: I'm tired of the government forcing me to participate in programs that, in the long run, benefit no one. Healthcare, a great example. You know the current mess is all Ted K's fault, right? Now he is crying about the monster he created. His solution? Make a bigger monster...Yeah, everyone complains that the government is too big, that it spends too much, but that's just waste, right? Guess again: everytime these bureaucracies expand their services, they not only require more money, they also narrow the range of choices we all get to make just a little bit. It's insidious, it's dangerous, and it leads to...well, go read Hayek again, he's timeless.

Now Bill Clinton, I could deal with, since he was content to leave things alone (more concerned with getting his...well, you know).

Now my rant is done!

Love ya!

Rob

Roger J Carlson said:

However, please don't feel that I'm picking on you if I say that calling our President the "Commander in Thief" and saying that his intention is to "create a Fascist state" rather descends into name-calling and sloganing.

Click to expand...

drgnlvr, I apologized in private, but I want to do so publicly. I did not intend offense when I used the "name-calling and sloganing" line. I simply thought that calling the president the Commander in Thief was not relevant to the discussion.

drgnlvr said:

And that's fine. But as long as I still have some freedom, I'm going to feel free to call him the "Commander in Thief" .

Click to expand...

You are certainly free to do so and I'll fight anybody who tries to stop you!

However, in retrospect, I believe MY comment was uncalled for and inflammatory, and again I apologize. Thanks for not responding in kind.

My reason for the comment was that it is effectively non-rebutable. Not because it's true, but because it's a belief. You believe the current administration is sneaky at best, fascist at worst. It is impossible to prove to you that they are not. Even though I believe they have the best interests of the country at heart. Once we have stated our respective positions, the debate is at a stand-still unless we want to start repeating ourselves. Too often that's what these threads become. (Although I am gratified that this thread has maintained a high level of civility and reason.)

I also agree with Liam and Kappi that there are parts of the Act that I find disturbing and even silly. However other parts I think are vital to the interests of our nation (at least in the short term). Governments always want to enact legistlation that lasts forever. It's up to us to make sure that this doesn't happen when the time is right. I just don't think that time is yet.

I don't usually join in political discussions. They too often devolve into something less than enlightening. However, I chimed in because, up to that point, the only answers to the question were: "No" and "Hell, no." Since then, a real exchange of ideas has occurred. There's even been some consessions that the opposite view may have some validity (I include myself in that. You guys DO have a point.)

I'd like to thank everyone involved for keeping this discussion in the spirit of reasoned debate.

BradyH1861 said:

"First they came for the Jews, but I did not speak out because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the Communists, but I did not speak out because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists, but I did not speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me."

What does this have to do with the PA? Well, consider this:

"First they came from the terror suspect, but I did not speak out because I wasn't a terror suspect..."

Click to expand...

I love your quotes, but I have to say, I despise argument by analogy. Rarely are said analogies valid. There's simply no basis for comparing 1930/40's Germany with the U.S. in the twenty-first century. Sorry to say, anyone who thinks there is knows very little about history...

I haven't chimed in on the PA yet, but I guess now I will: I agree with KP, parts of it go way too far, but parts of it were/are needed.

I think that actions/policies like the PA can be seen throughout our history during times of societal stress; some worked out good, some not so well, but over time the system has allowed lapses to be corrected. I see the same thing here; I'm not scared one bit and, I am sorry to add, I have yet to change my behavior or be barred from doing/reading/seeing something because of the PA.

Bye!

Rob

Yep, thats where we part. I still can't see the connection. Legal weed, or illlegal weed has nothing to do with a concious effort to commit a violent act against another person. That's like saying, well if we didn't build highwaysand establish laws for their use, people would never break a traffic law. Therefore, all speeding must be the fault of state or federal highway initiatives. Sorry, I just can't buy it. There's an old saying..."If you never want to lose a bar fight, stay out of the bars. Loosely translated, people really do have options, and consequences follow, accordingly. Again, I know too many people who've done serious time without adding to their problems by attacking someone. Going to jail isn't an automatic precursor to violent behavior.

Second part of that is, the laws aren't some great big secret, used to ambush the unwary. I don't know of a sixth grader in the US who can't name half a hundred laws on any given day. Now, if someone knows on the front end certain behavior results in penalites, yet they persist in criminal behavior, they can't cry foul. Well, maybe they can, but it's going to fall on deaf ears. Mine, anyway.

You and I may not agree with some of those laws. There are some really sucky laws out there. But we do not live in a society that endorses criminal behavior simply because you don't like a particular regulation. If someone engages in criminal behavior knowing full well the possible consequences, and the situation escalates into a violent encounter, the individual must be held responsible. If we ever fail in enforcing this precept as a society, the society well develop cracks from which we may never fully recover. The trick is in passing "just laws", and defeating "unjust laws", not in breaking them, then blaming the "system." The Tea Party occured long before the advent of a system that provides for change. We have that system, now.

Laws are changed or amended everyday, thanks to efforts of those who choose to work within the system. Another example of people accepting personal responsibility and acting accordingly. I don't always agree with laws or changes in laws, but I'll damn sure defend and support a person's right to effect change.

drgnlvr said:

[font=arial,helvetica,helv] They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

[/font]FBI asked WA Library for list of Osama readers


[font=arial,helvetica,helv]
Power Corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely

[/font]Does the Real ID act contain a Constitution-busting Trojan horse?



This is just an example of what to expect as time goes on. -IF- the PA is reauthorized, and the Sunset clause is deleted.

Click to expand...

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." -- Thomas Jefferson.

There are certainly bad aspects to teh Patriot Act, but as a whole, it's a good bill, and you can bet it will be renewed, as it should be.

Should the FBI be able to see who checked what out of the library? It depends entirely on why they want to know, and on whether or not they have cause to look at the person independently of this. The Patriot acts certainly goes too far in some areas, but it is a needed act.

And certainly, absolutely and completely no offense to Liam, but I'm darned if I want local police making decisions concerning national security, or even my local safety. As the Surpreme Court has stated, the job of local police is not to prevent crime, but to arrest those who have already committed a crime. This makes it just a bit late for the victim.

There is no such thing as complete freedom. There never has been, there never will be. Freedom has always depended on a man with a gun standing between you and another man with a gun. . .or a bomb. Whether you're a peace activist, a stay at home mom, a businessperson, a retiree, a Cub Scout, or a hooker on the corner, every last freedom you have is there solely because someone with a gun is standing between you and those who would kill or endlave you.

The enemy within is nearly always more dangerous than the enemy on the outside, and cute quotations aside, there must always be a balance between personal freedom and security. There always has been, and those who think the Patriot Act is overly invasive must have very little knowledge of history. The Patriot Act is a mild-manned pussycat compared to the invasive tactics and laws of previous generations.

Adjust the Patriot Act where needed, but getting rid of it would be the height of fooloshness, and would, in the long run, bring in laws far worse, far more invasive.

As for a national ID card, well, we should have done this twenty years ago. Funny how people don't mind state ID cards that contain the exact same information, but somehow think a national ID card is the work of the devil.

robeiae said:

I love your quotes, but I have to say, I despise argument by analogy. Rarely are said analogies valid. There's simply no basis for comparing 1930/40's Germany with the U.S. in the twenty-first century. Sorry to say, anyone who thinks there is knows very little about history...

Click to expand...

I may be a humble fireman, but I do have a few degrees (graduate included) in history. So, if I may say so, I know quite a bit about history. (if I have a the degrees hanging on the wall, I must be edumacated, right? ) I agree that there are no valid comparisons between Nazi Germany and Modern Day America. My quote was not intended to draw comparisons between our forms of government and society.

What I intended to point out was that apathy, the belief that it only affects them and not us, and the fear of speaking out are just as dangerous now as they were in Nazi Germany. That is a valid argument, one that deals more with human nature than with history.

I merely meant to suggest that thinking that it doesn't affect me today, so it won't affect me tomorrow is a dangerous thing. (I am not saying that you suggested that though, merely using an example) That was my intention by using said quote. And it doesn't only relate to the Patriot Act. The kids in the school yard might not like it when they see the bully harrassing another child, but it is easier for them to say nothing than it is for them to say something and get beaten too, right?

And Rob, you were much more kind in your statements in regards to Ted Kennedy than I would have been! The man makes me ashamed to call myself an Irish American. (and I am usually very proud of my heritage)

Best Regards,
Brady H.

Jamesaritchie said:

Should the FBI be able to see who checked what out of the library? It depends entirely on why they want to know, and on whether or not they have cause to look at the person independently of this. The Patriot acts certainly goes too far in some areas, but it is a needed act.

And certainly, absolutely and completely no offense to Liam, but I'm darned if I want local police making decisions concerning national security, or even my local safety.

Click to expand...

I would be willing to go along with that in regards to the library books. It is one thing to develop a suspicion about a particular person and THEN take a peak at what they've been reading. (with a warrant, of course) Which, if they've done enough background work, they should have no problem getting. It really isn't all that hard to get warrants. Nor is it time consuming. So sure, if they are already looking at the person independently, by all means take a look at their reading list. Pulling lists at random, or lists of people who have checked out certain books just to see who is reading them is what I have a problem with. (and honestly I don't know if that is going on or not)

And I agree James. Relying on the police to keep you safe is a lot like relying on the Fire Department to keep your house from catching on fire. Sure, we can help you once it happens, but not before. But then again, so is relying on the government to protect you from terrorists. So who protects us? Damned if I know.

Brady H.

One More Thing...

and then I'll shutup. I was just getting used to PA as the abbreviation for Publish America. Now it is Patriot Act. I'm going to be confused!

Brady H.

I believe that the US and several other nations with high levels of personal freedom and liberty have experienced fewer incidents of terrorism in the past than other countries in the world simply because they actually had those high levels of personal freedom and liberty. In effect, fewer individuals were restricted by what they could do so there was no need and no incentive for any large scale opposition to the government to form.

While President Bush may have noble intentions in asking for the Patriot Act to be extended and strengthened, I have to keep in mind that the next individual who follows him might not be so inclined and would leap past any last protections to establish himself as a dictator-for-life. That is the point at which we can never recover without resorting to the worst possible scenario imaginable for it will truly be horrible. Keep in mind the movie Failsafe where the only solution at the end was to promise the Soviets after accidentally bombing them that we would bomb one of our own cities. There will always be individuals in the military like G. Gordon Liddy or H.B. Marcus who are willing to do whatever is asked or ordered, so it is not inconceivable that American cities would be bombed into oblivion or patrolled by global hawks should an armed insurrection ever materialize to recover lost freedoms from a tyrannical state put into place by the Patriot Act. It is that ultimate possibility that we must protect against by ensuring that our politicians do not take away any of our freedoms regardless of their reasoning.

By now, a few politicians do realize that such things can happen, particularly those who have found themselves targeted by no-fly rules that operate on names alone and give virtually no way of regaining the freedom to move about by all means allowed to others. We can only hope and encourage those few to stand up against laws that accomplish nothing other than to create large segments disenfranchized from our society for the larger those segments become, the more self-fulfilling the need for the Patriot Act will become.

Why not refer to it as the PAct?

By the way, does invoking HB as an example automatically mean you've lost the argument?

DaveKuzminski said:

While President Bush may have noble intentions in asking for the Patriot Act to be extended and strengthened, I have to keep in mind that the next individual who follows him might not be so inclined and would leap past any last protections to establish himself as a dictator-for-life.

Click to expand...

Exactly. I do not think Bush or Congress has evil designs when it comes to the PACT. They probably mean well and they may even have our best interests in mind. But it has the potential for great abuse should the right (or actually wrong) person be in charge.

Brady H.

BradyH1861 said:

I agree that there are no valid comparisons between Nazi Germany and Modern Day America. My quote was not intended to draw comparisons between our forms of government and society.

What I intended to point out was that apathy, the belief that it only affects them and not us, and the fear of speaking out are just as dangerous now as they were in Nazi Germany. That is a valid argument, one that deals more with human nature than with history.

Click to expand...

Well, then I apoligize for infering that was what you meant. Yet, you are not the only one who creates these kinds of analogies...I hear them everyday, and most who say them and like to hear them seem to accept the comparison as a valid one, as meanigful, as demonstrative of something. I'll reiterate: it's a bad comparison, right Dave ! It bothers me because your defense of it is a more reasoned, logical argument, as ooposed to the analogy, itself. It's easy to proclaim "he's a Nazi!" or "that law is fascist!" and move some with raw emotion (demagoguery anyone?). It's harder to make a reasoned argument.

BTW, isn't it funny that Nazism, fascism, and Hitler are always the subject of these kinds od analogies? Of course, they're universal bad guys, so they are easy targets. You rarely hear anyone using communism, Bolshevism, Stalin, Mao, et al as the point of comparison, even though there are plenty of fruitful examples/analogies that could be given with reference to this group. Interesting...

Rob

You rarely hear anyone using communism, Bolshevism, Stalin, Mao, et al as the point of comparison, even though there are plenty of fruitful examples/analogies that could be given with reference to this group. Interesting...

Click to expand...

Er...I've heard loads about both Stalin and communists.

As for a national ID card, well, we should have done this twenty years ago. Funny how people don't mind state ID cards that contain the exact same information, but somehow think a national ID card is the work of the devil.

Click to expand...

National ID cards are stupid beyond belief. We're currently fighting to avoid getting them over here in the UK, because they WILL NOT WORK. They won't protect you against anything whatsoever, if only because any bad guys can quite easily circumnavigate them by... having valid ID. We've got a government that doesn't understand even the vaguest part of the technology, and proves it every time they open their mouths, is prepared to lie openly about its support (something like 70% against turning into 60% for, because they conveniently threw away thousands and thousands of protests) and plans to charge everyone in the country a fortune for the joy of carrying it about.

As for the US, the Patriot Act should most definitely be axed. It's one of the most paranoid, insipid, over-reaching laws imaginable - especially when you consider that even the single terrorist act that spawned it wouldn't have been stopped had it been in effect. If you're in the US, you're as safe as you ever were. Aside from that one event, according to the statistics, you're more likely to be abducted by aliens than killed by terrorists. Relax.

So you been to school
For a year or two
And you know you’ve seen it all
In daddy’s car
Thinkin’ you’ll go far
Back east your type don’t crawl

Play ethnicky jazz
To parade your snazz
On your five grand stereo
Braggin’ that you know
How the niggers feel cold
And the slums got so much soul

It’s time to taste what you most fear
Right guard will not help you here
Brace yourself, my dear*

It’s a holiday in cambodia
It’s tough, kid, but it’s life
It’s a holiday in cambodia
Don’t forget to pack a wife

You’re a star-belly sneech
You suck like a leech
You want everyone to act like you
Kiss a$s while you b1tch
So you can get rich
But your boss gets richer off you

Well you’ll work harder
With a gun in your back
For a bowl of rice a day
Slave for soldiers
Till you starve
Then your head is skewered on a stake

Now you can go where people are one
Now you can go where they get things done
What you need, my son*.

Is a holiday in cambodia
Where people dress in black
A holiday in cambodia
Where you’ll kiss a$s or crack

Pol Pot, Pol Pot, Pol Pot, Pol Pot.

And it’s a holiday in cambodia
Where you’ll do what you’re told
A holiday in cambodia
Where the slums got so much soul

Pol Pot!

Richard said:

Er...I've heard loads about both Stalin and communists.

Click to expand...

Hmmm...well, I must be hanging out in all the wrong places (or right places, orleft places, depending on your point of view). But that's cool, even if I was hearing analogies using Stalin and communism instead of Hitler and Nazism, I'd still think they were BS.

Rob

(Randomly - yes, that is a parody, not a real announcement from the RIAA ;-))

But raw emotion is so much more fun!

Seriously, I think you are onto something about using Facism as the "boogeyman" in lieu of Communism. I usually hear people claim the Nazis were bad guys (which of course, everyone agrees that they were), but little is said about the oppression suffered under Communist rule. At least not much is said about that in my neck of the woods...it could just be the company I keep. Who knows.

If anything, I think that those of us who have taken part in this discussion have proven one thing. There is a middle ground out there. Maybe the country isn't as polarized as some would have us think. Perhaps if WE got together, then we could come up with a PACT that everyone could live with. How's that for a thought?

I would like to once again thank everyone who has taken part in this thread. The topic alone was one charged with strong feelings and emotion. I think we have shown that controversial issues can be debated in a calm, rational, respectful, and reasonable manner.

My hat is off to all of you. And I hope that you will continue to voice you opinions so that we can continue to learn from each other and grow.

Regards,
Brady H.

And I hope that you will continue to voice you opinions so that we can continue to learn from each other and grow.

Click to expand...

At least till they shut down the Internet and fire up the ovens, eh?