Topic: American Gestapo

[Rushoid]

Richard, bush has signed so many presidential orders and that is how he did it. He has signed more than any other pres in history.

According to the National Archives (http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/disposition.html) G.W. Bush has issued Executive Orders 13198 through 13439 (241 EOs), while Bill Clinton issued #s 12834 - 13197 (363 EOs). Just glancing back through Nixon, it appears W has the fewest.

[edbikerii]

Hey, watch out there, Rushoid.  You're going to piss people off posting actual facts.  Media clips, unfounded jabs, opinions and sound bytes are what really matter.

Richard, bush has signed so many presidential orders and that is how he did it. He has signed more than any other pres in history.

According to the National Archives (http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/disposition.html) G.W. Bush has issued Executive Orders 13198 through 13439 (241 EOs), while Bill Clinton issued #s 12834 - 13197 (363 EOs). Just glancing back through Nixon, it appears W has the fewest.

[Gordon]

In defense of G.W.B., what would you do in his position of resposibility?  Had the WTC fallen on my watch, I would push the law as far as I could to prevent it from happening again.  No, that doesn't mean hiring thugs for the park service, but it does mean spying on anyone who might be rumored to have a cousin living in the same apartment building as a man with a connection to Al Qaeda.

Well, I tend to agree with the statement "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety". 

[DammitDan]

spying on anyone who might be rumored to have a cousin living in the same apartment building as a man with a connection to Al Qaeda.

So you're saying that if I have a cousin (regardless of whether I only see this cousin once a decade) who lives in the same apartment building as someone rumored with a connection to Al Qaeda, then I should be the subject of a government counter-terrorist investigation?

NO THANK YOU, SIR!  Even if I have nothing to hide, I still don't want my entire life story to be laid out on some table somewhere.  There is such a thing as privacy, and it is covered in the Constitution in the 4th Amendment: 

"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."

Now, if you're going to tell me that me being related to someone who lives in the same building as someone who MAY or MAY NOT be related to a terrorist organization is grounds for probable cause, then I'm going to tell you to shove it   

[Cvillechopper]

In defense of G.W.B., what would you do in his position of resposibility?  Had the WTC fallen on my watch, I would push the law as far as I could to prevent it from happening again.  No, that doesn't mean hiring thugs for the park service, but it does mean spying on anyone who might be rumored to have a cousin living in the same apartment building as a man with a connection to Al Qaeda.

Well, I tend to agree with the statement "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety". 

+1

[firecracker]

There is such a thing as privacy, and it is covered in the Constitution in the 4th Amendment: 

People like you Dan are why Ron Paul's popularity is growing.  I admit he's got a long way to go, but that's one (okay, the only) reason I'm glad this campaign started so early.

If people really look at the options (politicians) they've been given, someone (the only one) who truly defends the Constitution starts to make a lot of sense.

The media doesn't ignore Ron Paul for political reasons, the media ignores Ron Paul because no one cares about Ron Paul.

TSP - No one, or you? 

Let's compromise and say "at least one (but not enough - yet)".     

[DammitDan]

And that reminds me...  I go back to 1984...

"Newspeak" was a term for the deconstruction of language for a political purpose.  In modern terms, the "Patriot Act" would be a perfect example of this.  You can't go around saying "The Patriot Act" is unpatriotic, because hell, it's written right in the name of the act that it's patriotic!  How can you say it's unpatriotic if it's NAMED for patriotism!

Of course now we all see that it's a clear political erosion of our rights as American citizens.

Another example is the recent "surge" of troops in Iraq.  Or making enemies of the state into the "Axis of Evil".  Since when is a foreign state an evil being?  Sheesh.  Hooray for Big Brother!

[DammitDan]

People like you Dan are why Ron Paul's popularity is growing.

I don't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing...   

I haven't made any decisions yet about Ron Paul.  The only things I know so far is that he's a Republican (which is a strike in my book) who claims to be a libertarian.  It will take a whole LOT to make me vote for a Republican, especially after everything that has happened in the last 8 years (both with the President and with Congress).

[dusterdude]

ron paul ran for president for years under the libertarian banner,he decided to go "replubican" to try to add some "legitcimy" to his campaign.

[edbikerii]

Another thing to remember about 1984 is that people were expected to forget history, because it was constantly being re-written.

Let us not forget that the Patriot Act, AKA "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001", and the "Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq" http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html were both passed overwhelmingly by the hoardes of lying politicians who are now blaming the whole thing on somebody else.

And that reminds me...  I go back to 1984...

"Newspeak" was a term for the deconstruction of language for a political purpose.  In modern terms, the "Patriot Act" would be a perfect example of this.  You can't go around saying "The Patriot Act" is unpatriotic, because hell, it's written right in the name of the act that it's patriotic!  How can you say it's unpatriotic if it's NAMED for patriotism!

Of course now we all see that it's a clear political erosion of our rights as American citizens.

Another example is the recent "surge" of troops in Iraq.  Or making enemies of the state into the "Axis of Evil".  Since when is a foreign state an evil being?  Sheesh.  Hooray for Big Brother!

[firecracker]

The only things I know so far is that he's a Republican (which is a strike in my book) who claims to be a libertarian.

If it helps, the Republican's don't really like him.   

He actually had the audacity to vote AGAINST the Patriot Act, because it wasn't Constitutional.   The Nerve!!!   

[dusterdude]

yea,the man does have balls.

[Rocking-M]

I don't know if y'all read on down and caught the update,
Since this happened in my home county I/m thinking of taking a backhoe out to the parkway 



UPDATE -- 07/29/2007: The National Park Service recalled their CIT unit and ordered them back to Asheville after Congressman Rick Boucher, who represents the area, intervened on behalf of the festival. Boucher's office received numerous calls of complaints about the NPS police activity on Thursday and Friday and called the director of the National Park Service. Security for the remaining two days of the festival was turned over to the Virginia State Police who patrolled the Parkway but did not harass festival attendees.

UPDATE -- 07/30/2007: Talked with Congressman Boucher today. He is "very upset" over the actions of the Parkway Rangers and says he will meet personally with the director of the Parkway to "make sure nothing like this happens again." Boucher said he does not believe the Patriot Act gives a Park Ranger the authority to prohibit a person from taking pictures and he will insist of a "full and complete investigation" of the incidents of this past weekend.

[Rocking-M]

Have y'all read the speech Ron Paul made about the Patriot Act?

[Rushoid]

Have y'all read the speech Ron Paul made about the Patriot Act?

nope. Got a link?

[firecracker]

Is this the one?

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=558

<excerpt>

If the PATRIOT Act is constitutional and needed, as its proponents swear, why include sunset provisions at all? If it is unconstitutional and pernicious, why not abolish it immediately?

...threaten individual liberty by giving law enforcement power to snoop into American citizens’ lives without adequate oversight. This power is unnecessary to effectively fight terrorism.

[firecracker]

Without making all of you go to the site (though I recommend it), here are, as defined by that site:

Ron Paul's Freedom Principles

* Rights belong to individuals, not groups.

* Property should be owned by people, not government.

* All voluntary associations should be permissible -- economic and social.

* The government's monetary role is to maintain the integrity of the monetary unit, not participate in fraud.

* Government exists to protect liberty, not to redistribute wealth or to grant special privileges.

* The lives and actions of people are their own responsibility, not the government's.

[Rocking-M]

That's the one Firecracker!!! Ron Paul is the only one who consistently stands with the constitution.
I'm of the opinion also that he shouldn't have gone repub. And, that is the only decision he has made
that I would disagree with (as far as I know).

[edbikerii]

Going Republican guarantees that he'll never get the party's nomination to run.  He's not "moderate" enough.  It really is a shame that in order to stand a snowball's chance in hell you have to be on either the Republican or a Democrat ticket.  The two-party system sucks.  No independent thinkers allowed.

That's the one Firecracker!!! Ron Paul is the only one who consistently stands with the constitution.
I'm of the opinion also that he shouldn't have gone repub. And, that is the only decision he has made
that I would disagree with (as far as I know).

[toycollector10]

What's that old line about trading freedom for security, you wind up with neither......

[Gordon]

What's that old line about trading freedom for security, you wind up with neither......

Look back on page 2.  Third post from the bottom.

[Terry in Australia]

..who might be rumored..

There's the rub and the source of abuse.

That just happened over here Bob, an Indian doctor, working in Queensland was arrested and held for several days because he gave his cell phone sim card to his second cousin a year ago.

His second cousin just happened to be one of the "would be" Glasgow Airport bombers. Doctor Haneef was eventually deported back to India, which is a terrible thing if he was completely innocent, but not too good either if he was in fact actively supporting a terrorist group, something that wasn't made clear to anyone here in Oz. Cheers, Terry.

[Bob Wessner]

I recall that story in the news.

[GroovieGhoulie]

Most people will claim to adhere to a Libertarian ideology until they are challanged on specifics - e.g. Would you eliminate space exploration?

I don't see anywhere in the Constitution where the Government is authorized to spend money on "exploration" of any kind, so yes, I would eliminate space exploration by the Federal Government.

Farm programs?

Since I don't see farm subsidies or handouts authorized by the Constitution, I would do away with them.

The FDA?

Since I don't see anywhere in the Constitution where the power is granted for the Government to have an arm such as the FDA, then the FDA is gone.

College loans?

Where in the Constitution does it say the Government has the authority to use tax money to educate people?  Nowhere, so loans are done.

Most people will claim to adhere to a Libertarian ideology until they are challaenged on specifics.

Not me.  I pride myself on my intellectual and ideological consistency. 

In defense of G.W.B., what would you do in his position of resposibility?  Had the WTC fallen on my watch, I would push the law as far as I could to prevent it from happening again.  No, that doesn't mean hiring thugs for the park service, but it does mean spying on anyone who might be rumored to have a cousin living in the same apartment building as a man with a connection to Al Qaeda.

I wouldn't.  Too bad I believe in the constitution and the rule of law.

You're a Neo-Con, huh? 

[tsp37]

'Tis an active thread indeed with no pictures!

I did not advocate spying or any other government activity.  I did not and I do not advocate trading freedom for security.  What I would do, if I were in charge when the WTC was attacked, is everything that I could to prevent that from happening again, even if it meant pushing the boundaries of the law.  But I am not in charge, nor do I have any desire to be in charge.  I want to be left alone and do not want big brother keeping an eye on me or my family.

Ron Paul's run for the presidency was the zenith of the Libertarian party.  Beyond that, the Libertarian are mostly fruitcakes and 'heads obsessed with legalizing marijuana.  No one with real political ambitions will associate with the Libertarians.  If the Libertarian platform every began to attract a meaningful, substained following the other parties would draw a little closer to it and diffuse the movement.  That is the fate of most third parties - to influence.

I am a libertarian conservative or a conservative libertarian depending on the company I have before me.  I have never understood what a neo-con is but I know it's a bad thing that mothers threaten their ill-behaved children with.