Who cares about your outdated bill of rights????

[Bob]

Now you guys know I am no left winger, but check this out


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tuhjewGdSo&list=UUs84giQmEVI8NXXg78Fvk2g

[Bob]

It took a semi to wake me up, she says


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYasD8srPIw&feature=share&list=UUs84giQmEV I8NXXg78Fvk2g&index=3

[nic34]

old news bob....

Hey remember ol judge Moore?

Maybe instead of making all that fuss over displaying the 10 commandments at the court house, they should have just put up a monument to the 10 bill of rights?

Just sayin.....

[Chris]

Why, nic, progressives like you'd only object.

[Bob]

And of course, NEVER fail to thank the state


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQ3CnbC-4aw&list=UUs84giQmEVI8NXXg78Fvk2g&feature=share&in dex=9

[Heyduke]

old news bob....

Hey remember ol judge Moore?

Maybe instead of making all that fuss over displaying the 10 commandments at the court house, they should have just put up a monument to the 10 bill of rights?

Just sayin.....

The bill of rights died with the Patriot Act, Google and Facebook.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated

how novel and antiquated. The people that lived during the reign of bill of rights are so adorable

[Bob]

old news bob....

Hey remember ol judge Moore?

Maybe instead of making all that fuss over displaying the 10 commandments at the court house, they should have just put up a monument to the 10 bill of rights?

Just sayin.....

That sounds good but Judge Moore's main point, in my opinion that is, was the 10 commandments do not create any religion. Both Jews and Christians and one presumes others use those commandments.

But Judge Moore was made fun of and mocked.

Say, anybody see all that religious stuff all over the Supreme Court?

Just sayin

[nic34]

We have such a thing right here chris. The idea a progressive came up with, by golly.
:grin:
http://mybillofrights.org/category/latest-news/

[nic34]

That sounds good but Judge Moore's main point, in my opinion that is, was the 10 commandments do not create any religion. Both Jews and Christians and one presumes others use those commandments.

But Judge Moore was made fun of and mocked.

Say, anybody see all that religious stuff all over the Supreme Court?

Just sayin

The question still remains, bob, are there any BoR monuments where you live? Maybe if you cherish them you'd show them off?

[Heyduke]

We have such a thing right here chris. The idea a progressive came up with, by golly.
:grin:
http://mybillofrights.org/category/latest-news/

That's great. A web museum dedicated to our antiquated civil rights. How quaint.

[Bob]

The bill of rights died with the Patriot Act, Google and Facebook.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated

how novel and antiquated. The people that lived during the reign of bill of rights are so adorable

If so, only because good men who said they cared, did not act.

[Bob]

The question still remains, bob, are there any BoR monuments where you live? Maybe if you cherish them you'd show them off?

You kidding???????????

This is communist California, once part of the USA

[nic34]

That's great. A web museum dedicated to our antiquated civil rights. How quaint.

We have the real thing here. Took awhile... hard work.

Yes, its hard to fight to keep our constitutional rights. Who told you it would be easy?

[Heyduke]

We have the real thing here. Took awhile... hard work.

Yes, its hard to fight to keep our constitutional rights. Who told you it would be easy?

Nobody told me it was going to be easy. I've been to jail 3 times since 1990 for civil disobedience

[nic34]

That's great duke. Maybe if more folks did like you and spent less time trying to put the 10 commandments in our public places more would know what the fuk we're talking about!

[GrassrootsConservative]

She's absolutely right. Liberalism makes no sense.

[nathanbforrest45]

What exactly does modern Progressivism have to do with the Bill of Rights?

[Ravi]

We have such a thing right here chris. The idea a progressive came up with, by golly.
:grin:
http://mybillofrights.org/category/latest-news/That's awesome! And kind of odd at the same time, why hasn't anyone done this before?

[nic34]

That's awesome! And kind of odd at the same time, why hasn't anyone done this before?

It's inconvenient for their preconceived ideas.....:grin:

[Chris]

We have such a thing right here chris. The idea a progressive came up with, by golly.
:grin:
http://mybillofrights.org/category/latest-news/


Chris Bliss, comedian and juggler, is a progressive?

Here's the BoR according to his monument:


1. Free speech.

2. The right to bear arms.

3. Freedom from having soldiers take over your house.

4. Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure.

5. The right to due process of law.

6. The right to confront your accusers in an impartial court of law.

7. The right to sue and be sued.

8. Freedom from cruel and unusual punishment.

9. A recognition that other rights exist.

10. The right for states to make laws where the federal government has not.

Might score a point in horseshoes.

Source: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2012/12/14/first-bill-of-rights-monument-in-us/1770825/

[nic34]

Huh... what are you talking about chris?
The BoR is clearly spelled out in full on the site I provided.

Why do you need to find fault in everything?

[Chris]

Huh... what are you talking about chris?
The BoR is clearly spelled out in full on the site I provided.

Why do you need to find fault in everything?

Your link says no such thing, nic. My link provides the detail yours missed.

Yes, I find fault with what's posted while you stoop to cheap shots finding fault with others. Problem is, you're wrong.

[Paperback Writer]

We have the real thing here. Took awhile... hard work.

Yes, its hard to fight to keep our constitutional rights. Who told you it would be easy?

You no longer have your constitutional rights. The moment they were up for amendment and interpretation they were gone. A right is a right precisely because it cannot be altered.

You are just holding your hand over a mortal wound, slowing the seep of blood, but the patient is dying nonetheless.

[nic34]

Your link says no such thing, nic. My link provides the detail yours missed.

Yes, I find fault with what's posted while you stoop to cheap shots finding fault with others. Problem is, you're wrong.

That's fine, you can delude yourself with a site that tells you what you want to hear instead of just reading the actual source mybillofrights.org. Just shows how really shallow you are.

[Chris]

That's fine, you can delude yourself with a site that tells you what you want to hear instead of just reading the actual source mybillofrights.org. Just shows how really shallow you are.

Again, the personal attack with nothing to back it up but made up bluster.

Here's the entirety of the page at the end of your link, nic:

http://i.snag.gy/tgDjn.jpg


Ooops, no BoR there.

Why do people bluster their boorish BS?

[Ravi]

Again, the personal attack with nothing to back it up but made up bluster.

Here's the entirety of the page at the end of your link, nic:

http://i.snag.gy/tgDjn.jpg


Ooops, no BoR there.

Why do people bluster their boorish BS?
Click on the picture at the link.

You're welcome.

[Chris]

Click on the picture at the link.

You're welcome.



Do you mean the picture advertising a pocket version of the BoR? That's not part of the monument.

[Ravi]

No.

[nic34]

No more hand holding. You know where it is. Each of the 10 is spelled out on its own monument .

[Ravi]

I see the problem. chris misread the USA Today article.

Confirmation bias gone wild.

[Chris]

No more hand holding. You know where it is. Each of the 10 is spelled out on its own monument .


Waiting for you to show it, nic. USA Today says you're facts are wrong.

[Chris]

I see the problem. chris misread the USA Today article.

Confirmation bias gone wild.


I quoted the USA Today article, ravi. Nice try.

[Ravi]

I quoted the USA Today article, ravi. Nice try.
You did not, however, understand it.

[nic34]

I don't understand his obtuseness on this. It should be an issue to bring folks together, instead, he uses it to bully...

[Chris]

My, isn't this fun, interesting and informative.

Poor blustering nic feels bullied because his facts were challenged, cry me a river.

[Chris]

You did not, however, understand it.

Here is the entire article from USA Today, ravi, the facts I cited are there, the portion I quoted highlighted:


PHOENIX -- Saturday is National Bill of Rights Day, the perfect day to dedicate the nation's first monument to The Bill of Rights, which has been erected right across from the Arizona State Capitol in Wesley Bolin Memorial Plaza.

It's a stunning tableau: 10 limestone monoliths, 10-foot tall, along a curved walkway beneath palo verde trees. Each is carved with large block letters that look like they could have been carried on stone tablets by Moses, himself — or Alexander Hamilton.

There are fewer than 500 words on the tablets, but they set out the basics of American law:

1. Free speech.

2. The right to bear arms.

3. Freedom from having soldiers take over your house.

4. Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure.

5. The right to due process of law.

6. The right to confront your accusers in an impartial court of law.

7. The right to sue and be sued.

8. Freedom from cruel and unusual punishment.

9. A recognition that other rights exist.

10. The right for states to make laws where the federal government has not.

"Every single thing in this Bill of Rights was written out of a real-life experience," said Chris Bliss, who spearheaded the project. "This was not some academic exercise."

The ceremony to dedicate the monument starts at 10 a.m. Saturday. Newly elected U.S. Rep. Kyrsten Sinema will speak, as will Gov. Jan Brewer, Phoenix Mayor Greg Stanton and Bliss, a Bill of Rights-obsessed comedian who conceived the project out of an offhand joke about the Ten Commandments.

In 2004, when he came up with the idea, Bliss was based in Phoenix, but working the comedy circuit around the country. He was newly famous for a viral video in which he juggled four balls perfectly in sync with the Beatles song "Golden Slumbers" from the "Abbey Road" album.

Most intelligent comedy is topical, and at that moment, there was a national uproar over a public monument to the Ten Commandments in Alabama. Pundits argued over whether the Old Testament code was the basis of American law or a violation of the separation of church and state.

Bliss thought, "Wow, this country's got a bad marriage."

But the question went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court and sparked argument all over the country as politicians proposed similar monuments for their own states, or defended monuments that already existed. Arizona has had its own Ten Commandments plaque in Wesley Bolin Plaza since 1964.

As a comedian, Bliss took an smart-alecky view of the tiff that he worked into his act.

"Instead of arguing over whether to leave up or to take down these displays of the Ten Commandments, my suggestion is to put up displays of the Bill of Rights next to them, and let people comparison shop," he would say, "because the Bill of Rights gives you a really good deal. It tells you to speak freely, carry a weapon, pursue happiness ... and then, it presumes that I'm innocent!"

The punchline: "My religion won't give me anything close to that deal."

But as he thought about it, the joke became less funny and more ironic. "In a fit of idleness," he said, he Googled "Bill of Rights monuments" and found there were none anywhere in the country.

He planted the notion in the ears of friends, talk-radio hosts, people whom he thought could get it started. They were not interested. And as he researched monuments in general, he was told, "We don't build monuments to ideas, we build them to people and events."

He took it on as a personal challenge, and it was the biggest juggling act of his career.

In 2005, Bliss met then-state Rep.Sinema during a radio-show interview in Phoenix, and he pitched the idea to her.

"My first thought was that it made perfect sense," Sinema said. "Of all the monuments to put near a state Capitol would be one about the Bill of Rights, so I was surprised to learn that there were none."

"My second thought was: We need to do it."

"My third thought was: Why are you asking me? I'm a Democrat."

Sinema knew she would need help from across the aisle to push the project through the legislature, so she enlisted Republican state Rep. Karen Johnson to co-sponsor. It passed: What politician, after all, can say no to the Constitution?

"There's intensity in Arizona around different amendments for different communities," Sinema said, "but there's enough room for all of us. What I love about this project is that it does what Chris Bliss wanted it to do, which is to bring people together."

But getting through the ensuing red tape and paying for the construction were other matters. Bliss moved to Austin, Texas, but remained committed to the idea. Finally in the fall of 2010, the commission in charge of state monuments offered Bliss some prime real estate on a hillside in Bolin Plaza.

"How could I contain myself?" Bliss said. "You don't want to do the happy dance right away."

He contracted with a stone sculptor in Texas, worked up a design, and assembled an executive committee. The first contribution, Bliss said, was a $10 check from a disabled vet, a modest start.

In May of this year, he staged a comedy-show fundraiser at Symphony Hall that included Lewis Black, Don "Father Guido Sarducci" Novello, Steven Wright, Bobcat Goldthwait, and even old leftie icons Tom Smothers and Dick Gregory. (He tried to get neocon comic Dennis Miller, but to no avail). They raised more than $110,000.

Bigger contributions followed. Bliss got money from Newman's Own Foundation, the Arizona Cardinals and Diamondbacks, and others. As of Thursday, Bliss was within $5,000 of the $400,000 cost of the monument.

That day, he was nervously fussing over the final touches, overseeing explanatory plaques being mounted on the sides of the monument, adjusting the lights that illuminate it at night.

He stood on the round stage behind the monoliths where the dedication will take place Saturday. His head spun around in time to see a young man riding down a sloped sidewalk on the handlebars of a wheelchair. An elderly woman, presumably a grandmother, sat in the chair as it rolled into a circular plaza, and both laughed wickedly at the untoward mischief.

"Wow, I wish I had video of that!" Bliss said.

Then he looked toward the back of the monument, and more importantly, at the people strolling by who couldn't help but stop to read the words that had been literally and figuratively carved in stone.

Across the street were the offices and assembly rooms of a Legislature and an administration that is fond of the second and 10th items on the list (see above), while their policies and statutes of late have been challenged in state and federal courts on the fourth, fifth and eighth.

But Bliss knew when he pitched the idea, no one would be able to refute the overall importance of the list itself and how it shapes the laws of the land.

"I'm not a lawyer, and I didn't particularly get along with my father, who was one," Bliss said, "but the rule of law is the basis of a free society."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2012/12/14/first-bill-of-rights-monument-in-us/1770825/


The bold red portion is not the BoR but a simplification and distortion of it.

[Ravi]

I don't understand his obtuseness on this. It should be an issue to bring folks together, instead, he uses it to bully...
Shows his character pretty well though.

[Ravi]

Here is the entire article from USA Today, ravi, the facts I cited are there, the portion I quoted highlighted:



http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2012/12/14/first-bill-of-rights-monument-in-us/1770825/


The bold red portion is not the BoR but a simplification and distortion of it.
Yes. It's USA Today's simplification and distortion of it. They did not, however, claim that is what is inscribed on the monument. The picture I told you to click on clearly shows that the Bill of Rights is presented on the monument in its entirety.

[Chris]

Yes. It's USA Today's simplification and distortion of it. They did not, however, claim that is what is inscribed on the monument. The picture I told you to click on clearly shows that the Bill of Rights is presented on the monument in its entirety.

Read the article instead of rewriting it.

[Chris]

Shows his character pretty well though.


Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.
~Eleanor Roosevelt

[Kabuki Joe]

That's fine, you can delude yourself with a site that tells you what you want to hear instead of just reading the actual source mybillofrights.org. Just shows how really shallow you are.


O.O

[Ravi]

This thread has made me pity chris.

[Captain Obvious]

This thread has made me pity chris.

Gritty piss?

[Chris]

This thread has made me pity chris.


Last thing I want is your or anyone's pity, poor ravi.

[Chris]

That's fine, you can delude yourself with a site that tells you what you want to hear instead of just reading the actual source mybillofrights.org. Just shows how really shallow you are.


O.O


Which turned out to be a more informative article than nic's little blurb and eventually used to argue with by nic and ravi. So much for nic's bluster.

[Chris]

Gritty piss?

One reason I don't want what ravi offers.

[Ravi]

Comical.

[Paperback Writer]

Chris

http://mybillofrights.org/the-bill-of-rights-monument-amendment-monoliths/

The texts are all there. Not that they truly mean anything. Instead of spending that much money for a tombstone they ought to spend it in advertising as to where all the rights went.

[patrickt]

The Bill of Rights stands in the way of total government control. For the left, it must be eliminated.

[Chris]

Chris

http://mybillofrights.org/the-bill-of-rights-monument-amendment-monoliths/

The texts are all there. Not that they truly mean anything. Instead of spending that much money for a tombstone they ought to spend it in advertising as to where all the rights went.


OK, I see I was wrong. Thanks. Paperback Writer


They've been trampled so much they mean little.

[Ravi]

OK, I see I was wrong. Thanks. @Paperback Writer (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=862)


They've been trampled so much they mean little.comical.

[Chris]

The Bill of Rights stands in the way of total government control. For the left, it must be eliminated.



They represent a bill protecting rights as responsibilities progressives would prefer to replace with rights as obligations on government.

[The Xl]

You no longer have your constitutional rights. The moment they were up for amendment and interpretation they were gone. A right is a right precisely because it cannot be altered.

You are just holding your hand over a mortal wound, slowing the seep of blood, but the patient is dying nonetheless.

This is sadly the truth.

[Chris]

comical.



Even when I admit I'm wrong you snark.

[Bob]

You no longer have your constitutional rights. The moment they were up for amendment and interpretation they were gone. A right is a right precisely because it cannot be altered.

You are just holding your hand over a mortal wound, slowing the seep of blood, but the patient is dying nonetheless.

It works like this in the USA PW.

But first, let me describe the constitution.

Consider it in parts.

Part A was first passed into law. Part A explains and informs duties to the Federal Government. All it amounts to is a recipe over the Feds as how to function.

Part B is what we call the Bill of Rights. The founders with some great effort were agreeable, finally, to state the nature of the protections afforded the citizens. It restrains the powers of Part A. Without restraint, there would be no limits as to what the Feds can do to citizens.

Part A handed courts to the Feds with provisions that States can also have courts. If you recall, it is courts where America deliver sentences for such things as smoking a particular plant's leaves when other plants may still be smoked.

Along came Democrats who despised the Bill of Rights. They agreed with Part A since they by nature are deeply in love with government. See how they worship Obama? That gives you the idea. He is Democrats GOD.

Some Amendments were for Part A and others for Part B.

When the founders finished the toil of giving us the constitution, they included this right to amend clause. Fine but the constitution has few amendments.

Dodd Frank law for instance spews thousands of pages of laws. Dodd Frank law consumes several thousand pages. ACA consumes nearly 3000 pages. But the constitution they despise is rather short.

We more than likely would have not 2.65 million law books in the library to explain the law, but maybe 100 were it left up to Republicans.

[Paperback Writer]

Bob

allow me to explain your Constitution to you, as I do so love schooling Americans on their own form of government.

The Constitution (main) creates the structure of your government, allocating which powers go to which branch. The Bill of Rights, by its very preamble is the constraints placed upon government versus constraints placed upon the populace. The government was to be constrained by the Bill of Rights, but instead awarded itself the right to amend itself without a consensus from your states by pure waving of hands and sprinkling of incense.

Your entire government is a lie.

Had you stayed a part of our empire you wouldn't have had so many quick changes early on, the mistakes of those post-revolutionaries, and might have ended up as civilised as Canada.

[Bob]

What I do not comprehend about Democrats is elementary.

Don't they want rights? Don't they wish they had them? A nation needing 2.65 million law books in the law library is not free.

http://www.smosh.com/smosh-pit/articles/you-need-license

Some things a free person ought not need a license for

Pets. A woman purchased the license for her dog. Shortly after, the dog got hit by a car and killed. She got another dog. She figured the license ought to work as well for the new dog as the other dog. She called the authority. She was told that she MUST get a new license for the new dog.

Marriage. Try getting married with no license. Who put the government in charge of being married?
Say you are no longer working. Being hungry, you head to the local lake or river hoping to catch a fish. Wait, you must first get a permit.

The Democrats talk fondly about parks of various types. But you plan to go to a state or Federal park. Suddenly you must pay for a permit, fees depend on days to be there, so you pay dollars for wages and parks then get to pay one more fee.

I am trying to find the super long list that one must obtain permission from government merely to move freely about this country and shall post one when I find one.

Even moving around costs money. Taxes on fuel. Permits to hike trails.

Here is one government site devoted to permits.

http://www.sba.gov/licenses-and-permits

http://www.fs.fed.us/passespermits/

https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_id=9797&p_table=STANDARDS

Searches related to permits needed
permits needed for a restaurant (https://www.google.com/search?safe=off&rlz=1C1GPEA_enUS319&espv=210&es_sm=93&biw=1024&bih=677&q=permits+needed+for+a+restaurant&revid=11660305&sa=X&ei=EQQqU_qiKNHvoATTo4GQCQ&ved=0CJIBENUCKAA)
permits needed to start a business (https://www.google.com/search?safe=off&rlz=1C1GPEA_enUS319&espv=210&es_sm=93&biw=1024&bih=677&q=permits+needed+to+start+a+business&revid=11660305&sa=X&ei=EQQqU_qiKNHvoATTo4GQCQ&ved=0CJMBENUCKAE)
permits needed for a food truck (https://www.google.com/search?safe=off&rlz=1C1GPEA_enUS319&espv=210&es_sm=93&biw=1024&bih=677&q=permits+needed+for+a+food+truck&revid=11660305&sa=X&ei=EQQqU_qiKNHvoATTo4GQCQ&ved=0CJQBENUCKAI)
permits needed for a bar (https://www.google.com/search?safe=off&rlz=1C1GPEA_enUS319&espv=210&es_sm=93&biw=1024&bih=677&q=permits+needed+for+a+bar&revid=11660305&sa=X&ei=EQQqU_qiKNHvoATTo4GQCQ&ved=0CJUBENUCKAM)

permits needed for online business (https://www.google.com/search?safe=off&rlz=1C1GPEA_enUS319&espv=210&es_sm=93&biw=1024&bih=677&q=permits+needed+for+online+business&revid=11660305&sa=X&ei=EQQqU_qiKNHvoATTo4GQCQ&ved=0CJYBENUCKAQ)
permits needed to open a restaurant (https://www.google.com/search?safe=off&rlz=1C1GPEA_enUS319&espv=210&es_sm=93&biw=1024&bih=677&q=permits+needed+to+open+a+restaurant&revid=11660305&sa=X&ei=EQQqU_qiKNHvoATTo4GQCQ&ved=0CJcBENUCKAU)
permits needed for a coffee shop (https://www.google.com/search?safe=off&rlz=1C1GPEA_enUS319&espv=210&es_sm=93&biw=1024&bih=677&q=permits+needed+for+a+coffee+shop&revid=11660305&sa=X&ei=EQQqU_qiKNHvoATTo4GQCQ&ved=0CJgBENUCKAY)
permits needed to build a house (https://www.google.com/search?safe=off&rlz=1C1GPEA_enUS319&espv=210&es_sm=93&biw=1024&bih=677&q=permits+needed+to+build+a+house&revid=11660305&sa=X&ei=EQQqU_qiKNHvoATTo4GQCQ&ved=0CJkBENUCKAc)

[Paperback Writer]

Was it your Democrats or Republicans who initiated the Patriot Act, Bob?

They're two sides to the same coin.

[Chris]

Bob

allow me to explain your Constitution to you, as I do so love schooling Americans on their own form of government.

The Constitution (main) creates the structure of your government, allocating which powers go to which branch. The Bill of Rights, by its very preamble is the constraints placed upon government versus constraints placed upon the populace. The government was to be constrained by the Bill of Rights, but instead awarded itself the right to amend itself without a consensus from your states by pure waving of hands and sprinkling of incense.

Your entire government is a lie.

Had you stayed a part of our empire you wouldn't have had so many quick changes early on, the mistakes of those post-revolutionaries, and might have ended up as civilised as Canada.



True, but even the main body of the Constitution limits the powers granted government to those enumerated. So the idea was to create a limited government.

You, Bob and I are saying the same in different ways.


The lie is the theory government can be limited.

[Bob]

True, but even the main body of the Constitution limits the powers granted government to those enumerated. So the idea was to create a limited government.

You, Bob and I are saying the same in different ways.


The lie is the theory government can be limited.

We are indeed. And PW did not explain it to me, I had already explained it to him and he agreed with me is all he did.

[Bob]

Was it your Democrats or Republicans who initiated the Patriot Act, @Bob (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1013)?

They're two sides to the same coin.

Believe it or not, this country already had the Patriot Act as law though it is called RICO laws. All Patriot Act did is apply it to terrorists.

The way law is made in this country, they take extra protections to try to fool the public as to whom created the law.

Take the Civil Rights act of 1964. This law got passed due to what republicans did. But Democrats whom fought it for a long time, today take credit as if it was their idea.

Patriot Act was created to stave off terrorists so most agree with it. Even today, most agree.

[Paperback Writer]

Believe it or not, this country already had the Patriot Act as law though it is called RICO laws. All Patriot Act did is apply it to terrorists.

The way law is made in this country, they take extra protections to try to fool the public as to whom created the law.

Take the Civil Rights act of 1964. This law got passed due to what republicans did. But Democrats whom fought it for a long time, today take credit as if it was their idea.

Patriot Act was created to stave off terrorists so most agree with it. Even today, most agree.


No, it wasn't.

[Bob]

Was it your Democrats or Republicans who initiated the Patriot Act, @Bob (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1013)?

They're two sides to the same coin.


The PATRIOT Act[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act#cite_note-GovTrack_text-9) made a number of changes to U.S. law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_United_States). Key acts changed were the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Act) (FISA), the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Communications_Privacy_Act) (ECPA), the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_Laundering_Control_Act) and Bank Secrecy Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_Secrecy_Act) (BSA), as well as the Immigration and Nationality Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1952). The Act itself came about after the September 11th attacks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11th_attacks) on New York City and the Pentagon. After these attacks, Congress immediately started work on several proposed antiterrorist bills, before the Justice Department (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_Department_(US)) finally drafted a bill called the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001. This was introduced to the House as the Provide Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (PATRIOT) Act of 2001, and was later passed by the House as the Uniting and Strengthening America (USA) Act (H.R. 2975) on October 12.[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act#cite_note-PATRIOTAct_USAAct-10) It was then introduced into the Senate as the USA Act (S. 1510)[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act#cite_note-USAAct2001Senate-11) where a number of amendments were proposed by Senator Russ Feingold (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russ_Feingold),[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act#cite_note-FeingoldDissentWayPassed-12)[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act#cite_note-FeigoldDissentSearchAndSeizure-13)[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act#cite_note-FeigoldDissentDetentionDeportationChanges-14)[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act#cite_note-FeigoldDissentDetentionDeportationChanges-14) all of which were passed. The final bill, the USA PATRIOT Act was introduced into the House on October 23 and incorporated H.R. 2975, S. 1510 and many of the provisions of H.R. 3004 (the Financial Anti-Terrorism Act).[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act#cite_note-USAPATRIOTActTHOMASSummary-15) It was vehemently opposed by only one Senator, Russ Feingold (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russ_Feingold), who was the only Senator to vote against the bill. Senator Patrick Leahy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Leahy) also expressed some concerns.[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act#cite_note-LeahyConcernsFinalAct-16) However, many parts were seen as necessary by both detractors and supporters.[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act#cite_note-USATodayBenign-17)[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act#cite_note-ThePittNewsUncontroverial-18)[19] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act#cite_note-DailyPennsylvanianUncontroversial-19) The final Act included a number of sunsets which were to expire on December 15, 2005.

[Codename Section]

The Patriot Act was something they had tried to push through for years. As far back as the mid 1990s but they didn't have a good enough crisis to get the American public to agree to it.

Fuckers.

[Bob]

@Bob (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1013)

allow me to explain your Constitution to you, as I do so love schooling Americans on their own form of government.

The Constitution (main) creates the structure of your government, allocating which powers go to which branch. The Bill of Rights, by its very preamble is the constraints placed upon government versus constraints placed upon the populace. The government was to be constrained by the Bill of Rights, but instead awarded itself the right to amend itself without a consensus from your states by pure waving of hands and sprinkling of incense.

Your entire government is a lie.

Had you stayed a part of our empire you wouldn't have had so many quick changes early on, the mistakes of those post-revolutionaries, and might have ended up as civilised as Canada.


Thank you for agreeing with me on my constitution. Just as I had told you, and you agree.

By the way, you in the UK have had more than your share of major problems living with others on those isles. You managed to get into hot water with the Irish and now the People of Scotland will vote and may bail out of your system.

[Ravi]

Even when I admit I'm wrong you snark.
You aren't fooling anyone.

[Chris]

You aren't fooling anyone.

But you think you are? LOL. I'm not trying to fool with anyone, ravi. Nice snark though.

[Ravi]

@Bob (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1013)

allow me to explain your Constitution to you, as I do so love schooling Americans on their own form of government.

The Constitution (main) creates the structure of your government, allocating which powers go to which branch. The Bill of Rights, by its very preamble is the constraints placed upon government versus constraints placed upon the populace. The government was to be constrained by the Bill of Rights, but instead awarded itself the right to amend itself without a consensus from your states by pure waving of hands and sprinkling of incense.

Your entire government is a lie.

Had you stayed a part of our empire you wouldn't have had so many quick changes early on, the mistakes of those post-revolutionaries, and might have ended up as civilised as Canada.The constitution can't be amended without a consensus of the states.

[Kabuki Joe]

comical.


...this is why people have a problem with you, he apologizes and you need to be a smart ass about it...let it go...

[Green Arrow]

The constitution can't be amended without a consensus of the states.

That's his point, the government is now deciding arbitrarily when it can and cannot violate the constitution. IOW, "The government was to be constrained by the Bill of Rights, but instead awarded itself the right to amend itself without a consensus from your states by pure waving of hands and sprinkling of incense."

[Ravi]

That's his point, the government is now deciding arbitrarily when it can and cannot violate the constitution. IOW, "The government was to be constrained by the Bill of Rights, but instead awarded itself the right to amend itself without a consensus from your states by pure waving of hands and sprinkling of incense."Where did the government do that?

[Ravi]

...this is why people have a problem with you, he apologizes and you need to be a smart ass about it...let it go...
wut? He owes Nic an apology.

[Green Arrow]

Where did the government do that?

Passage of the PATRIOT Act, the 2012 NDAA, creation of multiple federal bureaus and agencies such as the Department of Education and the National Security Agency, the creation of Gitmo, suspension of Habeus Corpus, creation of the Federal Reserve, levying of a national income tax, etc. etc.

I could go on.

[Green Arrow]

Oh, not to mention indiscriminate drone bombing and the Libyan War.

[Chris]

wut? He owes Nic an apology.



Why do I need to apologize to anyone for being wrong? That makes no sense. Should nic then apologize for his being wrong as well? His main claim was the monument was constructed by a progressive but the USA Today article pointed out it was a comedian and juggler.

Now you and nic being nasty and snarky....

[Chris]

Passage of the PATRIOT Act, the 2012 NDAA, creation of multiple federal bureaus and agencies such as the Department of Education and the National Security Agency, the creation of Gitmo, suspension of Habeus Corpus, creation of the Federal Reserve, levying of a national income tax, etc. etc.

I could go on.



ACA. :-)

What was the first incident, the Louisiana Purchase? Must've been others prior.

[Green Arrow]

Why do I need to apologize to anyone for being wrong? That makes no sense. Should nic then apologize for his being wrong as well? His main claim was the monument was constructed by a progressive but the USA Today article pointed out it was a comedian and juggler.

Now you and nic being nasty and snarky....

Really don't want to wade into this twisted love triangle you three have going, but is it not possible for the comedian and juggler to also be a progressive?

[Green Arrow]

ACA. :-)

What was the first incident, the Louisiana Purchase? Must've been others prior.

Eh, I leave the ACA out of it. I try to stick to the more blatant ones so there's no room for argument.

[Chris]

Really don't want to wade into this twisted love triangle you three have going, but is it not possible for the comedian and juggler to also be a progressive?

Fair question, we'll leave that to nic to resolve, he made the claim.

[Chris]

Eh, I leave the ACA out of it. I try to stick to the more blatant ones so there's no room for argument.


When it comes to constitutionality this forum is proof beyond doubt everything is arguable! Patriot Act could be argued under common defense, ignoring due process. Etc.

[Green Arrow]

When it comes to constitutionality this forum is proof beyond doubt everything is arguable! Patriot Act could be argued under common defense, ignoring due process. Etc.

Well, don't help them find a way out of it :tongue:

[nic34]

I'll let you all decide if he's a rwnj:

http://m.azstarnet.com/entertainment/music/chris-bliss-bill-of-rights-joke-turns-into-tribute/article_d695e260-4d42-54ab-9d2b-5fa2a0d9d079.html?mobile_touch=true

[Green Arrow]

I'll let you all decide if he's a rwnj:

http://m.azstarnet.com/entertainment/music/chris-bliss-bill-of-rights-joke-turns-into-tribute/article_d695e260-4d42-54ab-9d2b-5fa2a0d9d079.html?mobile_touch=true

Is this article supposed to make his political leanings clear?

[Kabuki Joe]

wut? He owes Nic an apology.


...are you nic?...no, you are ravi and I'm talking about you, not nic...

[Chris]

I'll let you all decide if he's a rwnj:

http://m.azstarnet.com/entertainment/music/chris-bliss-bill-of-rights-joke-turns-into-tribute/article_d695e260-4d42-54ab-9d2b-5fa2a0d9d079.html?mobile_touch=true


No one claimed he was anything but you, nic. Progressive? Come on, nic, surely you read that at your earlier link...

[Ravi]

Why do I need to apologize to anyone for being wrong? That makes no sense. Should nic then apologize for his being wrong as well? His main claim was the monument was constructed by a progressive but the USA Today article pointed out it was a comedian and juggler.

Now you and nic being nasty and snarky....

Here's what you should apologize for, your bad faith post:


Your link says no such thing, nic. My link provides the detail yours missed.

Yes, I find fault with what's posted while you stoop to cheap shots finding fault with others. Problem is, you're wrong. Not only were you wrong, you were also being an ass.

[Ravi]

...are you nic?...no, you are ravi and I'm talking about you, not nic...You may stop talking about me, it will do no good.

[Kabuki Joe]

You may stop talking about me, it will do no good.


...I was right, you are school age... :)

[Chris]

Here's what you should apologize for, your bad faith post:

Not only were you wrong, you were also being an ass.


I should apologize for criticizing nic's blustering insults? Ravi, somedays you make sense, but it's a rarity and this isn't one of those days.

[Chris]

...I was right, you are school age... :)

She's got you right where she want you.

As is said, don't wrestle with a pig, you both get dirty and the pig likes it.