I’m sick of people saying “Ron Paul: true conservative”. He’s only running as a republican because his libertarian bullshit got him nowhere. If by some miracle Ron Paul gets the nomination he may get some votes from Obama’s hipster crowd that wants to legalize drugs but a huge chunk of the republican party wouldnt vote for his crazy ass
Hes not at all a conservative in fact he is the opposite. He wants to release all drug related felons, stop the war on drugs (power to the cartels), allow foreign nations to obtain and use nukes, and not to mention he blames Bush (whom y’all always say how much you love) and America. Also we all brag about being on the military here, well for myself and y’all who are sucks because he wants to cut us in half. Oh wait thats what Clinton did prior to 9-11. Not one thing mentioned is a conservative trait.
Exactly. Ron Paul is economically conservative but gets it wrong on just about everything else. In addition to everything just said he wants to get rid of the majority of the CIA, the Dept of Homeland Security and the PATRIOT act. All 3 of those are necessary in protecting our country from jihadists. Apparently the PATRIOT act encroaches on civil liberties but all it does is allow roving wiretaps and law enforcement officials to obtain warrants moe easily. Unless you’re someone that makes DHS’ ears perk up you don’t need to worry about the security measures in place. Fuck Ron Paul
While I agree with you on Paul being wrong in wanting to get rid of chunks of the CIA and department of Homeland Security, him wanting to get rid of parts of the Patriot Act are solid. The Patriot Act, while protecting us against terror, destroys FUNDAMENTAL American values.
^ Ya your right…who cares if wire tapping with out a warrent is illegal…I mean I trust the government not to abuse their power and only hassle known terrorist suspects. And who cares how many people died protecting our constitution and bill of rights..I’m so scared of terrorists that I really dont mind giving up my civil liberties. *sarcasm*..If you were a conservative you would want government to have less power?
How about you shut your pretentious lawyer wanna be ass up. I serve and have been in the Marine Corp since I was 18. Ive done two tours one in Iraq and one in Afghanastan, and if you truly think we can stop terrorism by following laws followed in the US you are the perfect reason lawyers should get the fuck out of DC. The information provided on wire taps is only amissable in a court or tribunal if in accordance to an act of treason or terrorism. If it wasn’t to lawyer fucks like you getting in the way of the police and military we wouldn’t need things like the patriot act. Oh and I am 100% against government in my life but this is the NSA not Obama and McCain phonies. Semper Fi gentlemen.
That’s bullshit and you know it, how about you throw a founding father quote in the mix? they knew a lot about hijacking airplanes, anthrax, and utilizing explosives in the name of jihad. Truth is only those privy to certain intelligence matters know the kind of shit that gets investigated and stopped ALL the time. Do you really think every terrorist related arrest gets reported in the media? If I know someone who works in the field and they tell me provisions under the PATRIOT act have absolutely been instrumental in stopping potential terrorists then how the hell can you not support it? How about when you look up everything the PATRIOT act entails and tell me which of YOUR civil liberties have been violated
And if “big government” means a government with a damn good military and security in a world that you seem to think is just kittens and cupcakes then so be it.
Ron Paul is a true conservative by its original definition. Virtually every Republican since Reagan has been a neo-con. If you want to argue that W., Cheney, and Rove are the best thing that ever happened to the Republican Party and America, be my guest, but don’t confuse their policies with those of true conservatives who don’t want the government encroaching on every aspect of your life (economically OR socially).
Tribesman: At first I thought you were talking to me, then I realized you were talking to the kid who just watched every Ron Paul video on youtube.
For the rest of TFM, just because someone one day decided to say it’s FaF to like Ron Paul then everyone decided to jump on the frat bandwagon doesn’t mean he is conservative, in fact it makes you look like assholes. Last year everyone hated that man for being un-American after blaming the US military and US for 9-11 attacks, now all of a sudden its so frat to like Ron Paul. Well a little advice get off your computer and stop youtubeing Ron Paul rEVOLution videos and dressing like Sam Adams, cause y’all are fucking losers.
I see where you’re going with that, but let’s keep security in the mix when you talk about “government encroaching on your life”. Some say that if the PATRIOT act were in place prior to 9/11 it could have been prevented, what do YOU think?
Ha nah Lynchem, we keep posting at the same time so I guess it’s a bit confusing. Thanks for your service, by the way. I agree about the Ron Paul thing, but I still feel (and would hope) most people on TFM and fraternity men in general aren’t Ron Paul supporters. It just seems like Paul supporters (Internet fanatic hipsters) just chose to be so outspoken about it whereas the rest of the true republicans just brush that shit off
I agree 100% Lynchem. Newt would be good canidate, but he has so much baggage and b.s. in his past that it will make it tought. I agree Fraterick, not the best pool of canidates. I wish Perry would have done better in the debates, he would be my choice, but i realize it will likely come down to Newt and Romney on who gets the nod.
Tribesman- I personally believe in America being a fundamentally isolationist nation. Therefore, (while I certainly do not in any way thing we deserved/earned the attacks on 9/11) I also believe that the U.S. had no business involving itself in conflicts that resulted in hostility toward our country in certain parts of the world. If we stop getting into wars that are either a) irrelevant to our own well-being or b) imagined, then we don’t need invasive policies like the PATRIOT Act.
bakig- you bring up a good point. Where is the line of “getting into a war we dont belong in” and making sure that we stay the world power? America is the best country in the world because we have always fought for it. I guess theres different schools of thought on if we should a) only focus on our domestic concerns like the economy and employment, or continue various battles on forien soil to make sure they dont occur here or lead on that we are passive or would allow another attack.
Also, I see what people are saying about Ron Paul being “trendy” right now, and it’s quite true that he is not an electable candidate (but less so than Bachman is or Cain was). He’s not even a good libertarian- he’s pro-life.
What he does have going for him is consistency- more so than any other front-runner. He could get the vote of more middle and lower class voters because he “makes sense” and isn’t necessarily immediately recognized as “intelligent” like Romney (such a shame that Americans don’t think it’s OK for our president to be smarter than the average citizen).
Ultimately though, if Ron Paul wanted to be taken more seriously, he’d have to change his own values to become more mainstream and palatable for Puritan America, even if a lot of his policies could be beneficial for the economy.
Bakingbetch, the United States is never going to be isolationist whoever is at the helm. Even if Ron Paul magically got elected there’s no way in he’ll he pulls us out of the UN security council. And if you really think terrorist attacks are all the result of “blowback”‘ as Ron Paul would say, you need a better grasp on the concept of jihad. There are plenty of countries in the western world that have a track record of non-interventionism that still have to deal with terrorism all the time. When it comes to the PATRIOT act, you can’t say “well, if we didn’t do this, this, and this we wouldn’t have needed it”. Take a step back and realize we DO need it in place given the current world we live in
betterthanyou- What did we get out of Vietnam? Bosnia? Kosovo? Libya? Even Iraq? In many of these cases, we do more harm to the people on the ground than we do good. Washington, Jefferson, Monroe- all knew that America was better off engaging in conflict unless directly threatened. I am not a pacifist- I believe in defending our land and our well-being, but I don’t believe in wasting resources. Eight years in Iraq? Could have been tying things up in Afghanistan and getting out.
The U.S. did not involve itself in foreign skirmishes until the 20th century, and although it can be argued that this time frame coincided with America’s rise as a true superpower, many of these interventions did not assist in doing so or even support such an image.
We spent too much time and effort trying to “fix” the rest of the world, and in the meantime, our own economy and citizens suffered. Right now, what America needs most is a president (and perhaps more importantly a CONGRESS) that will get the job done and put the focus on the economy at home.
You’re right, Tribesman, we will never be a 100% isolationist country, Ron Paul as president or not. The damage is done, and there are some crazy radical nutjobs out there who would love to see America capsize. But I still don’t think we need the government to secretly monitor the every move of private citizens. Also, I would never call assaults on private citizens on American soil “blowback” for mistakes made by the federal government and military; that’s just offensive.
Well Ron Paul would refer to them as “blowback” so that was my point, but I think you may be with the club that hates the PATRIOT act without knowing a lot of the tools it provides. It’s not about federal agents eavesdropping on random phone calls or Internet activity for the hell of it. Just do a bit of research before you start assuming it’s such a detriment on your civil liberties
God damn it “moderated” my comment back. To sum up what my moderated comment said, i agree with alot of you points, espically us helping others too much. I think over the last half centuary our govt have blurred the lines of us having a “obligation” to help others as much as we do now. As far as the Iarq situation goes, i thin Bush got some bd intel/advice.I dont think its as much as a conspieracy and “all about the oil” and many on the left lead us to believe. On the govt. intrusion as far as them eaesdropping on phone calls, i agree there has to be a line drawn somewhere or the intrusion will progressively get worse, but i personally dont mind the eaves dropping or monitoring internet activity…its not liek they are concerned with the details of our personal lives they are protecting homeland security/ trying to prevent terriorism/ catch the “big fish”, but i can understand somones rebuttle saying you can define anything as “defending homeland security”.
The idea of living in an isolationist country today is absolutely ridiculous the entire world is so entwined that if you isolate yourself you end up like N. Korea, Also again the Patriot Act does not grant illegal wire taps on ALL private citizens only those who are suspected of either TREASON or TERRORISM, they are not admissible unless being charged with the listed above crimes. And Baking tech I surely hope you are not saying that we made a mistake (the military) because if you are, go swim across the ocean to china. When I originally enlisted I made not even half of a senator worked every single day of the year before I went back to school after my first tour, and not to mention the oath I took got me sent to the middle of a smelly camel fucking land called Iraq where with nothing but a Bible and Rifle. What do I come home to see is assholes like fucking Ron Paul and apparently you saying that we handle things wrong. How about you fly overseas and help dig 6t holes for 18 year olds who just wanted to serve their country and keep y’all safe.
Lynchem-It goes without saying that I, as well as any level-headed American appriciates your service and everyone in the armed forces. You summed up what i was trying to say about govt. intursion (wire taps etc…). If they were eaves dropping and trying to prosecute people over local and state crimes and whatnot i can see an issue, but like you were saying, the people they are eaves dropping on are suspected of treason or some type of terroristic act. If they didnt do i and an incident occured, they would be complainng that the federal govt wasnt doing their jobs and over paid blah blah blah
tribesman (and betterthanyou, too) – I’m no conspiracy theorist, and I’m well-aware that the government is not listening in on conversations about Granny going in for another knee-replacement. If it comes down to the PATRIOT Act vs. losing American lives/acts of terrorism, you better believe I’m going to pick the former. I think this discussion really stemmed from “what qualifies as true conservatism?” and I’m going to continue to say that minimal federal government, individual liberty, and states’ rights will always win out.
Lynchem- Don’t ever twist my words; I support our troops no matter what war we are or are not fighting. But part of being an American means being able to voice MY opinion that our government has made mistakes when it comes to choosing which battles to fight. The “War on Terror” cannot be won- there will ALWAYS be terrorists, jihadist or otherwise. I agreed that we needed to be in Afghanistan. Other places? Not so much. It is a CRIME that young Americans who sign up to serve their country die in wars that we cannot win or wars that we do not belong in. And that is something that should rest on the shoulders of the Commander in Chief at any given time.
Most republicans would agree with you as those are thr basic principles of our pary, but the vibe I’m still getting based on previous posts regarding national security is that you’re a Ron Paul supporter. As I originally stated, enough with the “true conservative” mess. Just affirm yourself as a libertarian and we can agree to disagree.
(1st off, forgive my poor spelling. im a bit primed and staying up on the ambien)
baking- I see what you mean. Thats why i like talking with folks on the right side, because we wont see eye to eye on every issue, but the main principals and points we will all agree with. And, i like hearing what fellow republicans think and why they think it so i can see if thats how i see it too.
And i will agree with you on what true concervatism is but i think at the approproate times, (suspect terriorism or treasonm) they need to investigate it. I think thats one of the few times they should interfear and that inturn keeps safe at home.
tribesman- Not a libertarian, but unlike most of the general population, I don’t think they’re all crazy. Still, I’m far from being a supporter of legalizing heroin and prostitution.
betterthanyou- It’s always refreshing to talk to intelligent right-wingers. Unfortunately, liberals and radical Republicans (often radically stupid) tend to dominate the media and the spotlight. At this point, I really can’t see where this election is headed, but I’m definitely worried about the wrong candidate getting the nod. Stay Well
^ YA thats how i am too. Im worried about it myself. Realistically if i were to bet, i would say it will come down to Newt and Romney. They depending on how much the media wants to dig on new about all his ole wives and affairs etc…ill be interested to see how bad it will hurt him. But either way ill back who ever gets the nod, but i personally would rather have Newt. I wououldnt mind Romney, deffently will be a great contender against oboma, an we HAVE to get his ass OUT.
Good, informed discussion going on here. Too many conservatives rely on being louder, wealthier and physically larger than geed liberals who actually study up and argue informed opinions, I’m guilty of it myself. As young men who will soon be in the driver’s seat of our nation we need to stop blindly subscribing to the general ideas of what our parents support or what some talking head on Fox News says. Fight fire with fire and put that expensive education to use alongside our other frat qualities.
Baking Tech let me quote you really quick “Also, I would never call assaults on private citizens on American soil “blowback” for mistakes made by the federal government and military; that’s just offensive.” I am pretty sure you just bluntly stated that it is also the militaries fault. Also don’t sit there and preach about how you don’t want young men signing up to die for a war YOU don’t agree with. I signed up full will knowing that I could die in IRAQ or Afghanstan, you’ve never been to either place and are not in the military so until you are or have been there with a rifle don’t preach about how you don’t want young men over there.
First off, if you’re going to continue to insult me, get my name right. Second, once again, you are way off on what I have said. I don’t like Ron Paul’s terminology of “blowback” because it suggests that attacks on American citizens were earned and well-deserved; they were certainly not.
Also, I clearly stated that these were MY opinions. But can you honestly tell me that America, as a COUNTRY should have been involved in every conflict it has? My point in regard to deaths of American soldiers is this: if these young men and women are willing to risk their lives by serving their country, the government should be damn sure of what type of warfare they’re getting involved in. As far as Afghanistan, did I not say that I agree with sending our troops over there? I did.
And lastly, you actually have no knowledge of me NOT being in the military, and while I have not enlisted, you shouldn’t run around making those assumptions about people whom you do not know. Regardless, it’s still a poor argument from that stand point.
I just quoted you blaming the military how can you manage to even make an argument after you clearly in writing said that earlier? I mean call me crazy. I can tell you’re not in military easily, from the way you talk about the war and the fact that you think its a slaughter of American troops. By the way you know more people are dying beside soldiers, there are Marines, sailers, and airmen dying also. However we should be there we were attacked on 9-11 and we have to do our best to not allow them to do it again. But Im sure just like ron Paul you don’t care if Iran gets nukes or takes control of Iraq. Once last thing in this response I have to say to you I agree with you on one thing the politicians not government get in the way of war fare with rules of engagement. Not by not knowing what type of war fare because we are damn well trained in that. The politicians (oh Ron Paul by the way) tell us if we shot to kill an Iraqi or Afghani running toward us then we get CMed and spend time in Levinworth, well thats funny to me because when we were creating those “innocent” Iraqis a little kid came running toward us with a soda can expect when he cracked in front of one of my good friends and pledge brothers he got his head blown off. So no its not that we don’t know what type of warfare we are dealing with its that people like Ron Paul and democrats are trying to set rules to war when the other side plays by no rules.
Lynch, I respect your service, but ask your fellow millitary men who they want for president, because its more than likely gonna be Ron Paul. Hes won every poll amongst millitary people, and every quarter received more donations than every other GOP candidate combined….Blowback is not a crazy theory, its what the CIA said it was. Im not blaming America, but its preposterous to think we were attacked because “we’re free”…why isnt Australia attacked?
Ron Paul predicted 9/11 would happen back in the late 90s and early 00s. He predicted the whole budget crisis in the 2000s, thats why he has my vote.
Damn right, we are the most powerful nation in the world, and we stand for the polar opposite beliefs that many Radical Muslims base their lives off of. Without a doubt we would be the country they focus on, not to mention the fact that we have a war on terror and have troops, like Lynchem, in Afghanistan. But do not be oblivious to the fact that these acts of terrorism happen everywhere. Just to adhere to your example of Australia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_Australia#Militant_Islamist_Incidents
I dont live in this Utopian world where I think that as long as were not intervening with people we’ll be perfectly safe from attacks, and neither does Ron Paul. He wants to really secure our borders, and utilize our national defense, (not national offense) but with regards to 9/11 CIA, and Homeland officials who worked with islamic terroist units, both said pre and post 9/11 that our presence in the middle east is a lose lose in the sense that we’re wasting a ton of money, and making our nation less safe, because we’re adding oil to the fire with these radical groups.
You realize that most candidates believe that the war in Iraq should not have happened? It is not an exclusive belief by Ron Paul. On the other hand, Ron Paul has clearly stated his views on Iran and they put our nation in danger; it is necessary to intervene WHEN NECESSARY, and that is why we need a president and advisers who know how to handle a situation such as Iran, not someone who wouldn’t intervene unless directly attacked.
OK, then you are correct. I do blame the military for involving the military in the Iraq War…obviously. And yes, all branches. I’m not really sure what you are trying to argue at this point.
And echoing Glory, Ron Paul and myself are far from the only two people who think Iraq was a mistake. Even W. admits that the inaccurate intelligence on Iraq and lack of preparation for war were the biggest failures of his presidency.
Enough about Iraq, we’re beating a dead horse with this. I feel like I need to reiterate the points I brought up about Ron Paul being crazy to want to eliminate DHS, CIA, and the PATRIOT act. Gentlemen, we can argue whether we should or should not go to war but the fact remains that strong national security measures must be taken. Ron Paul, unfortunately, seems fit to disagree with that. And to whoever said the majority of the military supports Ron Paul, don’t buy in to that shit. I know plenty of officers and enlisted men and of those only 2 are supporting Paul (both characterized themselves as libertarians to begin with).
^This Tribesman thank you for not being a complete ignorant ass and getting statistics from Ron Paul videos. I know one officer and that is it who supports PAul, other than that most actually support Santrorum. Then Id say its a race between Perry and Bachman. Paul isn’t even talked about. After all he wants to throw half of us out of a job and for the rest cut our pay and benefits like the Democrats. Not much better than any democrat right now.
Well in spite of your service to your country, gentlemen, your lack of global understanding is quite frankly alarming. While having experience on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan is quite laudable, unless you speak fluent Arabic, Pashto, Farsi, et al and have published a masters or doctorate level thesis on the ME, central Asia, northern Africa, or Indonesia, your experiences are quite limited and you lack the requisite knowledge to make any substantive judgments. People who make these decisions for a living AND have significant combat experience (much more than either of you) think that the War on Terror and the Patriot Act are counterproductive for national security and civil liberties.
^Tell that to everyone I attended West Point with, my Dad who is a federal agent, and the countless other CIA and military people I’ve met and talked with.
Now, what school do you attend and what experience do you have in this field?
Oh shit, I forgot to mention that I’m fluent in Arabic as well. Just wanted to throw that out there since I would otherwise “lack the requisite knowledge to make any substantive judgments” [regarding homeland security].
This isnt a bullshit youtube ron paul propagnda stat, this it true, lookat every database. Here’s the most recent campaign stat: “2nd and 3rd Quarter campaign donations by Active Duty Millitary 2011” Santorum- 750$ (litterally not even 1% of Ron Pauls donations); Bachman- ~7,000$, Perry: ~7.300, RON PAUL- ~105,000$. This is litterally 8x the donations from the other three “Millitary favorites” you claim combined.
I understand you and your friends are neocons (and I dont use that term deliberately, most people on this are), and you assume that since you and the people you worked for whereever you were deployed hate Ron Paul’s policy, everyone else int he millitary hates it, but clearly thats not the case. Otherwise he wouldnt have gotten over 110x more money from the millitary compared to Santorum, the millitary favorite.
And for those critical of his stance on the Patriot Act, if you can find me one place int he Constitution where its justified, then Ill back off, but until that The Patriot Act is just like ObamaCare, something the extreme repubs/dems want, but is completely unjustified by the constitution. As Abe Lincoln said: Those who give up liberty for safety deserve neither.
As i’ve said before, at the end of the day hardly anyone I know in the military gives two fucks about Ron Paul. I still think those “statistics” are bullshit, but I really don’t care because mark my words: he’s not going to win a goddamn thing. Secondly, if I have personally asked federal law enforcement officials if provisions under the PATRIOT act have helped them stop potential terrorist attacks and they tell me “absolutely” THEN SO FUCKING BE IT. I’m so sick of you mother fuckers whine about “ohhh my civil liberties are being trampled on” when in reality no one with a badge and a gun cares about your life or what phone calls you make to your loser ass friends at your loser ass school. You don’t know a goddamn thing about national security and you won’t learn until you stop quoting things said 150 years ago as justification for your beliefs today. Just wake the fuck up, 9/11 wasn’t really that long ago. Everyone here was alive for it.
^Most of us on this site care about things that happened and were said 150 years ago. Tradition and heritage are a big part of being in a fraternity. And more imortantly no one is upset about terrorists having their civil liberties trampled on, they are more concerned with the slippery slope this creates for the governement to eventually call any one it sees as a threat a “terrorist”. What if Newt is elected and decides that the creator of a Ron Paul support web site is a “terrorist”. It sounds far fetched but recently a supporter of Private Manning had his lap top,cell phone and other item’s taken from him with out a warrent just because some one saw him as a threat. He was in no way a threat to America. He simply apposed the government holding Manning with out a trial for so long.But this is the atmosphere created by the Patriot Act. If you give the government an inch they will go a mile and beyond. Think about it.
Tribes, Im not that extreme in the sense that i give a shit about my phone being tapped, If it were up to me, Id say no, but I can live with that. The problem with the Patriot Act is the fact that a fair amount of American citizens have had their houses searched without a warrant, or been detained without even knowing what for. I guarantee you for every potential terrorist the patriot act has helped find, 5 more innocent Americans have had their lives drastically effected, because of it. Obviously Im very against terrorism, and very fearful of another attack, but I think its uneffective, and just a slippery slope, as mentioned above, for the government to start abusing their power.
If both parties just went by the Constitution, there’d be minimal discrepancy between the two, and our nation would accomplish so much more. But both parties are completely immature, and think that, because Bush invaded Iraq w/o a declaration, and passed the unconstitutional patriot act, that the democrats oughta be able to get health care to make it “fair” (Ive litterally had this discussion with a liberal)
And Ill admit, his chances to win the GOP nomination are very slim, but I think everyone knows that. As a Paul supporter, what Id like to see happen is someone like Bachman or Santorum get elected (that stands no chance of winning the moderates support) and then Obama run again (whose hated by most Americans now) and then Ron Paul run as a third party, and I think he has a decent chance at winning. Ron Pauls supporters are really die hard, I know at my campus in North Florida (a typically republican area) everyone hates Obama and the Gop candidates, so theyre all hue Ron Paul supporters.
Apparently you lack the requisite reading comprehension skills. Speaking arabic is great. You have that masters or PhD level thesis sitting around, I’d love to read it. Getting involved in the middle east, especially Iraq, wasn’t exactly a great idea since we basically created a new breeding ground for terrorists. While I also love terrorists to be blown sky high, the reason terrorism is effective is because it cons people into trading liberty for security, a false sense of security in this instance. The Patriot Act is so counter to the American way of life and the limited government that you portend to espouse it’s laughable that you try.
Fratanomics, I’m still curious as to what school you attend(ed) because you seem quite cocky yet no professionals I know actually working in this field seem to have a huge problem. But aside from that, what are your specific issues with the PATRIOT act? I’m wondering because I want you to get it right, not hop on this “my civil liberties are trampled” bandwagon that seems about as “hip” as liking Ron Paul. So please, outline your concerns regarding the act and the specific portions of it you find unconstitutional and perhaps we can go from there.
I’m not going to keep up a conversation over a TFM thread. If you want to e-mail me send it to fratanomics (@) gmail.com. And of course your dad and other professionals, it makes their jobs significantly easier by allowing them to sidestep things that *should* make it more difficult to do their jobs. Just because something makes it easier doesn’t make it easier or better.
I expected that kind of response. Tell ya what, you’ll get an e-mail from me when Ron Paul loses. Other than that if you aren’t willing to post your specific issues with the act here for everyone that’s been discussing this to see, my work is done
It’s significantly easier to communicate via email and you can even post the results on the TFM website. Writing a page long critique of the Patriot Act and the War on Terror isn’t something TFM is meant for.
My request was simple: what portions of the PATRIOT act do you find troubling and unconstitutional? Paraphrase if you want, we don’t need to over think it with detailed explanation. I’ve studied the law enough to recognize and understand whatever issues you see with it.
1 National security letters – subpoena requiring no probably cause and has no judicial oversight. Also contains a gag order. Horrible chance for abuse by anyone in the DHS sphere of influence (DoD, CIA, NSA, FBI). This has been hugely abused to retain illegally gathered information.
2) Retroactive warrants – why on gods green earth do these even need to exist if warrantless surveillance is allowed?
3) Detainment of material witnesses with no access to lawyers
4) Use of warrantless searches for prosecution instead of intelligence gathering
5) Provisions that ban advising or helping terrorist organizations are worded so poorly that one could get in trouble for linking to an Osama release message. I doubt the FNC people would like to be arrested for airing 30 seconds of saying “down with the infidels.” It’s an example of good idea, bad execution.
6) It’s also been used to prosecute people on charges that weren’t related to terrorism (aka it’s whole fucking purpose).
I have plenty more. If you want the rest, feel free to email me.
As fas as he NSLs go I don’t have a problem because it restricts acquisition of content so essentially whatever agent is checking in to it is just looking for call records to a particular foreign phone number deemed “hot”. I don’t see the point in bringing up retroactive warrants on the basis of “why do we need these?”. Its always good ti have the paper trail if possible. The one thing i’ll agree with you on is that detaining someone who is a material witness, even in a terrorism case, seems excessive. However, thats not something that happens often and when it does its usually under good reasoning. Whatever you said about warrantless searches for prosecution is bullshit, give me examples. And as far as prosecuting people on charges “not related to terrorism” i have not heard hat so if you have some examples i’d like to see. Also some examples on how this act has affected your life, other than protecting it, would be great.
So yeah sorry that took so fucking long, lets just say I forgot about this discussion over the new years weekend until some NF west coast dumbass said something about this on another thread. And no, “thats what I thought”. You raised some good points but nothing was that hard to respond to as you have yet to provide good examples and merely relied on speculation of what the govt could do.
NSLs are not just restricted to phone numbers. They can also pull bank transaction numbers, email addresses, etc…. Furthermore they aren’t restricted to foreigners. Anyone under the DHS umbrella can send them, and that means CIA is using resources for internal matters, which goes counter to its entire mission. The FBI already got caught monitoring entire communities (eg Arabs in Detroit and other cities) instead of just individuals. They are gathering information on everyone related to the suspect and then not disposing of the data. The DOD is only allowed to pull financial records of DoD personnel, but it’s using the FBI to pull this information on civilians and foreign nationals. They are basically a blank information check the DoD can cash whenever it wants. Separation of powers exists for a reason.
Retroactive warrants? Do I really need to explain why a retroactive warrant is a bad thing? It completely destroys 4th amendment and right to privacy. If the FBI can’t even come up with minimal evidence to get a warrant, which no FISA os PA court has ever denied, they aren’t doing their job in the first place. Arresting and charging someone with no evidence gets thrown out of court for a reason. Given the not even minimal requirements for a warrant, this is inexcusable. Nazis and the KGB used retroactive warrants in their kangaroo courts. Rule of law exists for a reason. A paper trail needs to exist before the arrest so that people won’t get arbitrarily arrested and kept in detention. There’s a reason why Congress gets a free pass on minors crimes — so that politically influenced police can’t arrest them and keep them from voting. This is a direct result of grievances from medieval England. If 12th century English nobles can get it right, 21st century Americans should too.
Hell the FBI got reamed for looking into books checked out in public libraries.
Honestly the Patriot Act hasn’t affected my life. I’m an upper class white male who’s not exactly prone to treason or terrorism, so I’m not exactly a target of interest. What I am, however, is interested in making sure rights afforded to Americans don’t get eroded because we won’t ever get them back. And yes, the scum sucking terrorists are afforded every bit as much protection as the average US citizen as long as they are on our soil. Most of the people investigated and prosecuted are American citizens. FISA was more than enough. Patriot Act is an unprecedented assault on the rights of Americans. No one had seen anything like this since the Alien and Sedition Acts, which were found unconstitutional have been seen as such ever since.
Alright boss, well at some point were just going to have to agree to disagree on this one. People have varying views of what security measures are necessary, this day in age at least. I still don’t have a problem with NSLs considering they’re still content restricted no matter what form. As far as retroactive warrants, at least they’re putting something on paper! I can promise you that no matter what laws are in place the CIA will always tail who they want, when they want. The article about the artist or whatever was pretty funny, but we have to take it for what’s worth considering he did come in to possession of illegal substances. To be honest here, the law is always going to be interpreted. Hell, even your bud Ron Paul will tell you the constitution is never crystal clear. To me it always seems the “trampling my civil liberties” mess is blown hugely out of proportion. Even before the PATRIOT act there were always instances of law enforcement officials having mishaps, arresting people who were innocent, etc. I don’t think our country would be safe if we did away with the whole PATRIOT act because it has been an invaluable tool in stopping numerous attacks. So I guess what it comes down to is finding that balance. Are we willing to continue bitching about a law that was put in place to save American lives? We’re not living in some insane police state, we don’t need to liken this to Nazi Germany. If 0.00001% of the country’s population has been so inconvenienced by a law that has saved lives then I just can’t have a problem with it, same as Bush, Obama, and everyone else renewing it. Anyway, if you are gonna reply again go to the “so now that Cain and Perry are out…” forum in discussions up top.
Although I agree with majority of this video is whole argument against Racism is flawed. Lincoln wouldn’t recognize the Republican party because he fought for federal authority over the states which isn’t exactly small government, but all in all good video.
exactly the parties did switch and he simply cant deny that conservatism = no change liberalism = change
ending of slavery = change therefore 19th century democrats = conservative
wanting to federally ban slavery thus increasing central power = liberalist therefore = 19th century republicans = liberalist and now its flip flopped
Most level-minded Republicans have to agree however, our pool of candidates for this year mostly sucks. If Newt gets the nomination, we’re fucked.
Ron Paul 2012. The diamond in the shit.
14 years ago at 3:20 pmRon Paul. True Conservative.
14 years ago at 3:31 pmI’m sick of people saying “Ron Paul: true conservative”. He’s only running as a republican because his libertarian bullshit got him nowhere. If by some miracle Ron Paul gets the nomination he may get some votes from Obama’s hipster crowd that wants to legalize drugs but a huge chunk of the republican party wouldnt vote for his crazy ass
14 years ago at 6:14 pmHes not at all a conservative in fact he is the opposite. He wants to release all drug related felons, stop the war on drugs (power to the cartels), allow foreign nations to obtain and use nukes, and not to mention he blames Bush (whom y’all always say how much you love) and America. Also we all brag about being on the military here, well for myself and y’all who are sucks because he wants to cut us in half. Oh wait thats what Clinton did prior to 9-11. Not one thing mentioned is a conservative trait.
14 years ago at 6:20 pmExactly. Ron Paul is economically conservative but gets it wrong on just about everything else. In addition to everything just said he wants to get rid of the majority of the CIA, the Dept of Homeland Security and the PATRIOT act. All 3 of those are necessary in protecting our country from jihadists. Apparently the PATRIOT act encroaches on civil liberties but all it does is allow roving wiretaps and law enforcement officials to obtain warrants moe easily. Unless you’re someone that makes DHS’ ears perk up you don’t need to worry about the security measures in place. Fuck Ron Paul
14 years ago at 6:34 pmWhile I agree with you on Paul being wrong in wanting to get rid of chunks of the CIA and department of Homeland Security, him wanting to get rid of parts of the Patriot Act are solid. The Patriot Act, while protecting us against terror, destroys FUNDAMENTAL American values.
14 years ago at 7:49 pm^ Ya your right…who cares if wire tapping with out a warrent is illegal…I mean I trust the government not to abuse their power and only hassle known terrorist suspects. And who cares how many people died protecting our constitution and bill of rights..I’m so scared of terrorists that I really dont mind giving up my civil liberties. *sarcasm*..If you were a conservative you would want government to have less power?
14 years ago at 7:54 pmHow about you shut your pretentious lawyer wanna be ass up. I serve and have been in the Marine Corp since I was 18. Ive done two tours one in Iraq and one in Afghanastan, and if you truly think we can stop terrorism by following laws followed in the US you are the perfect reason lawyers should get the fuck out of DC. The information provided on wire taps is only amissable in a court or tribunal if in accordance to an act of treason or terrorism. If it wasn’t to lawyer fucks like you getting in the way of the police and military we wouldn’t need things like the patriot act. Oh and I am 100% against government in my life but this is the NSA not Obama and McCain phonies. Semper Fi gentlemen.
14 years ago at 8:02 pmThat’s bullshit and you know it, how about you throw a founding father quote in the mix? they knew a lot about hijacking airplanes, anthrax, and utilizing explosives in the name of jihad. Truth is only those privy to certain intelligence matters know the kind of shit that gets investigated and stopped ALL the time. Do you really think every terrorist related arrest gets reported in the media? If I know someone who works in the field and they tell me provisions under the PATRIOT act have absolutely been instrumental in stopping potential terrorists then how the hell can you not support it? How about when you look up everything the PATRIOT act entails and tell me which of YOUR civil liberties have been violated
14 years ago at 8:05 pmAnd if “big government” means a government with a damn good military and security in a world that you seem to think is just kittens and cupcakes then so be it.
14 years ago at 8:08 pmRon Paul is a true conservative by its original definition. Virtually every Republican since Reagan has been a neo-con. If you want to argue that W., Cheney, and Rove are the best thing that ever happened to the Republican Party and America, be my guest, but don’t confuse their policies with those of true conservatives who don’t want the government encroaching on every aspect of your life (economically OR socially).
14 years ago at 8:57 pmTribesman: At first I thought you were talking to me, then I realized you were talking to the kid who just watched every Ron Paul video on youtube.
For the rest of TFM, just because someone one day decided to say it’s FaF to like Ron Paul then everyone decided to jump on the frat bandwagon doesn’t mean he is conservative, in fact it makes you look like assholes. Last year everyone hated that man for being un-American after blaming the US military and US for 9-11 attacks, now all of a sudden its so frat to like Ron Paul. Well a little advice get off your computer and stop youtubeing Ron Paul rEVOLution videos and dressing like Sam Adams, cause y’all are fucking losers.
14 years ago at 9:15 pmI see where you’re going with that, but let’s keep security in the mix when you talk about “government encroaching on your life”. Some say that if the PATRIOT act were in place prior to 9/11 it could have been prevented, what do YOU think?
14 years ago at 9:15 pmHa nah Lynchem, we keep posting at the same time so I guess it’s a bit confusing. Thanks for your service, by the way. I agree about the Ron Paul thing, but I still feel (and would hope) most people on TFM and fraternity men in general aren’t Ron Paul supporters. It just seems like Paul supporters (Internet fanatic hipsters) just chose to be so outspoken about it whereas the rest of the true republicans just brush that shit off
14 years ago at 9:20 pmI agree 100% Lynchem. Newt would be good canidate, but he has so much baggage and b.s. in his past that it will make it tought. I agree Fraterick, not the best pool of canidates. I wish Perry would have done better in the debates, he would be my choice, but i realize it will likely come down to Newt and Romney on who gets the nod.
14 years ago at 9:22 pmAnd one more thing, if you are a Ron Paul supporter please identify yourself as Libertarian instead of Republican. You’re embarassing me.
14 years ago at 9:22 pmTribesman- I personally believe in America being a fundamentally isolationist nation. Therefore, (while I certainly do not in any way thing we deserved/earned the attacks on 9/11) I also believe that the U.S. had no business involving itself in conflicts that resulted in hostility toward our country in certain parts of the world. If we stop getting into wars that are either a) irrelevant to our own well-being or b) imagined, then we don’t need invasive policies like the PATRIOT Act.
14 years ago at 9:32 pmbakig- you bring up a good point. Where is the line of “getting into a war we dont belong in” and making sure that we stay the world power? America is the best country in the world because we have always fought for it. I guess theres different schools of thought on if we should a) only focus on our domestic concerns like the economy and employment, or continue various battles on forien soil to make sure they dont occur here or lead on that we are passive or would allow another attack.
14 years ago at 9:36 pmAlso, I see what people are saying about Ron Paul being “trendy” right now, and it’s quite true that he is not an electable candidate (but less so than Bachman is or Cain was). He’s not even a good libertarian- he’s pro-life.
What he does have going for him is consistency- more so than any other front-runner. He could get the vote of more middle and lower class voters because he “makes sense” and isn’t necessarily immediately recognized as “intelligent” like Romney (such a shame that Americans don’t think it’s OK for our president to be smarter than the average citizen).
Ultimately though, if Ron Paul wanted to be taken more seriously, he’d have to change his own values to become more mainstream and palatable for Puritan America, even if a lot of his policies could be beneficial for the economy.
14 years ago at 9:41 pmBakingbetch, the United States is never going to be isolationist whoever is at the helm. Even if Ron Paul magically got elected there’s no way in he’ll he pulls us out of the UN security council. And if you really think terrorist attacks are all the result of “blowback”‘ as Ron Paul would say, you need a better grasp on the concept of jihad. There are plenty of countries in the western world that have a track record of non-interventionism that still have to deal with terrorism all the time. When it comes to the PATRIOT act, you can’t say “well, if we didn’t do this, this, and this we wouldn’t have needed it”. Take a step back and realize we DO need it in place given the current world we live in
14 years ago at 9:44 pmbetterthanyou- What did we get out of Vietnam? Bosnia? Kosovo? Libya? Even Iraq? In many of these cases, we do more harm to the people on the ground than we do good. Washington, Jefferson, Monroe- all knew that America was better off engaging in conflict unless directly threatened. I am not a pacifist- I believe in defending our land and our well-being, but I don’t believe in wasting resources. Eight years in Iraq? Could have been tying things up in Afghanistan and getting out.
The U.S. did not involve itself in foreign skirmishes until the 20th century, and although it can be argued that this time frame coincided with America’s rise as a true superpower, many of these interventions did not assist in doing so or even support such an image.
We spent too much time and effort trying to “fix” the rest of the world, and in the meantime, our own economy and citizens suffered. Right now, what America needs most is a president (and perhaps more importantly a CONGRESS) that will get the job done and put the focus on the economy at home.
14 years ago at 9:53 pmYou’re right, Tribesman, we will never be a 100% isolationist country, Ron Paul as president or not. The damage is done, and there are some crazy radical nutjobs out there who would love to see America capsize. But I still don’t think we need the government to secretly monitor the every move of private citizens. Also, I would never call assaults on private citizens on American soil “blowback” for mistakes made by the federal government and military; that’s just offensive.
14 years ago at 9:59 pmWell Ron Paul would refer to them as “blowback” so that was my point, but I think you may be with the club that hates the PATRIOT act without knowing a lot of the tools it provides. It’s not about federal agents eavesdropping on random phone calls or Internet activity for the hell of it. Just do a bit of research before you start assuming it’s such a detriment on your civil liberties
14 years ago at 10:08 pmGod damn it “moderated” my comment back. To sum up what my moderated comment said, i agree with alot of you points, espically us helping others too much. I think over the last half centuary our govt have blurred the lines of us having a “obligation” to help others as much as we do now. As far as the Iarq situation goes, i thin Bush got some bd intel/advice.I dont think its as much as a conspieracy and “all about the oil” and many on the left lead us to believe. On the govt. intrusion as far as them eaesdropping on phone calls, i agree there has to be a line drawn somewhere or the intrusion will progressively get worse, but i personally dont mind the eaves dropping or monitoring internet activity…its not liek they are concerned with the details of our personal lives they are protecting homeland security/ trying to prevent terriorism/ catch the “big fish”, but i can understand somones rebuttle saying you can define anything as “defending homeland security”.
14 years ago at 10:19 pmThe idea of living in an isolationist country today is absolutely ridiculous the entire world is so entwined that if you isolate yourself you end up like N. Korea, Also again the Patriot Act does not grant illegal wire taps on ALL private citizens only those who are suspected of either TREASON or TERRORISM, they are not admissible unless being charged with the listed above crimes. And Baking tech I surely hope you are not saying that we made a mistake (the military) because if you are, go swim across the ocean to china. When I originally enlisted I made not even half of a senator worked every single day of the year before I went back to school after my first tour, and not to mention the oath I took got me sent to the middle of a smelly camel fucking land called Iraq where with nothing but a Bible and Rifle. What do I come home to see is assholes like fucking Ron Paul and apparently you saying that we handle things wrong. How about you fly overseas and help dig 6t holes for 18 year olds who just wanted to serve their country and keep y’all safe.
14 years ago at 10:20 pmAll you dumbasses need to stop sucking Bill O’Rielly’s dick and read the Constitution. Ron Paul 2012
14 years ago at 10:22 pmThanks for contributing frattygonia, I’d love to know what retard fucking school you attend
14 years ago at 10:28 pmLynchem-It goes without saying that I, as well as any level-headed American appriciates your service and everyone in the armed forces. You summed up what i was trying to say about govt. intursion (wire taps etc…). If they were eaves dropping and trying to prosecute people over local and state crimes and whatnot i can see an issue, but like you were saying, the people they are eaves dropping on are suspected of treason or some type of terroristic act. If they didnt do i and an incident occured, they would be complainng that the federal govt wasnt doing their jobs and over paid blah blah blah
14 years ago at 10:30 pmtribesman (and betterthanyou, too) – I’m no conspiracy theorist, and I’m well-aware that the government is not listening in on conversations about Granny going in for another knee-replacement. If it comes down to the PATRIOT Act vs. losing American lives/acts of terrorism, you better believe I’m going to pick the former. I think this discussion really stemmed from “what qualifies as true conservatism?” and I’m going to continue to say that minimal federal government, individual liberty, and states’ rights will always win out.
Lynchem- Don’t ever twist my words; I support our troops no matter what war we are or are not fighting. But part of being an American means being able to voice MY opinion that our government has made mistakes when it comes to choosing which battles to fight. The “War on Terror” cannot be won- there will ALWAYS be terrorists, jihadist or otherwise. I agreed that we needed to be in Afghanistan. Other places? Not so much. It is a CRIME that young Americans who sign up to serve their country die in wars that we cannot win or wars that we do not belong in. And that is something that should rest on the shoulders of the Commander in Chief at any given time.
14 years ago at 10:37 pmMost republicans would agree with you as those are thr basic principles of our pary, but the vibe I’m still getting based on previous posts regarding national security is that you’re a Ron Paul supporter. As I originally stated, enough with the “true conservative” mess. Just affirm yourself as a libertarian and we can agree to disagree.
14 years ago at 10:45 pm(1st off, forgive my poor spelling. im a bit primed and staying up on the ambien)
baking- I see what you mean. Thats why i like talking with folks on the right side, because we wont see eye to eye on every issue, but the main principals and points we will all agree with. And, i like hearing what fellow republicans think and why they think it so i can see if thats how i see it too.
And i will agree with you on what true concervatism is but i think at the approproate times, (suspect terriorism or treasonm) they need to investigate it. I think thats one of the few times they should interfear and that inturn keeps safe at home.
14 years ago at 10:47 pmtribesman- Not a libertarian, but unlike most of the general population, I don’t think they’re all crazy. Still, I’m far from being a supporter of legalizing heroin and prostitution.
betterthanyou- It’s always refreshing to talk to intelligent right-wingers. Unfortunately, liberals and radical Republicans (often radically stupid) tend to dominate the media and the spotlight. At this point, I really can’t see where this election is headed, but I’m definitely worried about the wrong candidate getting the nod. Stay Well
14 years ago at 11:01 pm^ YA thats how i am too. Im worried about it myself. Realistically if i were to bet, i would say it will come down to Newt and Romney. They depending on how much the media wants to dig on new about all his ole wives and affairs etc…ill be interested to see how bad it will hurt him. But either way ill back who ever gets the nod, but i personally would rather have Newt. I wououldnt mind Romney, deffently will be a great contender against oboma, an we HAVE to get his ass OUT.
14 years ago at 11:14 pmGood, informed discussion going on here. Too many conservatives rely on being louder, wealthier and physically larger than geed liberals who actually study up and argue informed opinions, I’m guilty of it myself. As young men who will soon be in the driver’s seat of our nation we need to stop blindly subscribing to the general ideas of what our parents support or what some talking head on Fox News says. Fight fire with fire and put that expensive education to use alongside our other frat qualities.
14 years ago at 5:24 amBaking Tech let me quote you really quick “Also, I would never call assaults on private citizens on American soil “blowback” for mistakes made by the federal government and military; that’s just offensive.” I am pretty sure you just bluntly stated that it is also the militaries fault. Also don’t sit there and preach about how you don’t want young men signing up to die for a war YOU don’t agree with. I signed up full will knowing that I could die in IRAQ or Afghanstan, you’ve never been to either place and are not in the military so until you are or have been there with a rifle don’t preach about how you don’t want young men over there.
14 years ago at 9:36 amFirst off, if you’re going to continue to insult me, get my name right. Second, once again, you are way off on what I have said. I don’t like Ron Paul’s terminology of “blowback” because it suggests that attacks on American citizens were earned and well-deserved; they were certainly not.
Also, I clearly stated that these were MY opinions. But can you honestly tell me that America, as a COUNTRY should have been involved in every conflict it has? My point in regard to deaths of American soldiers is this: if these young men and women are willing to risk their lives by serving their country, the government should be damn sure of what type of warfare they’re getting involved in. As far as Afghanistan, did I not say that I agree with sending our troops over there? I did.
And lastly, you actually have no knowledge of me NOT being in the military, and while I have not enlisted, you shouldn’t run around making those assumptions about people whom you do not know. Regardless, it’s still a poor argument from that stand point.
14 years ago at 10:01 amI just quoted you blaming the military how can you manage to even make an argument after you clearly in writing said that earlier? I mean call me crazy. I can tell you’re not in military easily, from the way you talk about the war and the fact that you think its a slaughter of American troops. By the way you know more people are dying beside soldiers, there are Marines, sailers, and airmen dying also. However we should be there we were attacked on 9-11 and we have to do our best to not allow them to do it again. But Im sure just like ron Paul you don’t care if Iran gets nukes or takes control of Iraq. Once last thing in this response I have to say to you I agree with you on one thing the politicians not government get in the way of war fare with rules of engagement. Not by not knowing what type of war fare because we are damn well trained in that. The politicians (oh Ron Paul by the way) tell us if we shot to kill an Iraqi or Afghani running toward us then we get CMed and spend time in Levinworth, well thats funny to me because when we were creating those “innocent” Iraqis a little kid came running toward us with a soda can expect when he cracked in front of one of my good friends and pledge brothers he got his head blown off. So no its not that we don’t know what type of warfare we are dealing with its that people like Ron Paul and democrats are trying to set rules to war when the other side plays by no rules.
14 years ago at 10:19 amLynch, I respect your service, but ask your fellow millitary men who they want for president, because its more than likely gonna be Ron Paul. Hes won every poll amongst millitary people, and every quarter received more donations than every other GOP candidate combined….Blowback is not a crazy theory, its what the CIA said it was. Im not blaming America, but its preposterous to think we were attacked because “we’re free”…why isnt Australia attacked?
Ron Paul predicted 9/11 would happen back in the late 90s and early 00s. He predicted the whole budget crisis in the 2000s, thats why he has my vote.
14 years ago at 11:05 amUsed to be Republican, now a Ron Paul supporter by the way
14 years ago at 11:15 amDamn right, we are the most powerful nation in the world, and we stand for the polar opposite beliefs that many Radical Muslims base their lives off of. Without a doubt we would be the country they focus on, not to mention the fact that we have a war on terror and have troops, like Lynchem, in Afghanistan. But do not be oblivious to the fact that these acts of terrorism happen everywhere. Just to adhere to your example of Australia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_Australia#Militant_Islamist_Incidents
14 years ago at 11:17 amI dont live in this Utopian world where I think that as long as were not intervening with people we’ll be perfectly safe from attacks, and neither does Ron Paul. He wants to really secure our borders, and utilize our national defense, (not national offense) but with regards to 9/11 CIA, and Homeland officials who worked with islamic terroist units, both said pre and post 9/11 that our presence in the middle east is a lose lose in the sense that we’re wasting a ton of money, and making our nation less safe, because we’re adding oil to the fire with these radical groups.
14 years ago at 11:48 amYou realize that most candidates believe that the war in Iraq should not have happened? It is not an exclusive belief by Ron Paul. On the other hand, Ron Paul has clearly stated his views on Iran and they put our nation in danger; it is necessary to intervene WHEN NECESSARY, and that is why we need a president and advisers who know how to handle a situation such as Iran, not someone who wouldn’t intervene unless directly attacked.
14 years ago at 1:05 pmOK, then you are correct. I do blame the military for involving the military in the Iraq War…obviously. And yes, all branches. I’m not really sure what you are trying to argue at this point.
And echoing Glory, Ron Paul and myself are far from the only two people who think Iraq was a mistake. Even W. admits that the inaccurate intelligence on Iraq and lack of preparation for war were the biggest failures of his presidency.
14 years ago at 1:34 pmEnough about Iraq, we’re beating a dead horse with this. I feel like I need to reiterate the points I brought up about Ron Paul being crazy to want to eliminate DHS, CIA, and the PATRIOT act. Gentlemen, we can argue whether we should or should not go to war but the fact remains that strong national security measures must be taken. Ron Paul, unfortunately, seems fit to disagree with that. And to whoever said the majority of the military supports Ron Paul, don’t buy in to that shit. I know plenty of officers and enlisted men and of those only 2 are supporting Paul (both characterized themselves as libertarians to begin with).
14 years ago at 4:41 pm^This Tribesman thank you for not being a complete ignorant ass and getting statistics from Ron Paul videos. I know one officer and that is it who supports PAul, other than that most actually support Santrorum. Then Id say its a race between Perry and Bachman. Paul isn’t even talked about. After all he wants to throw half of us out of a job and for the rest cut our pay and benefits like the Democrats. Not much better than any democrat right now.
14 years ago at 4:47 pmI’m 100% convinced that lynchem abd tribesman are the same person
14 years ago at 6:00 pmWell sorry, you’re wrong about that one boss
14 years ago at 6:08 pmI’m 100% certain that you are a fucking moron and if TFM said it was cool to suck cock you would ask how many.
14 years ago at 6:40 pmWell in spite of your service to your country, gentlemen, your lack of global understanding is quite frankly alarming. While having experience on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan is quite laudable, unless you speak fluent Arabic, Pashto, Farsi, et al and have published a masters or doctorate level thesis on the ME, central Asia, northern Africa, or Indonesia, your experiences are quite limited and you lack the requisite knowledge to make any substantive judgments. People who make these decisions for a living AND have significant combat experience (much more than either of you) think that the War on Terror and the Patriot Act are counterproductive for national security and civil liberties.
14 years ago at 10:11 pm^Tell that to everyone I attended West Point with, my Dad who is a federal agent, and the countless other CIA and military people I’ve met and talked with.
Now, what school do you attend and what experience do you have in this field?
14 years ago at 12:13 amOh shit, I forgot to mention that I’m fluent in Arabic as well. Just wanted to throw that out there since I would otherwise “lack the requisite knowledge to make any substantive judgments” [regarding homeland security].
14 years ago at 12:18 amThis isnt a bullshit youtube ron paul propagnda stat, this it true, lookat every database. Here’s the most recent campaign stat: “2nd and 3rd Quarter campaign donations by Active Duty Millitary 2011” Santorum- 750$ (litterally not even 1% of Ron Pauls donations); Bachman- ~7,000$, Perry: ~7.300, RON PAUL- ~105,000$. This is litterally 8x the donations from the other three “Millitary favorites” you claim combined.
I understand you and your friends are neocons (and I dont use that term deliberately, most people on this are), and you assume that since you and the people you worked for whereever you were deployed hate Ron Paul’s policy, everyone else int he millitary hates it, but clearly thats not the case. Otherwise he wouldnt have gotten over 110x more money from the millitary compared to Santorum, the millitary favorite.
And for those critical of his stance on the Patriot Act, if you can find me one place int he Constitution where its justified, then Ill back off, but until that The Patriot Act is just like ObamaCare, something the extreme repubs/dems want, but is completely unjustified by the constitution. As Abe Lincoln said: Those who give up liberty for safety deserve neither.
14 years ago at 12:46 amAs i’ve said before, at the end of the day hardly anyone I know in the military gives two fucks about Ron Paul. I still think those “statistics” are bullshit, but I really don’t care because mark my words: he’s not going to win a goddamn thing. Secondly, if I have personally asked federal law enforcement officials if provisions under the PATRIOT act have helped them stop potential terrorist attacks and they tell me “absolutely” THEN SO FUCKING BE IT. I’m so sick of you mother fuckers whine about “ohhh my civil liberties are being trampled on” when in reality no one with a badge and a gun cares about your life or what phone calls you make to your loser ass friends at your loser ass school. You don’t know a goddamn thing about national security and you won’t learn until you stop quoting things said 150 years ago as justification for your beliefs today. Just wake the fuck up, 9/11 wasn’t really that long ago. Everyone here was alive for it.
14 years ago at 1:03 am^Most of us on this site care about things that happened and were said 150 years ago. Tradition and heritage are a big part of being in a fraternity. And more imortantly no one is upset about terrorists having their civil liberties trampled on, they are more concerned with the slippery slope this creates for the governement to eventually call any one it sees as a threat a “terrorist”. What if Newt is elected and decides that the creator of a Ron Paul support web site is a “terrorist”. It sounds far fetched but recently a supporter of Private Manning had his lap top,cell phone and other item’s taken from him with out a warrent just because some one saw him as a threat. He was in no way a threat to America. He simply apposed the government holding Manning with out a trial for so long.But this is the atmosphere created by the Patriot Act. If you give the government an inch they will go a mile and beyond. Think about it.
14 years ago at 4:02 amTribes, Im not that extreme in the sense that i give a shit about my phone being tapped, If it were up to me, Id say no, but I can live with that. The problem with the Patriot Act is the fact that a fair amount of American citizens have had their houses searched without a warrant, or been detained without even knowing what for. I guarantee you for every potential terrorist the patriot act has helped find, 5 more innocent Americans have had their lives drastically effected, because of it. Obviously Im very against terrorism, and very fearful of another attack, but I think its uneffective, and just a slippery slope, as mentioned above, for the government to start abusing their power.
If both parties just went by the Constitution, there’d be minimal discrepancy between the two, and our nation would accomplish so much more. But both parties are completely immature, and think that, because Bush invaded Iraq w/o a declaration, and passed the unconstitutional patriot act, that the democrats oughta be able to get health care to make it “fair” (Ive litterally had this discussion with a liberal)
14 years ago at 11:40 amAnd Ill admit, his chances to win the GOP nomination are very slim, but I think everyone knows that. As a Paul supporter, what Id like to see happen is someone like Bachman or Santorum get elected (that stands no chance of winning the moderates support) and then Obama run again (whose hated by most Americans now) and then Ron Paul run as a third party, and I think he has a decent chance at winning. Ron Pauls supporters are really die hard, I know at my campus in North Florida (a typically republican area) everyone hates Obama and the Gop candidates, so theyre all hue Ron Paul supporters.
14 years ago at 11:44 amApparently you lack the requisite reading comprehension skills. Speaking arabic is great. You have that masters or PhD level thesis sitting around, I’d love to read it. Getting involved in the middle east, especially Iraq, wasn’t exactly a great idea since we basically created a new breeding ground for terrorists. While I also love terrorists to be blown sky high, the reason terrorism is effective is because it cons people into trading liberty for security, a false sense of security in this instance. The Patriot Act is so counter to the American way of life and the limited government that you portend to espouse it’s laughable that you try.
14 years ago at 7:08 pmFratanomics, I’m still curious as to what school you attend(ed) because you seem quite cocky yet no professionals I know actually working in this field seem to have a huge problem. But aside from that, what are your specific issues with the PATRIOT act? I’m wondering because I want you to get it right, not hop on this “my civil liberties are trampled” bandwagon that seems about as “hip” as liking Ron Paul. So please, outline your concerns regarding the act and the specific portions of it you find unconstitutional and perhaps we can go from there.
14 years ago at 12:47 amI’m not going to keep up a conversation over a TFM thread. If you want to e-mail me send it to fratanomics (@) gmail.com. And of course your dad and other professionals, it makes their jobs significantly easier by allowing them to sidestep things that *should* make it more difficult to do their jobs. Just because something makes it easier doesn’t make it easier or better.
14 years ago at 10:21 amI expected that kind of response. Tell ya what, you’ll get an e-mail from me when Ron Paul loses. Other than that if you aren’t willing to post your specific issues with the act here for everyone that’s been discussing this to see, my work is done
14 years ago at 11:59 amIt’s significantly easier to communicate via email and you can even post the results on the TFM website. Writing a page long critique of the Patriot Act and the War on Terror isn’t something TFM is meant for.
14 years ago at 12:03 pmMy request was simple: what portions of the PATRIOT act do you find troubling and unconstitutional? Paraphrase if you want, we don’t need to over think it with detailed explanation. I’ve studied the law enough to recognize and understand whatever issues you see with it.
14 years ago at 4:09 pm1 National security letters – subpoena requiring no probably cause and has no judicial oversight. Also contains a gag order. Horrible chance for abuse by anyone in the DHS sphere of influence (DoD, CIA, NSA, FBI). This has been hugely abused to retain illegally gathered information.
2) Retroactive warrants – why on gods green earth do these even need to exist if warrantless surveillance is allowed?
3) Detainment of material witnesses with no access to lawyers
4) Use of warrantless searches for prosecution instead of intelligence gathering
5) Provisions that ban advising or helping terrorist organizations are worded so poorly that one could get in trouble for linking to an Osama release message. I doubt the FNC people would like to be arrested for airing 30 seconds of saying “down with the infidels.” It’s an example of good idea, bad execution.
6) It’s also been used to prosecute people on charges that weren’t related to terrorism (aka it’s whole fucking purpose).
I have plenty more. If you want the rest, feel free to email me.
14 years ago at 6:55 pmKinda what I thought
14 years ago at 12:21 pmAs fas as he NSLs go I don’t have a problem because it restricts acquisition of content so essentially whatever agent is checking in to it is just looking for call records to a particular foreign phone number deemed “hot”. I don’t see the point in bringing up retroactive warrants on the basis of “why do we need these?”. Its always good ti have the paper trail if possible. The one thing i’ll agree with you on is that detaining someone who is a material witness, even in a terrorism case, seems excessive. However, thats not something that happens often and when it does its usually under good reasoning. Whatever you said about warrantless searches for prosecution is bullshit, give me examples. And as far as prosecuting people on charges “not related to terrorism” i have not heard hat so if you have some examples i’d like to see. Also some examples on how this act has affected your life, other than protecting it, would be great.
So yeah sorry that took so fucking long, lets just say I forgot about this discussion over the new years weekend until some NF west coast dumbass said something about this on another thread. And no, “thats what I thought”. You raised some good points but nothing was that hard to respond to as you have yet to provide good examples and merely relied on speculation of what the govt could do.
14 years ago at 12:50 pmNSLs are not just restricted to phone numbers. They can also pull bank transaction numbers, email addresses, etc…. Furthermore they aren’t restricted to foreigners. Anyone under the DHS umbrella can send them, and that means CIA is using resources for internal matters, which goes counter to its entire mission. The FBI already got caught monitoring entire communities (eg Arabs in Detroit and other cities) instead of just individuals. They are gathering information on everyone related to the suspect and then not disposing of the data. The DOD is only allowed to pull financial records of DoD personnel, but it’s using the FBI to pull this information on civilians and foreign nationals. They are basically a blank information check the DoD can cash whenever it wants. Separation of powers exists for a reason.
Retroactive warrants? Do I really need to explain why a retroactive warrant is a bad thing? It completely destroys 4th amendment and right to privacy. If the FBI can’t even come up with minimal evidence to get a warrant, which no FISA os PA court has ever denied, they aren’t doing their job in the first place. Arresting and charging someone with no evidence gets thrown out of court for a reason. Given the not even minimal requirements for a warrant, this is inexcusable. Nazis and the KGB used retroactive warrants in their kangaroo courts. Rule of law exists for a reason. A paper trail needs to exist before the arrest so that people won’t get arbitrarily arrested and kept in detention. There’s a reason why Congress gets a free pass on minors crimes — so that politically influenced police can’t arrest them and keep them from voting. This is a direct result of grievances from medieval England. If 12th century English nobles can get it right, 21st century Americans should too.
Hell the FBI got reamed for looking into books checked out in public libraries.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/mar/09/usa – massive FBI abuse of NSLs
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/22/nyregion/22bioart.html – Art professor charged with acquiring biological terrorism agents he had used in art exhibits and were completely not harmful to anyone as determined by the CDC
Honestly the Patriot Act hasn’t affected my life. I’m an upper class white male who’s not exactly prone to treason or terrorism, so I’m not exactly a target of interest. What I am, however, is interested in making sure rights afforded to Americans don’t get eroded because we won’t ever get them back. And yes, the scum sucking terrorists are afforded every bit as much protection as the average US citizen as long as they are on our soil. Most of the people investigated and prosecuted are American citizens. FISA was more than enough. Patriot Act is an unprecedented assault on the rights of Americans. No one had seen anything like this since the Alien and Sedition Acts, which were found unconstitutional have been seen as such ever since.
14 years ago at 10:34 pmAlright boss, well at some point were just going to have to agree to disagree on this one. People have varying views of what security measures are necessary, this day in age at least. I still don’t have a problem with NSLs considering they’re still content restricted no matter what form. As far as retroactive warrants, at least they’re putting something on paper! I can promise you that no matter what laws are in place the CIA will always tail who they want, when they want. The article about the artist or whatever was pretty funny, but we have to take it for what’s worth considering he did come in to possession of illegal substances. To be honest here, the law is always going to be interpreted. Hell, even your bud Ron Paul will tell you the constitution is never crystal clear. To me it always seems the “trampling my civil liberties” mess is blown hugely out of proportion. Even before the PATRIOT act there were always instances of law enforcement officials having mishaps, arresting people who were innocent, etc. I don’t think our country would be safe if we did away with the whole PATRIOT act because it has been an invaluable tool in stopping numerous attacks. So I guess what it comes down to is finding that balance. Are we willing to continue bitching about a law that was put in place to save American lives? We’re not living in some insane police state, we don’t need to liken this to Nazi Germany. If 0.00001% of the country’s population has been so inconvenienced by a law that has saved lives then I just can’t have a problem with it, same as Bush, Obama, and everyone else renewing it. Anyway, if you are gonna reply again go to the “so now that Cain and Perry are out…” forum in discussions up top.
14 years ago at 3:08 amRon Paul 2012!!
14 years ago at 3:39 pmAlthough I agree with majority of this video is whole argument against Racism is flawed. Lincoln wouldn’t recognize the Republican party because he fought for federal authority over the states which isn’t exactly small government, but all in all good video.
14 years ago at 4:03 pmexactly the parties did switch and he simply cant deny that conservatism = no change liberalism = change
13 years ago at 10:52 pmending of slavery = change therefore 19th century democrats = conservative
wanting to federally ban slavery thus increasing central power = liberalist therefore = 19th century republicans = liberalist and now its flip flopped
This was incredible.
14 years ago at 4:07 pmJustifying Fascism. Take a lap.
14 years ago at 5:42 pmHe wasn’t justifying fascism, he was explaining what it is and why calling republicans fascist is totally ridiculous.
Lace’em up.
14 years ago at 7:15 pmBeing Retarded. NF.
14 years ago at 7:20 pmRon Paul 2012
14 years ago at 6:16 pmmy balls just got tingly
14 years ago at 6:33 pmRon Paul 2012
14 years ago at 7:10 pmquoting MLK in a republican rant, FaF or NF?
14 years ago at 7:21 pmFAF
14 years ago at 7:49 pmYeah, he pulled that maneuver off quite effortlessly.
14 years ago at 11:58 pmIf you didn’t already know any of this, get off this site
14 years ago at 7:27 pm^
14 years ago at 8:58 pm