Trent

Where are you getting your info, Ted? Oh, hello again!

I won't argue this with you anymore. Take your objections about the definitions to the dictionary people. I notice you haven't argued that it fits with the definition of propaganda better than documentary though.... Oh, hello again!

Nope, couldn't find it in Section 2 or 5, which seem to most ruffle your feathers. Please quote where it says that and give me a link or something. .... but I did keep coming across things that definitely require a judges approval and prohibit investigations solely based on someone excercising their 1st amendment rights. Oh, hello again!

Ooohhh Ted, getting feisty! I'll go re-read, but like I said I can only remember that specific thing being in one spot. You made the statement, you defend it. I'll go do your homework for you. Oh, hello again!

So now dictionaries aren't valid for finding definitions? I got it. The definitions for skydiving are fine. Not all inclusive, but fine. I guess you just don't like the "FACTUAL and OBJECTIVE" parts of the definition... so you'll just redefine the word to make it work for you. Nice. Oh, hello again!

I only remember that being in one section of the act, but can't recall which one. Please reference where it says that. Oh, hello again!

Awww, didn't like that post? Go look them up yourself. Websters agrees. Or would you rather just take the Hollywood definition? http://www.dictionary.com http://www.m-w.com edit to add links. Oh, hello again!

Just something for you to chew on.... Now which one best describes F911? Oh, hello again!

It's simple, just don't wear socks... I go home with dry feet all the time! We should also throw down and visit the local fireworks stand and see how much shit we can blow up! Oh, hello again!

And a judge STILL has to okay it. Like I said, is it ALWAYS a good idea to let people know when they're being investigated? Especially when they can run, or warn others? And unless the evidence is damning, they'll get their lawyers when the judges decide if they can be held or not. Oh, hello again!

How easily you quip your one-liners without anything substantial to say other than the underlying "you disagree with ME, you must be wrong" attitude. Go read the act professor, you should be able to understand it. Oh, hello again!

This is for you too Ted... Actually it doesn't seem to, they have to still obtain warrants and give judges good reason for them, they just don't have to hit up a grand jury. No more than a court imposed gag order would violate it. Do you think it is smart to tell someone under suspicion of serious crimes that we're looking at him under the risk that he takes off or fails to lead us to more bad guys? There's a line, yes... again, the judges and senate still have a say in whether or not these things are approved. WRONG, in fact it SPECIFICALLY forbids this... go read it yourself. Again, at discretion of judges. The FBI doesn't get to to any of this without some form of external oversight. Got any more? Oh, hello again!

Actually it is the patriot act that is allowing the government to keep these guys right now. The judges are responding to the parts of the patriot act that allow it. I agree with them that these dudes should have rights to a lawyer, and should eventually be charged publicly. BUT, as long as the government is providing a good reason to the judges who haven't ordered their release, hold em till we're ready. From BillVon: I don't think they're in the business of dominating our lives and the world, no. As far as taxes being temporary... well, what elected congress passed that? It'd take the same to make the Patriot Act permanent. Write your congressman. From Kev: I take my liberties seriously, but then again I'm not doing anything to get the government mad at me. I'd still like someone to directly point out parts of the Patriot Act (quote it) and tell how it REALLY tramples on our rights. I'm not if favor of releasing people who have a high probability of being a terrorist because we're still making a case against them. Oh, hello again!

I don't think the current administration is really "out to steal our liberties". I think that some people may have a problem with giving authorities some tools they could use to help fight a battle. Remember, the patriot act is not permanent and must be renewed by congress. To your point, I read that opinion this morning. You don't see the judges signing orders to release those 2 fuckers do you? As we've said before the patriot act isn't a blank check, read it closely. Oh, hello again!

I'm going to bed, let me know when you want to point out some specific clauses in there that bother you, Ted. Honestly, I'd like to see them becuase I may have totally overlooked them. Oh, hello again!

I'm not worried about whether or not someone's a politician. I'm worried that so many people can accuse so many others of being hypocritical without seeing that they are themselves. I'll never stop holding people to what they say and I'll be just as pissed when a Republican or Democrat does it. A lot of people would love a president that doesn't really do much. No one's super happy, no one's super mad. Thankfully we've had presidents who had enough balls to do what they thought was right when we really needed it. (NOT naming names on purpose) Oh, hello again!

Actually that's not it at all. More like the cop-out defense, "I had no idea that slapping him in the face may cause him to defend himself. He hurt me! Gimme money." Oh, hello again!

No, I asked a specific question about what people think. Really wanting an answer... not rhetoric. I guess I should have started a poll then with only 2 options. Oh, hello again!

So I guess you dislike Kerry and Hillary as much as Bush then... right? We can always write in someone for president. Oh, hello again!

To be specific... a lot of libraries are publicly funded. So the librarian knows what you're reading, are you against that? Blockbuster knows what I'm renting and if subpoenaed, they'd give it to the feds. The patriot act doesn't REALLY change that. Who's labelling people who don't like the Patriot Act "un-American"? The 99% of congress who voted for it? I've never said that myself, I just don't think that it is really worth all the hype. I could be wrong, but I don't see any NEW ways of surveillance or permissions granted. Just expediting the same things they could always do if they needed to. But I asked for specific sections that you, or someone, could show me that really really gives me something that is worthy of all the excitement. Maybe it's in there, I didn't read all of it, just the parts that seemed pertinent. I do not notice that the government is watching me any more now then they were 5 years ago. Oh, hello again!

I just never got why people would deliberately "push someone's buttons" and then get mad, hurt, offended when they got the exact response they were looking for. Oh, hello again!

Yes, you do have what I said wrong. I said I'd avoid doing things in a way that might encourage badguys. I can ask questions without screaming that the US is bad and horrible. Oh, hello again!

Ted, you're really hyped up about all this. Good for you, now go do some of the research for yourself instead of letting some of the "less-than-balanced" websites you've listed think for you. I scanned through parts of the act from your original link. Basically it expedites getting permission to investigate people in time sensitive cases, particularly in phone and email cases, or in cases where large sums of money are being moved often. Basically, all the prying that the feds are doing is STILL subject to review, either by judge and/or by the senate in semi-annual reviews. And in most cases, it looks like it applies to existing cases where they can't file a public petition for security reasons. It also SPECIFICALLY prohibits any persocution of anyone, citizen or not, for exercising their 1st amendment rights. To answer a couple of your questions (too many posts, not enough time): No, I don't care if the government knows what books I've checked out at the library. They can't do anything about it even when they know, and they still need to answer to someone as to why they're interested in me. Holding US citizens without representation? Where? Is that those guys captured in Afghanistan? That doesn't bother me either in that case. I'd still like to know what freedoms have been stolen from me. If you have something good, at this point, please reference the section of law that limits that freedom so that I may know EXACTLY what you're referring to. It'll just save time, and put the responsibility of reading the damn thing closely on both of us. Oh, hello again!

Calm down, Mike. Re-read the question, and then, INSTEAD of ranting about something I never said... try answering it. I asked hoping for honest answers, regardless of what I think. Oh, hello again!

I'll read through it, but you want to sum it up? Or should I just take for granted that this document removes my most sacred personal freedoms? I'll let you know what I think when I get through. Oh, hello again!