daz28

You sure like to twist things. I said people shouldn't have to be told what's the greater good, I gave you examples. You'd think people might be smart enough to see it when it's right in front of them, but we've become the nation of me/greed. I also said, like you said, that it's our job to not allow them to. Nature/God is subjective. I know you probably don't think it is, but all people have different perspective on what their God is and what their nature is.

Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan

No, I said we shouldn't have to be told when it's ok to break from it, and we should be holding them accountable not to take advantage of that fact

Made up wars for one, two, and three

I'm just curious if when we were being fed weapons of mass destruction, were many of you this adamant that it was a hoax? Were you furious with the Patriot Act? That we were wrong but Sadaam was a "bad guy" anyways? Halliburton, destabilizing the region for all the wrong reason leading to trillions of wasted dollars, and countless American lives? IF so I applaud you, because I sure was, but that's only one little snippet of time. I could write a book about all the terrible things our government has done to us in my lifetime.

I disagree that it's the biggest scandal ever, and I hold that there's 10 worse that we never even knew about, but you're absolutely right. It IS our job to hold our government accountable, but we've failed the last 100 scandals to do so. The assault rifle was invented in 1944, and so far it has had zero effect on government accountability. Maybe I'm the grim face of reality, and most of you won't like that, but I've already mentally been where most of you are now a long time ago. I also don't care what people think, so it works for me. I certainly like people standing up for their liberty, but too many only think they know what it really looks like. Should you stand up for the rights of all Americans, or just the ones we agree with? Maybe that's an area that we failed in, while we were distracted by our division. The big picture is a lot bigger than we think it is. A lot That happens to most Americans, and lawyers have been exploiting it for a looong time.

Here's the thing. The Constitution is certainly predicated on common sense. It cannot possibly be a document of absolutes, because NOTHING can be written to cover every single possible outcome. To believe that's possible would be to say that it could have only been written by God himself(who's made a few mistakes of his own). When it comes time for the greater good of the people to override it during and emergency, the Constitution shouldn't have to be amended. No one should have had to tell dumbasses not to yell fire causing people to trample others. If we know there's a hydrogen bomb somewhere on this block on 5th avenue, we shouldn't have to have any high school dropout Constitutional scholars at their front door saying, "where's your warrant". I get that you can't trust the government, and I certainly don't, but that's not time to be playing that card. We gotta get through this thing sensibly, and preferably as a united country. No one really knows what this enemy is, but rest assured it is real. The other enemy that existed before this was a divided nation, and it's a shame we remain one throughout this.

There's two types of scumbags. The ones who use the government to get rich, and those who are smarter than them is there any happily ever after scenario you can envision? I'm sorry if I'm jaded, but only an idiot wouldn't be

The only reason the greedy bloodsucking lawyers didn't steal every penny from the Cares act is because there's so many of them that they attacked the easy pickins like piranhas, which alerted the dummies who wrote it to their folly. They re-wrote it, then they gave some of the money back. Good thing we had eagle eye stable genius doing oversight.

Given the trajectory, I think I have the dumb and dumber "so you're saying there's a chance" chance

The thing with the Patriot Act is that people like Trumps lawyers love that stuff. It's never been interpreted, so bend and twist it like silly putty, and let the courts sort it out 8 years from now. As we speak, the quickly written Cares act is being laughed at by lawyers exploiting it who are 10x the law scholars that the people who wrote it are. They're pulling apples off the tree like they own it. I'd have liked to have started trying sometime around 1960

Both parties are currently using every tool in the book to maintain power. I think it's almost comical that anyone thinks any of it will ever change. It's only going to get worse. A prosecution might give the illusion of justice, but it's not like they're all gonna be good boys and girls after that. It will be a sacrificial lamb

Not even one part of the Patriot Act was even allowed to be questioned. You would have been McCarthied if you voted against it.

It gave extreme latitude, because it was thrown together with no debate. It basically says f the Constitution Pretty much

Not as heavy as you'd think. It's the biggest breach of the Constitution EVER You have a new notification billsfan1959 quoted you in a topic- DOJ Appoints Robert Mueller as Special Couns.url Surveillance

1. I wouldn't be shocked if FBI covered up for FBI. I wouldn't be shocked if military covered up for military. 2. They could have very easily went this route

It's Patriot Act

This is just an example of will the real deep state stand up. We all know the whole government is thick as thieves, that's why I don't buy the deep state talk.

Unchecked power The result is unchecked government power to rifle through individuals' financial records, medical histories, Internet usage, bookstore purchases, library usage, travel patterns, or any other activity that leaves a record. Making matters worse: The government no longer has to show evidence that the subjects of search orders are an "agent of a foreign power," a requirement that previously protected Americans against abuse of this authority. The FBI does not even have to show a reasonable suspicion that the records are related to criminal activity, much less the requirement for "probable cause" that is listed in the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. All the government needs to do is make the broad assertion that the request is related to an ongoing terrorism or foreign intelligence investigation. Judicial oversight of these new powers is essentially non-existent. The government must only certify to a judge - with no need for evidence or proof - that such a search meets the statute's broad criteria, and the judge does not even have the authority to reject the application. Surveillance orders can be based in part on a person's First Amendment activities, such as the books they read, the Web sites they visit, or a letter to the editor they have written. A person or organization forced to turn over records is prohibited from disclosing the search to anyone. As a result of this gag order, the subjects of surveillance never even find out that their personal records have been examined by the government. That undercuts an important check and balance on this power: the ability of individuals to challenge illegitimate searches.

I'm guessing Horowitz is in on it too.

I already said it didn't apply to FISA warrants, but it makes surveillance a guarantee if you go that route.

That's hardly proof, especially if the lawyers were in on the whole thing. That doesn't make sense. It's the legal equivalent of OJ's lawyer planting the glove that acquitted.

I'm not taking a side, but didn't the Patriot Act pretty much make a judge cooperate no matter what. I'm not saying for a FISA warrant, but they could have taken that route if they wanted to.

Is there documented proof of this? I know it's old stuff, but I really didn't follow it much.

It's not that they're good, they just know how to tie everything up in court for eternity. They know the system better than they know the law.