I think I speak for everyone when I say "NO s***, SHERLOCK!

Why is it a "Patriot Act" when it removes your rights under the Bill of Rights, which actual Patriots fought and died for?

This government needs turnover in a big way.

it's not a "Patriot Act" but "PATRIOT Act" where PATRIOT is an acronym which stands for
"Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism"

It has NOTHING to do with patriotism, in fact the opposite. Bills are commonly chosen to have such misleading names on purpose.

Personally, I think this whole Patriot Act is just plain stupid.

Buncha whining liberal freaks!

Your absolute right to privacy extends all the way to the end of your nose ... not over a million miles of network where my grandchildren can see your disgusting and illegal perversions.

The "people" who complain the loudest are those who are stealing the fruits of someone else's labors and filthy porn.

When you affect ME or MINE in any way, you have left your private realm and have stepped into the real world - where we have laws for this reason.

Crawl back in your mom's dirty little basements where you will all probably live (and masturbate furiously) forever!

What are you even talking about? You are sounding like Miss Teen South Carolina responding to the final question in Miss Teen USA.

Are yur grandchildren h0t??? ;)

they need to strike it all down.

Your grandchildren should stop typing in "naked people doing filthy things" into google.

Or just rip off the P, O, R, and N keys from the keyboard and you should be good to go!

Back to your belfry you crazy old bat.

vote for the constitution, vote Ron Paul :)

repeal the whole damn PATRIOT Act.

I wish Fred Thompson had gotten in sooner. I believe he greatly damaged his chances by waiting so long. I can understand wanting to avoid the media circus the others have been creating, but...

...and I just can't vote for someone with two first names. :p

RuPaul is just a guy trying to blow up the system. What we need is a savvy leader, not a guy hellbent on removing free trade and ignoring the rest of the world. I'd take Hillary over RuPaul, and that's not saying much.

And L&O Fred? He's just your TV-image that isn't far from Pat Robertson. Stick a fork in him; he's done.

This is going to be between Rudy and McCain vs Obama-Edwards, or maybe Obama-Hillary... depends on if Obama wants to win or lose.

What we need is a leader strong enough to do and say what needs to be done. A leader who will live up to his oath of office, follow the constitution, and restore our rights.

Ron Paul advocates free trade, so I'm not sure what you're talking about there. He also does not advocate ignoring the world, but a non-interventionlist foreign-policy. i.e. no needless wars.

Now if we could only get the courst to prosecute the Attorney General for violating both the laws and the constitution. I am glad that someone has finally got the back bone to stand up for what is right and to say the Attorney General and the CIA and etc are wrong and violated the rights of citizens. Crying terrorist all the time is getting old. The worst terrorists are the crooked members of government that pass laws daily that harm the people, environment, and American dream. I wish we could fire them all and make PACs and lobbying illegal.

How dare you speak your mind about your own government?! That's un-American and you should be ashamed of yourself. Anyone who disagrees with the Bush administration is supporting terrorism. It's people like you who cause orange alerts and bomb threats. Seriously though, anybody remember The Dixie Chicks getting chastised for speaking out against George W. Bush? Freedom of speech is awesome, isn't it?

At least the Dixie Chicks didn't all meet prison or death for what they said. If they were in China or were Chinese and said the same things about that gonvernment, they would have met a much worse fate than everyone crying foul.

That's why freedom of speech is great. You don't have to be right, although not having the popular point of view definitely counts against you. Also, with freedom of speech, if you dare speak your mind against your place of employment, you'll be fired faster than George Bush can spell "American" (actually, maybe 10 seconds faster ... I imagine he'd have a bit of difficulty with that one)

Freedom of Speech isn't always easy, but if it's persistent enough, it usually wins.

The Dixie Chicks are actually looking smarter by the day. I think it was for PR at the time, but they sure are ending up on the right side of things.

They will just appeal it to the Supreme Court and they will smack the hand of this court.

Yup, it's always nice to own a court. Why, they can get you elected, even when you don't win the popular vote and they are real handy to legitimize most anything you decide to do, whether against legal precedence or not.

You do know the popular vote has little significance in a a presidential election, don't you?

not trying to be an a** or anything, a lot of people seem to be under that impression.

The pedia...YMMV

The United States Electoral College is a term used to describe the 538 Presidential Electors who meet quadrennially to cast the electoral votes for President and Vice President of the United States; their votes represent the most important component of the presidential election. The Presidential Electors are elected by the "popular vote" on the day traditionally called "election day." Presidential Electors meet in their respective state capitol buildings (or in the District of Columbia) 41 days following "election day," never as a national body. At the 51 meetings, held on the same day, the Electors cast the electoral votes. The "electoral college," like the national convention, is an indirect element in the process of electing the President.

Absolutely! In fact, when I was in school, you didn't get out of the eighth grade until you passed a written U.S. Constitution test...including the writing of the Preamble, with all spelling and punctuation correctly done....naming all of the Amendments to the Constitution in order of passage, terms of office and succession in the event of the death of a President, qualifications for the Executive Branch, Supreme Court and Congress. I remember one 16 year old who was still in the eighth grade, because he couldn't pass it. In those days, they were more concerned about learning that a kid's self-esteem.

Personally, I think the Electoral College has outlived it's usefulness. It was very important, when we had couriers traveling by horseback, but today, is far from necessary. That's just my opinion, however.

But, I guess my point really was that a group of judges actually decided the 2000 Presidential election and at that point, perhaps a popular vote was more legitimate.

remember we are a republic not a democracy. The right to vote is not in the constitution. The main reason for it was to keep the system free of the potential tyrany of the majority which is a consiquence of true democracy. Whether or not that applies today is debatable. Though I would be very careful with it.
useful link

http://thismatter.com/Articles/Voting.htm

when I was in school, you didn't get out of the eighth grade until you passed a written U.S. Constitution test...including the writing of the Preamble, with all spelling and punctuation correctly done....naming all of the Amendments to the Constitution in order of passage, terms of office and succession in the event of the death of a President, qualifications for the Executive Branch, Supreme Court and Congress

Ahhh...the good old days. People were actually taught this in school. What happened?

If any of you think you have privacy on the internet you have another thing coming. Unless your traffic is encrypted it's like sending a post card. Anyone in the route can look at it. And if you know of anyone who has been spied on by the government that shouldn't of and can prove it please let me know.

First they have to know you're there..... ;-)

Parts? The whole damn thing.....

Luckily something like this could never happen in Canada now since we have privacy Laws that would preclude anything like this bit of nonsense. Americans seem to be their own worse enemy.

"Americans seem to be their own worse enemy."

See this is where one of us would likely flame the piss out of you. I'm gonna have to agree with you though. This country is truly screwed up.

"...something like this could never happen [where I live] since we have privacy laws that would preclude anything like this bit of nonsense."

Yeah, we all think that at one point or another. "It could never happen here" is an often incorrect and dangerous mentality.

It's hard for me not to laugh every time I see the phrase "Patriot Act" anywhere on the internet. There is nothing more "patriotic" than giving up your civil liberties like privacy and the right to due process. All in the name of fighting "evil doers" and terrorists who could strike at any minute. What's worse is that a lot of Americans see nothing wrong with their own government spying on and controlling every aspect of their lives without being able to be held liable for any of it. Boy, I'm sure glad I don't live in the "land of the free".

A friend of mine likes to say that it should be called the "Surveillance Act"

They can't call it something like that! Then all the American sheep wouldn't go for it. They have to name it something that sounds American or makes you feel like you're doing it for your country. The Bald Eagle Act or AMERICA F**K YEAH ACT! (Team America World Police reference)

Check out this film on GOVERNMENT SPONSORED TERROR

http://video.google.com/...ocid=786048453686176230

Don't forget your tinfoil hat.

hahahaha! perfect!

PC_Tool - the only problem with having a judge that has read and knows the constitution is the fact that the original authors had no conception of modern society and what it would bring. Peoples rights are not being trampled on here like everyone seems to think. I'm pretty libertarian in my views and I sure don't fear it. But then I'm not doing anything unlawful either. Thats the only people that should have any fear. But I'm sure others will disagree, that it's just the beginning of the end. BAH... As it is the government isn't doing enough of anything to protect the people. They do alot of song and dance and put on a really poor show.

The problem is not that you are doing something unlawful, since I agree that if you are breaking the law then you should be held responsible for your actions.

The problem is the old saying "absolute power corrupts absolutely".

If the government can lawfully seize any records without our judiciary system knowing, then they could easily abuse their power to gain all sorts of information not related to criminal cases.

Unfortunately the history of our government shows we should not trust them absolutely, and that our liberties should be vigorously defended.

The constitution also defines the separation of powers, and an executive branch unchecked is dangerous. This president has continuously tried to consolidate power into one man.

I believe the original workers of the constitution wrote the balance of powers language to specifically prevent that. After all, they were trying to get away from a monarchy and put the power in the hands of the people.

"But then I'm not doing anything unlawful either. Thats the only people that should have any fear."

That's a fairly ridiculous idea. You're implying that, as long as you're doing nothing illegal, you should have no problem with your own government monitoring your every action and invading your privacy. I remember a decade or two ago when Americans were speaking out against Russia doing the same thing to their citizens. It was unfathomable to do such a thing, but now that America is doing it, it's perfectly fine.

I sure don't fear it. But then I'm not doing anything unlawful either. Thats the only people that should have any fear.

Sorry. My rights. I am guaranteed them. The Government is sworn to uphold them. Any variation of that is unlawful and unconstitutional and *will* result in the "beginning of the end" as you put it.

Too many people have forgotten the effort, lives and unwavering intent of the thousands of people who helped to create and defend the Constitution and the limits that places on our Government with respect to our inalienable rights.

It should be as *unthinkable* to anyone in the US today to allow, or even conceive of such legislation that would impinge upon those rights as it would have been to the framers and defenders of those rights from the day they began drawing up that piece of paper.

I can only imagine that were they around today they'd be utterly grief-stricken with inconsolable disappointment and utterly enraged at how we've abused and neglected our duty to uphold them.

You're absolutely right about our rights being guaranteed. I think one point being missed is the concept of "checks and balances." That's as critical as the guarantee of certain rights. Once we do away with checks and balances, as we've been doing in recent years, there is nothing left of our Constitution but a "store front." Repeatedly, the Founding Fathers wrote about the needs of checks and balances and about the only deterrent of a government gone out of control.

Quote from the judge found in the write up on Ars Technica (Containing much more information, for those who like, ya know...information):

"The Constitution was designed so that the dangers of any given moment would never suffice as justification for discarding fundamental individual liberties or circumscribing the judiciary's unique role under our governmental system in protecting those liberties and upholding the rule of law."

Finally. A judge who's actually read the Constitution. Now, if we could just get a few folks in Congress to read it, we'd be set...

I agree with you. Unfortunetly we have a President who tries to rewrite our Constitution. Ashcroft was another one (I still remember the commercial they had of him doing that).

While I believe it is justifiable to limit the restrictions on monitoring foreigners in our country, I do not believe it should apply to or be used on US citizens. The only issue here is that the telecommunications system is a *public* utility, and therefore should probably not be thought of as "private".

Worse, I think, is a Congress that somehow believes it has Executive Powers to mandate troop movements and military activity they have already approved.

As has just been proven to some degree, our Judiciary branch can exercise some balance when the Executive Branch steps out of line. it is, unfortunately, much harder for anyone to provide that kind of check within congress when they decide to start usurping Executive Powers such as control of the military, since it never hits the Judiciary.