Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin
I just checked the original vote on the Patriot Act. As you said it passed the Senate practically unanimously by a vote of 98-1. It passed the House by a vote of 357-66 as you said. That is pretty overwhelming and shows absolue bi-partisan support. I think that is nonsense that most Congressmen did not read it or were not aware of its contents. It was passed agian last year with a few minor chnages and it passed overwhelmingly with bi-partisan support. Your argumnet is ridiculous that the congressmen had no time to read it. How do you explain it passing so overwhelmingly last year after congressmen had 5 years to read it?
With regard to the media, you have it totally backwards. For years we had a media that was way left of center. I think the polls showed that over 90% of the media labeled themselves as liberal democrats. There was a huge liberal bias in the media. Now we have Fox News that is a little right of center, and you think that is awful. It's hilarious. Fox is no further right than the mainstream media has been to the left over the years. At least with Fox, all of their shows have guests from both sides. O'Reilly is definitely well right of center but he constantly brings on guests that are way left of center and debates them. What is wrong with that? Both sides get their say. Not only that, at least Fox News has plenty of liberal hosts and anchors. Geraldo is a democrat. Gretta is a democrat. Allan Colmes is a democrat. Name me a republican anchor at CBS, NBC, or ABC. There are so few republican reporters in the mainstream media that it is ridiculous.
I find it amusing that many liberals see Fox News as so far right-wing and yet they don't even recognize how left-wing the mainstream media is. You are so used to the left-wing media that when a news organization(Fox) comes along that is a little right of center, you think it's some crazy right-wing propaganda. It's hilarious.
By the way, if you're an American, you can't be deported for knowing a terrorist. I think you misunderstood that part. That only applies to people that are here on visas.
By the way, you are wrong about the Constitution. The Constitution specifically says that certain rights cannot be guaranteed during war time or emergencies.
|
Rupert, you claimed the PATRIOT Act was written by Congress, which is wasn't. In addition, the Constitution does not contain an "emergency power" or "suspension" clause other than the clause allowing limited suspension of habeas corpus-- BUT-- that power is granted to CONGRESS, not the President (Article 9, Section 1). And it's been the White House, without Congressional knowledge in many cases, who has been orchestrating the secret prisons, the torture, etc. etc. Not that there haven't been cases decided in favor of eroding civil liberties, but the decisions weren't found in the Constitution.
The Patriot Act is 340 pages. The Senate was given just three days to read the bill before voting on it. Two days after the Sept. 11 attacks, Sen. Orrin Hatch found a pending appropriations bill due for a vote, and tacked on a slew of amendments servings as a sort of precursor to the Patriot Act — again, giving the Senate no time to actually read and discuss them.
You really think all 98 people who voted for the PATRIOT Act read it in its entirety and had time to consider it? In three days? But do you think they'd admit to it? And what does that say if they didn't vote to renew? Oh, gee, now that I've had a chance to actually read the thing I think I was wrong? Although some did-- the vote went 280-138 in the House and 89-10 in the Senate. (This year, by the way, not last year. It failed last year.)
In fact, Congress NOT reading legislation they have passed has gotten so bad several organizations are pushing for legislation that will require Congressmen and women to sign legal affadavits that they've read what they voted on. I kid you not. Fat chance seeing it passed, of course.
If you think mainstream media is liberal-- I don't even know how to address this one (I'm sure your Fox KoolAid is deeelicious, though!). Yes, many reporters identify as politically liberal. They aren't the ones who decide what stories get reported. It's the editors and the owners, who tend to identify as conservative. It doesn't matter one whit what political way you lean if you don't have the authority to decide what gets on the air.
And Colmes, or any of the other straw dogs Fox offers as "liberal viewpoints?" Oh please. I could stick a dildo on a desk next to Chris Matthews and claim it was a "Republican commentator" but that doesn't mean that it's going to be any good at commentating. If you can't see that they find the most incompetent idiots for O'Reilly to shout at and bully, you're kidding yourself (You call that debate? What he does?). But how can they claim to be "fair and balanced" unless they pretend to be giving both sides? Please. Oldest trick in the book, next to "Look at the monkey!" Call me when Fox puts on Joan Walsh or Sidney Blumenthal or someone good. I won't hold my breath.
Geraldo? Gimme a break. I can't believe you even typed that in any seriousness. It'd be like me assuming your Ann Coulter is the best you right-wingers can offer. Unfair and untrue of me to do so. Geraldo. Right. 'Fess up-- you meant that as a joke, right?
Please feel free to give me any examples of major news outlets showing a clear liberal bias in their reporting. As you have said, best to deal in facts and not opinions.
What, just because Section 411 doesn't apply to citizens, that makes it okay?
Thanks Rupert, as always, for the opposing view! Makes me do my homework, which I appreciate.
