26 Republicans stood up for the constitution and helped defeat this bill. Special thanks to the Democrats for finally fullfulling their promise to end this.
LOL at the neo-cons blaming the fail of this bill on the democrats. A piece of the constitution has been restored.
http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/02/08/house-unexpectedly-defeats-patriot-act
Yeah, I got an email about this. Congratulations guys.
[quote]Renewing that Patriot Act had certainly had wide support. 277 members voted in favor of the measure compared to just 148 nays.
But that’s short of the two-thirds supermajority. Which means the House defeated the bill.
With 425 members voting, 284 yea votes were necessary to cross the two-thirds threshold for passage. 26 Republicans voted against renewing the law.
…Eight Republicans whom the GOP regards as freshmen voted against the reauthorization. That’s precisely the number of yea votes Republicans needed to pass the bill.
[/quote]
It was fuckin’ close tho.
Time to set up another false flag attack.
Awesome!! Thanks Dems. It amazes me how many people have the mentality “If it keeps me safe it’s OK.” Fuck that. The Patriot Act is about spying on the American people. I guess it might help them catch a potentially harmful individual here and there, but it seems like every time they catch one of the terrorist cells the case is far from open and shut.
In my opinion, the juice isn’t worth the squeeze. Hopefully they can repeal the Patriot Act permanently and bulldoze the seventy something fusion centers that have accumulated so much of our personal information.
I was glad to see this go down. I was against it when it was passed under the Bush administration. There comes a time when you start to fear your own government more than terrorists and that time seemed to be rapidly approaching. Now that the Patriot Act was defeated I do feel better about my country. But, watch for its resurgence it’s not over yet.
Nice to see consistency from conservatives who think government should butt out of peoples’ lives. Those that voted for the Patriot Act were hypocrites who supported big government, but only when it serves their agenda.
I think what might be coming is an even worse one, a newer meaner Patriot Act, revised with additions they wish they had originally put it. I suppose you could call it Patriot Act 2.0.
I’m saying this b/c it wouldn’t surprise me one bit, not b/c I hope it comes to fruition, b/c I hope it doesn’t.
It isn’t over yet. Nice first step.
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
I think what might be coming is an even worse one, a newer meaner Patriot Act, revised with additions they wish they had originally put it. I suppose you could call it Patriot Act 2.0.
I’m saying this b/c it wouldn’t surprise me one bit, not b/c I hope it comes to fruition, b/c I hope it doesn’t.[/quote]
No they don’t need it anymore, with the net neutrality act, with control they have with the FCC and other regulatory bodies, they don’t need the laws in place, they can circumnavigate legislature.
I already feel less safe.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Nice to see consistency from conservatives who think government should butt out of peoples’ lives. Those that voted for the Patriot Act were hypocrites who supported big government, but only when it serves their agenda.[/quote]
The 26 that voted against it are the conservatives, the others are neo-conservatives.
But besides that I agree with everything you are saying.
[quote]doogie wrote:
I already feel less safe.[/quote]
Eeek, a mouse!
[quote]forlife wrote:
Nice to see consistency from conservatives who think government should butt out of peoples’ lives. Those that voted for the Patriot Act were hypocrites who supported big government, but only when it serves their agenda.[/quote]
The way the Patriot Act was put into place wasn’t exactly orthodox. When you say that martial law will ensue if you don’t vote for this, I think a lot of people wouldn’t be able to hold their water. Not defending conservatives or liberals, it was just a very non-kosher situation
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Nice to see consistency from conservatives who think government should butt out of peoples’ lives. Those that voted for the Patriot Act were hypocrites who supported big government, but only when it serves their agenda.[/quote]
The way the Patriot Act was put into place wasn’t exactly orthodox. When you say that martial law will ensue if you don’t vote for this, I think a lot of people wouldn’t be able to hold their water. Not defending conservatives or liberals, it was just a very non-kosher situation[/quote]
I cant help finding it very fishy that a law that contains in large parts ammendments to other laws that are very complex as a whole was drafted and passed within a mere 5-6 weeks while the country was in shock.
Now the Iraq plans seem to have been drawn up before 9-11 and I wonder whether the Patriot Act did not also exist before then.
[quote]AdamDrew wrote:
In my opinion, the juice isn’t worth the squeeze. [/quote]
Nice reference.
And I totally agree, I’m very happy about the failure for renewal. I also fail to understand or agree with the “if it keeps me safe it’s ok” mentality. “Those who would give up their essential Liberty for a modicum of false Security deserve neither Liberty nor Security”. Or something like that (paraphrasing from memory).
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
I think what might be coming is an even worse one, a newer meaner Patriot Act, revised with additions they wish they had originally put it. I suppose you could call it Patriot Act 2.0.
I’m saying this b/c it wouldn’t surprise me one bit, not b/c I hope it comes to fruition, b/c I hope it doesn’t.[/quote]
No they don’t need it anymore, with the net neutrality act, with control they have with the FCC and other regulatory bodies, they don’t need the laws in place, they can circumnavigate legislature.[/quote]
And btw, FUCK Net Neutrality. The 'net is the last medium that is still truly “free” in my opinion (of excessive regulation). I want it to stay that way.
congrats guys, I am happy for you:)
Not that I understand congressional procedures but:
“It’s unclear when the House will take the mulligan and try to pass the bill again. With 277 votes in favor of reauthorizing the Patriot Act, there is enough support to approve the bill under the traditional system that requires only a simple majority for passage.”
Not over.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
I think what might be coming is an even worse one, a newer meaner Patriot Act, revised with additions they wish they had originally put it. I suppose you could call it Patriot Act 2.0.
I’m saying this b/c it wouldn’t surprise me one bit, not b/c I hope it comes to fruition, b/c I hope it doesn’t.[/quote]
No they don’t need it anymore, with the net neutrality act, with control they have with the FCC and other regulatory bodies, they don’t need the laws in place, they can circumnavigate legislature.[/quote]
And btw, FUCK Net Neutrality. The 'net is the last medium that is still truly “free” in my opinion (of excessive regulation). I want it to stay that way.[/quote]
This is a little off topic but I need to satisfy my curiosity. Do you think it is fair for faceless nameless entities to attack a business or for that matter a public figure over the Internet? I don’t have a problem with it if people actually use their names, but it seems there should be a limit to what someone can allege without using their real name.
I don’t think the internet would be as much fun without some or complete anonymity.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
I think what might be coming is an even worse one, a newer meaner Patriot Act, revised with additions they wish they had originally put it. I suppose you could call it Patriot Act 2.0.
I’m saying this b/c it wouldn’t surprise me one bit, not b/c I hope it comes to fruition, b/c I hope it doesn’t.[/quote]
No they don’t need it anymore, with the net neutrality act, with control they have with the FCC and other regulatory bodies, they don’t need the laws in place, they can circumnavigate legislature.[/quote]
And btw, FUCK Net Neutrality. The 'net is the last medium that is still truly “free” in my opinion (of excessive regulation). I want it to stay that way.[/quote]
This is a little off topic but I need to satisfy my curiosity. Do you think it is fair for faceless nameless entities to attack a business or for that matter a public figure over the Internet? I don’t have a problem with it if people actually use their names, but it seems there should be a limit to what someone can allege without using their real name.
[/quote]
Do I think it’s fair? No. Would I tolerate a law to prohibit it? Absolutely not.