PDA

View Full Version : What do you think were they so scared of..




hazek
05-27-2011, 07:47 AM
Yesterday the 3 key provisions of the (anti)Patriot act were extended for another 4 years. Rand did us I big service in his fight for votes on his amendments and more debate and arguably achieved a small symbolic victory.

But at best it was a small symbolic victory. At worst I think the establishment got what they wanted with minimum damage caused by Rand.

Sure they cast two potentially haunting votes for their future reelection but I don't think they would have been elected to where they are today if they didn't know how to hide them being crooks and liars in the past, so I doubt these two votes are anything significant that a little bit of extra PR couldn't fix for them.

But what has me thinking and speculating is the fact that what they absolutely didn't want to happen is for the patriot act to expire, despite being well aware that it would get extended eventually. So what was the big deal? Why were they so scared? I mean Reid said "terrorits will be able to plot against US" if it expires but we all know that's a bunch BS and just a scare tactic. So what was the real reason?

What I'd like to do in this thread is I'd like to invite you to speculate with me what the establishment in the senate was really so scared of.

My speculations goes like this:
Even after promising debates and amendments they did their best to have as little or no debate as possible, just like when it was first passed, they didn't want any amendments restricting their power. I suspect the reason why they didn't want any debate is because most of the people don't have a clue what the (anti)Patriot act really is. Especially since anyone who is investigated does never find out about it. There are all these services that spy on people for the government and they are forbidden from letting anyone know about any of it.

I speculate that the reason that they wanted as little debate as possible and the reason why they were so afraid of letting it expire even if for just a day or even less is because in that short time period all those services could have let their customers know what is really going on and people could finally wake up to what is really happening.

I believe that angry people are far more threatening to them then any terrorist threat or even unpopular vote.

So even if Rand achieved a small symbolic victory I wish he didn't compromise and demanded votes on all of his proposed amendments and let it expire if they didn't give in. Because even if he received a lot of heat for it, if my speculation is correct it could have caused the people to wake up to what is really going on and potential demand the complete repeal of the whole bill.

What do you think?

low preference guy
05-27-2011, 07:50 AM
What do you think?

they are authoritarian psychos who get thrills by scaremongering people into giving up their rights. if they didn't have a good reason to shove it down people's throats, they probably just missed scaring people and threatening that terrorists would attack if the death of the bill of rights isn't confirmed NOW!

wizardwatson
05-27-2011, 08:07 AM
What do you think?

I think they are just following orders. They are all finger puppets of the lobbyists. Power was concentrated in the executive branch long ago. The mark of a good status quo politician isn't how well he can follow/uphold the constitution but how well he takes orders from the interests that finance their station in life.

People like Rand and Ron are doing everything the wrong way when they guide their actions by the rule of law, they are anachronisms.

affa
05-27-2011, 08:42 AM
Once a law like the Patriot Act is in place, EVERYTHING justifies it.
No more terrorism? Proof that it is working.
More terrorism? Proof we need stronger laws.

They can't let the law fall by the wayside, because that cracks the veneer.

pcosmar
05-27-2011, 09:23 AM
I think they are just following orders.

Bingo.
The UnPatriotic Act was conceived and written long before 9/11, and had nothing to do with "Terrorism".
It was proposed before the OKC Bombing, but was not fully adopted even then. (though I suspect that was the reason for the False Flag)

It IS about Control and Gutting the Constitution. Period.

hazek
05-27-2011, 09:37 AM
I'm confused. You guys either didn't read my whole post or you misunderstood me or perhaps it's me and I'm reading too much into.

But again my main question is what were they so afraid of that they absolutely didn't want the (anti)Patriot act to expire for a few hours or a day or two? Seems like a stupid thing to cause a big scene about, if they knew, which they did, that they'd extend it eventually, doesn't it?

virgil47
05-27-2011, 09:37 AM
Perhaps we should be investigating the very people that are so strenuously fot the Patriot bill. What if some websites took up collections and hired professionals to find out what exactly is going on? Then what if this knowledge along with the proof was made public? Do you think the mundanes would wake up? Would they shake up congress?

acptulsa
05-27-2011, 09:41 AM
But again my main question is what were they so afraid of that they absolutely didn't want the (anti)Patriot act to expire for a few hours or a day or two? Seems like a stupid thing to cause a big scene about, if they knew, which they did, that they'd extend it eventually, doesn't it?

Perhaps because they're arraid of some agency getting sued over something they didn't temporarily stop doing in time. Perhaps because they don't want us to know that if we do let it lapse, the sky won't fall.

lynnf
05-27-2011, 09:42 AM
if something actually gets debated, the debate might sway some people and change their minds to vote against it... that's one thing to be afraid of - education!

pcosmar
05-27-2011, 09:43 AM
I'm confused. You guys either didn't read my whole post or you misunderstood me or perhaps it's me and I'm reading too much into.



No. They are pushing it because they are told to.
It is to CONTROL. That is the whole purpose. It is to negate and crush the Constitution.
That is it's purpose. The US Can Not enter a One World Government with the Constitution in place.

Travlyr
05-27-2011, 09:48 AM
The US Can Not enter a One World Government with the Constitution in place.

Elaborate on this. It seems to me that we have been under a pseudo One World Government for a long time.

acptulsa
05-27-2011, 09:52 AM
Elaborate on this. It seems to me that we have been under a pseudo One World Government for a long time.

They've got their sights set higher than this. They don't know the meaning of the phrase 'enough power'.

pcosmar
05-27-2011, 09:57 AM
Elaborate on this. It seems to me that we have been under a pseudo One World Government for a long time.

Perhaps so. Certainly on the road to it.
The Constitution or the pretense of having it is the only is he only thing holding back the full implementation.

They want to avoid this confrontation. This reality.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ae74oMMQ4ak

You do realize that the first draft of the unpatriotic act (as far as we know) was written before the OKC Bombing.
And was a response to the growing Patriot Movement.
The attacks on Patriots then succeeded in driving the movement underground and slowing it's growth.

hazek
05-27-2011, 10:21 AM
No. They are pushing it because they are told to.
It is to CONTROL. That is the whole purpose. It is to negate and crush the Constitution.
That is it's purpose. The US Can Not enter a One World Government with the Constitution in place.

I think you're being silly. They knew they were going to get it extended a few hours after it expired if Rand had committed to the filibuster. What does that matter in terms of control, if it's still getting extended. Are you suggestion they were causing all this fuss just to showboat their control over the establishment in the sense that they have to do exactly as told even if it's of no real meaning? I really can't imagine that being the case.

Aratus
05-27-2011, 10:39 AM
for a short few hours, to
initiate a new intrusive wiretap,
they all had to find a complacent
affiable mild mannered judge???
they dread ahhh moving their lead
britches more than they have to?
i admire rand paul greatly!!!

Travlyr
05-27-2011, 12:17 PM
Losing money.

pcosmar
05-27-2011, 12:20 PM
I think you're being silly. They knew they were going to get it extended a few hours after it expired if Rand had committed to the filibuster. What does that matter in terms of control, if it's still getting extended. Are you suggestion they were causing all this fuss just to showboat their control over the establishment in the sense that they have to do exactly as told even if it's of no real meaning? I really can't imagine that being the case.
I am suggesting that it should have expired. And it should have expired long ago.
I am suggesting that "our Representatives" are NOT representing us.

The people are overwhelmingly opposed to the (Un)patriot Act. The Senators and the House Know this.
It should have never been written and it is past time for it to expire.

i am suggesting that there are few voices there that are speaking for the people. (Ron, Rand and a few others)

AndrewD
05-27-2011, 12:56 PM
Even if the Patriot Act expired ... how could we really trust that the Fed's shenanigans have stopped? That's what i'm worried about. As an everyday citizen, I really have no clue what the Fed's are up to, and have no idea if they have EVER read my bank records or tapped my phone. This is while the PA has been active.

So if its inactive, would I suddenly notice they are doing the above? Nope. That is what worries me.

I don't think the invasions of privacy will ever stop now that they have been rolling full steam ahead for so long.

pcosmar
05-27-2011, 01:08 PM
Even if the Patriot Act expired ... how could we really trust that the Fed's shenanigans have stopped? That's what i'm worried about. As an everyday citizen, I really have no clue what the Fed's are up to, and have no idea if they have EVER read my bank records or tapped my phone. This is while the PA has been active.

So if its inactive, would I suddenly notice they are doing the above? Nope. That is what worries me.

I don't think the invasions of privacy will ever stop now that they have been rolling full steam ahead for so long.

Two things that could correct this immediately.
A full repeal of all gun laws (they are unconstitutional on their face) Disband the ATF and destroy all records. And immediate end to FFL and all record keeping related to it.
Secondly, Full 4th Amendment protection of any and all information held by third parties.
Make it a crime and civil rights violation for any institution to share private information without a Warrant or express permission from the person involved.

There is more that could be done. such as legalizing Anonymous Transactions to protect privacy both banking and elsewhere.

goRPaul
05-27-2011, 02:02 PM
I think Rand did exactly what was appropriate and needed in the Senate this week. I think he got a lot of additional respect from the American people, the media, and perhaps members of the Senate as well. Yes, this counts as a small victory- a bigger victory is to have the amendments formally voted on, and total victory is repeal of the act altogether. It took decades to take our liberties away, it'll take years before we get them all back.

Don't forget- the provisions now expire in 2015. Rand will still be in the Senate, and everyone will be reminded of what happened this week. There will be two elections between now and then, so we can elect up to 67 senators who will vote against it.

hazek
05-27-2011, 03:49 PM
I don't know if it's me and I'm stupid or it's the rest of you.

W . T . F ?!

Is my english so horrible that you don't understand what I'm trying to find out?


I am suggesting that it should have expired. And it should have expired long ago.
I am suggesting that "our Representatives" are NOT representing us.

The people are overwhelmingly opposed to the (Un)patriot Act. The Senators and the House Know this.
It should have never been written and it is past time for it to expire.

i am suggesting that there are few voices there that are speaking for the people. (Ron, Rand and a few others)

Completely missed my question with that answer.

Let's try this one last time: WHY DO YOU THINK IT MATTERED THAT IT DIDN'T EXPIRE FOR A FEW HOURS?!
I mean I really can't make it any clearer than that.

pcosmar
05-27-2011, 03:58 PM
I don't know if it's me and I'm stupid or it's the rest of you.

W . T . F ?!

Is my english so horrible that you don't understand what I'm trying to find out?



Completely missed my question with that answer.

Let's try this one last time: WHY DO YOU THINK IT MATTERED THAT IT DIDN'T EXPIRE FOR A FEW HOURS?!
I mean I really can't make it any clearer than that.

I did not miss it. They were not willing to let it expire AT ALL.
EVER.

If it expired it was dead. It would have to be presented all over again as a NEW Bill..

And there are no logical or even plausible reason for it.
It took over ten years to get it pushed through the first time. They did not want to let it die.

Expired is Expired

QueenB4Liberty
05-27-2011, 04:06 PM
I'm confused. You guys either didn't read my whole post or you misunderstood me or perhaps it's me and I'm reading too much into.

But again my main question is what were they so afraid of that they absolutely didn't want the (anti)Patriot act to expire for a few hours or a day or two? Seems like a stupid thing to cause a big scene about, if they knew, which they did, that they'd extend it eventually, doesn't it?

You think all of the organizations that spied on Americans the past 10 years would have come out the day after the Patriot Act expired and released information about who they have been spying on?

I just think they are all a bunch of crooks that don't care about Americans.

hazek
05-27-2011, 04:25 PM
I did not miss it. They were not willing to let it expire AT ALL.
EVER.

If it expired it was dead. It would have to be presented all over again as a NEW Bill..

And there are no logical or even plausible reason for it.
It took over ten years to get it pushed through the first time. They did not want to let it die.

Expired is Expired

I thought if it expired they would be able to renew it or pass it again within hours. That was the premise that made me write the OP.

So you are saying that that isn't the case? Why the hell then didn't Rand just let it expire?!

Aratus
05-27-2011, 04:28 PM
they hate explaining this
big ##cker to the public
allllllllllll over againnnnnn.

awake
05-27-2011, 04:50 PM
Everyone was scared of one thing: loosing their power to control.

LibForestPaul
05-27-2011, 05:22 PM
No. They are pushing it because they are told to.
It is to CONTROL. That is the whole purpose. It is to negate and crush the Constitution.
That is it's purpose. The US Can Not enter a One World Government with the Constitution in place.
Or at least the current interpretation with suitable legal precedence backing.

Wikileaks? If it expired, dump the data federal and private w/o repercussion?

pcosmar
05-27-2011, 05:23 PM
So you are saying that that isn't the case? Why the hell then didn't Rand just let it expire?!

If it wasn't going to EXPIRE why would they need to consider it at all? The whole point of this was to prevent it from expiring (as it was supposed to)

And it was my understanding and observation that Rand did all he could do to hold it up but was greatly outnumbered even by his own party members.

It sucks, but TPTB want this atrocious trash. And they got it.

Dr.3D
05-27-2011, 05:25 PM
I suspect they didn't want to have all of those people who are employed by the "PATRIOT" act, unemployed for even a short time. Imagine the huge infrastructure that would be placed on hold.