Question on the Patriot Act

[Proud_Lefty]

Is there anything in it that really protects us? Would allowing it to expire hurt us? After listening to the debates this morning, it seems that both parties are in agreement that it's important to keep in place. Wouldn't a whole different bill with real protections be the most logical alternative?

[ChairmanAgnostic]

1. it will hurt one person. Alberto Gonzales.

we have plenty of rules, laws, and abilities to defend our country WITHOUT this massive destruction of our constitutional rights.

[Proud_Lefty]

2. Why are the democrats supporting it so strongly?

Every one of 'em.

[soothsayer]

3. why did they all let it pass without reading it in the first place?

a-holes terra-fied by 9-11 allegedly. or just shill crony jerks.

[Proud_Lefty]

5. That's exactly what I thought

Are they that secure with the voting system that they can piss off all the American people and still get elected? Why do play us for fools all the time?

[ChairmanAgnostic]

4. fear. They fear the bully pulpit and the bullies who infest the WH.

They fear being called weak on defense, and strangely, by definition, they appear weak-kneed, gutless, spineless and yellow-bellied to the average American.

Suicide by stupidity is not pretty, but applies to several democrats.

As for the GOP supporters, I think that many of the strident voices in support really do want a police state here. Scary.

[Proud_Lefty]

6. Bingo

I'm amazed by Americans these days. I always wonder what people will think when they FINALLY realize what a sham this whole government has become. Unfortunately, we'll go take major hits when that's finally realized.

[rd_kent]

9. Agreed. We have plenty already!

If we just use the ones we have correctly, there should be no problem.

[realFedUp]

7. So odd that Feinstein will support a filibuster when she has a bill inside

of it:

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/013412.html

The Meth Act Does Not Belong in the Patriot Act
The House-passed version of the Patriot Act renewal legislation includes the Meth Act. The New York Times reports:

Under the proposal, Sudafed and similar medicines would have to be under lock and key in stores. Buyers would have to sign a sheet and show a driver's license. Purchases would be limited to one box a day and three boxes a month.

This has nothing to do with terrorism. Poor people and the elderly who don't drive won't have driver's licenses to show. Neither will undocumented residents.

Mike Krause of Colorado's Independence Institute reported:

Scott Burns, Deputy Director of the federal Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) recently contradicted the “epidemic” rhetoric, telling a Congressional sub-committee that America’s estimated 1.5 million methamphetamine users make up only 8% of the country’s estimated 19 million drug users.

Check out the New York Time's John Tierney on the meth myth and Reason's Jacob Sullum here and in Speed Bumps at the Pharmacy. Also, Radly Balko explains why restricting cold pills won't curb meth use.

There is no crisis. Cold pills do not equate to terrorism. Tell your senators to just say no to the meth act.

continued

[radio4progressives]

8. Laws should be legislated individually not embedded as amendments

that have NOTHING to do with the initial bill!

When in the hell are legislatures going to get back to doing straight up honest business for the people?

[Proud_Lefty]

10. When we rebel