Think the Patriot Act doesn't affect you? Think again!
- Thread starter TheBluesMan
- Start date
I believe it went into effect 3Jun 2004
All the paperwork I have to do to buy a gun DOES bother me.
I have never used a credit card to buy a gun. And this is not a credit check and has nothing to do with Clinton, but feel free to accuse me of Demo bashing if it helps to deflect from the actual issue
This is not the lender checking anything it's Big Brother making sure I am a good citizen and entitled to own a home
There's nothing in here about a credit check. It's more like a NICS check. You buy a house and your name gets checked against a list of known terrorists. The law says this applied to financial institutions, and via an Executive Order, YOU just became a "financial institution" by the act of selling a house.
Classic government creep. A law is passed in a legal manner, and then an "Order" or regulation of some sort changes the law and puts YOU under it, when that was not the intent of the law at all.
Why is this hard to understand?
seeker_two
New member
Anyone see the "coincidence" that this particular law went into effect just after the Bush Administration announces that Jose Padilla was planning to rent apartments in order to use them to destroy the entire apartment complex?.... 
...especially since Padilla's "confession" can't be cross-examined or investigated by third parties?....
We're in danger of waging our War on Terrorism with the same restraint & wisdom as we've done our War on Drugs...
...especially since Padilla's "confession" can't be cross-examined or investigated by third parties?....
We're in danger of waging our War on Terrorism with the same restraint & wisdom as we've done our War on Drugs...
PipSqueak
My point was...and still is...there is no mandated form for you to sign or money to be paid...unless your lender is ripping you off...could happen.
I am sorry, but I just don't see someone checking my name against a list of known terrorists as infringing on my rights.....I would actually like to know if my name was on it.....who can I call to check???
Same thing probably happens every time you get pulled over....which has actually happened less times than I have bought a house...but hey...we are angry here...don't change the subject!
I am gonna hafta read the through the Constitution, BOR again....
See where I have some right to launder money....be a terrorist...you know....
Question...does this mean we don't want a terorrist database....you know...is it a bad idea???
Question...is it a good idea...or not...to check child care workers for child molestation convictions??????
I understand the premise...it is like the Airport....you KNOW you are not a terrorist...so it bugs you to be checked....but what is the alternative?????
My point was...and still is...there is no mandated form for you to sign or money to be paid...unless your lender is ripping you off...could happen.
I am sorry, but I just don't see someone checking my name against a list of known terrorists as infringing on my rights.....I would actually like to know if my name was on it.....who can I call to check???
Same thing probably happens every time you get pulled over....which has actually happened less times than I have bought a house...but hey...we are angry here...don't change the subject!
I am gonna hafta read the through the Constitution, BOR again....
See where I have some right to launder money....be a terrorist...you know....
Question...does this mean we don't want a terorrist database....you know...is it a bad idea???
Question...is it a good idea...or not...to check child care workers for child molestation convictions??????
I understand the premise...it is like the Airport....you KNOW you are not a terrorist...so it bugs you to be checked....but what is the alternative?????
[OBIWAN]"I am sorry, but I just don't see someone checking my name against a list of known terrorists as infringing on my rights.....I would actually like to know if my name was on it.....who can I call to check???"
... I am sure any would be wrongdoer would love to know whether their name is on a list too. But this is the problem with these things - they are not going to be accessible to people concerned about abuses and those who may want to ensure that their "record is straight".
But as it stands right now, until we have a full accounting of things like all the specific individual persons involved in the dumping of American and United Airlines stock in the two weeks just before 9/11, this is nothing more than a facade. A phoney war on a noun. And there are other things that need answering - and action - as well.
Then, and only then, can other measures be considered.
... I am sure any would be wrongdoer would love to know whether their name is on a list too. But this is the problem with these things - they are not going to be accessible to people concerned about abuses and those who may want to ensure that their "record is straight".
But as it stands right now, until we have a full accounting of things like all the specific individual persons involved in the dumping of American and United Airlines stock in the two weeks just before 9/11, this is nothing more than a facade. A phoney war on a noun. And there are other things that need answering - and action - as well.
Then, and only then, can other measures be considered.
Obiwan,
When you get pulled over, you are interacting with the police on suspicion of having already broken a law, so for him to metaphorically check the wall of the sherriff's office to see if there are any wanted posters of you hanging there only makes sense. Not so when you are engaging in a legal business transaction.
What you have is the right to be secure in your papers and effects.
Since you're so all fired up about the good use this potential terrorist database could be put to, let me put the question to you: Where would you draw the line? What would be too intrusive for you? A criminal background check every time you use a credit card? Every time you buy groceries? ID cards? Transponder chips worn by the certified good guys? I mean, hey, it would all be for a good cause...
When you get pulled over, you are interacting with the police on suspicion of having already broken a law, so for him to metaphorically check the wall of the sherriff's office to see if there are any wanted posters of you hanging there only makes sense. Not so when you are engaging in a legal business transaction.
What you have is the right to be secure in your papers and effects.
Since you're so all fired up about the good use this potential terrorist database could be put to, let me put the question to you: Where would you draw the line? What would be too intrusive for you? A criminal background check every time you use a credit card? Every time you buy groceries? ID cards? Transponder chips worn by the certified good guys? I mean, hey, it would all be for a good cause...
Lak,
Just because the PATRIOT Act is bogus and ill-thought-out law, it doesn't necessarily follow that the Bavarian Illuminati gave Osama his marching orders.
Looking for the puppeteers pulling the strings of conspiracy causes one to miss the more dangerous problems. Dianne Feinstein doesn't want to take away your guns so she can herd your defenseless self into a New World Order slave camp, she wants to take your guns because she wants to help you. Tom Ridge doesn't posture on TV with his goofy color-code announcements to panic the sheeple into voting for more government, he makes those announcements because he wants to help you (and keep his job.)
What's important is not to look for the Gnomes of Zurich pulling these people's strings, but to let these annoying boy scouts know that you don't need or want their help in crossing the street, especially if they want to charge you for the service!
Just because the PATRIOT Act is bogus and ill-thought-out law, it doesn't necessarily follow that the Bavarian Illuminati gave Osama his marching orders.
Looking for the puppeteers pulling the strings of conspiracy causes one to miss the more dangerous problems. Dianne Feinstein doesn't want to take away your guns so she can herd your defenseless self into a New World Order slave camp, she wants to take your guns because she wants to help you. Tom Ridge doesn't posture on TV with his goofy color-code announcements to panic the sheeple into voting for more government, he makes those announcements because he wants to help you (and keep his job.)
What's important is not to look for the Gnomes of Zurich pulling these people's strings, but to let these annoying boy scouts know that you don't need or want their help in crossing the street, especially if they want to charge you for the service!
Tamara,
Well, regardless of who gave the marching orders to whom, some people evidently did know about this before it happened - and used it to turn more than a couple of bucks.
It is remarkable that Martha Stewart was rapidly exposed and prosecuted for what amounts to trivia in comparison. In stark contrast, the un-named parties who heavily traded American Airlines and United Airlines stock, some of it days before the incident, have disappeared as a subject altogether.
After more than three and a half years, our borders are still wide open, and now it is the Administration telling us that another incident is almost certainly "going to happen". Well, duh; I wonder how that can be?
Juxtapose this absurdity with the controls on us and it is parallel with the nation's annexing by the prison yards. Where the "problem" people are willfully and knowingly permitted to wander freely - just so people like John Ashcroft and John Ridge can "help us" (and keep their jobs).
--------------------------
"Frankly, we can't differentiate between terrorism and organized crime and drug dealing," - Assistant Attorney General Michael Chertoff, Senate Banking Committee (money trail of the 9/11 attacks).
Well, regardless of who gave the marching orders to whom, some people evidently did know about this before it happened - and used it to turn more than a couple of bucks.
It is remarkable that Martha Stewart was rapidly exposed and prosecuted for what amounts to trivia in comparison. In stark contrast, the un-named parties who heavily traded American Airlines and United Airlines stock, some of it days before the incident, have disappeared as a subject altogether.
After more than three and a half years, our borders are still wide open, and now it is the Administration telling us that another incident is almost certainly "going to happen". Well, duh; I wonder how that can be?
Juxtapose this absurdity with the controls on us and it is parallel with the nation's annexing by the prison yards. Where the "problem" people are willfully and knowingly permitted to wander freely - just so people like John Ashcroft and John Ridge can "help us" (and keep their jobs).
--------------------------
"Frankly, we can't differentiate between terrorism and organized crime and drug dealing," - Assistant Attorney General Michael Chertoff, Senate Banking Committee (money trail of the 9/11 attacks).
seeker_two
New member
Well said, Tamara... 
We don't need to worry about the machinations of some secret society...
...the machinations of those in public view are scary enough.
We don't need to worry about the machinations of some secret society...
...the machinations of those in public view are scary enough.
FirstFreedom
Moderator
"I smell boiled frog..."
Amen to that. I can't remember any election contest that more fully epitomized the "lesser of two evils" than this Prez race. You've got jackass "never met a gun control bill I didn't love" Kerry vs. "let's saddle our children with endless oppressive debt to finance a war that has extremely little payoff or national interest involved, and while we're at it, try to eliminate any form of personal privacy, and gut the 4th and 5th amendments with the Patriot Act in order to fight a endless farce known as a war on terror" Bush. Talk about being time for a good 3rd party candidate! I'm a lifelong "conservative" on most issues, and I've never despised a Republican's policies/actions in the way that I do Pres. Bush's! Now granted, he had help from a willing Congress, so it's not all his fault.
"Dianne Feinstein doesn't want to take away your guns so she can herd your defenseless self into a New World Order slave camp, she wants to take your guns because she wants to help you. "
Agreed (bless her retarded freakin l'il head).
"Tom Ridge doesn't posture on TV with his goofy color-code announcements to panic the sheeple into voting for more government, he makes those announcements because he wants to help you (and keep his job.)"
Disagree - Yes, he wants to help you, but also, the WAY in which he keeps his job is by panicing he sheeple into voting for more gov't, which he wants/intends to do (in my belief).
Amen to that. I can't remember any election contest that more fully epitomized the "lesser of two evils" than this Prez race. You've got jackass "never met a gun control bill I didn't love" Kerry vs. "let's saddle our children with endless oppressive debt to finance a war that has extremely little payoff or national interest involved, and while we're at it, try to eliminate any form of personal privacy, and gut the 4th and 5th amendments with the Patriot Act in order to fight a endless farce known as a war on terror" Bush. Talk about being time for a good 3rd party candidate! I'm a lifelong "conservative" on most issues, and I've never despised a Republican's policies/actions in the way that I do Pres. Bush's! Now granted, he had help from a willing Congress, so it's not all his fault.
"Dianne Feinstein doesn't want to take away your guns so she can herd your defenseless self into a New World Order slave camp, she wants to take your guns because she wants to help you. "
Agreed (bless her retarded freakin l'il head).
"Tom Ridge doesn't posture on TV with his goofy color-code announcements to panic the sheeple into voting for more government, he makes those announcements because he wants to help you (and keep his job.)"
Disagree - Yes, he wants to help you, but also, the WAY in which he keeps his job is by panicing he sheeple into voting for more gov't, which he wants/intends to do (in my belief).
rennaissancemann
New member
In order to protect the citizens of our fair country...
Laws are enacted which allow the federal agencies responsible for the enforcement of the nation's laws to collect a great deal of information that was previously unavailable for study in order to spot patterns of wrongdoing.
However the volume of information so gathered exceeds the manpower of the respective agencies to analyze it, so you hire more analysts...
Who conclude that there are key pieces of information, which aren't currently being collected, that would greatly facilitate identifying and arresting the bad guys.
So...
Laws are enacted...
The volume of information so gathered exceeds...
More analysts are hired...
Who conclude that...
Eventually, lawmakers begin to suspect that certain agencies aren't very cost effective any longer, they've grown larger than their results can justify, and the battle for survival begins.
Data is mined, statistics are analyzed, and presentations are built, to demonstrate that everything is as it should be.
Sort of.
The problem is that if older and less comprehensive definitions of things like "terrorism," "money laundering," and "conspiracy" are used the numbers just don't come out right. Since the numbers aren't coming out right, that must mean that our old definitions are inadequate, not reflective of a changing world environment, and lend themselves to misinterpretation.
So...
New definitions are drafted. Whereupon the data is mined again, statistics are reanalyzed, and more presentations are built.
Which prove that the agencies in question are protecting this fair land from untold evils that would have befallen it had it not been for their rather Herculean efforts which are all the more remarkable given how under funded and shorthanded the agencies actually are.
Regards,
Laws are enacted which allow the federal agencies responsible for the enforcement of the nation's laws to collect a great deal of information that was previously unavailable for study in order to spot patterns of wrongdoing.
However the volume of information so gathered exceeds the manpower of the respective agencies to analyze it, so you hire more analysts...
Who conclude that there are key pieces of information, which aren't currently being collected, that would greatly facilitate identifying and arresting the bad guys.
So...
Laws are enacted...
The volume of information so gathered exceeds...
More analysts are hired...
Who conclude that...
Eventually, lawmakers begin to suspect that certain agencies aren't very cost effective any longer, they've grown larger than their results can justify, and the battle for survival begins.
Data is mined, statistics are analyzed, and presentations are built, to demonstrate that everything is as it should be.
Sort of.
The problem is that if older and less comprehensive definitions of things like "terrorism," "money laundering," and "conspiracy" are used the numbers just don't come out right. Since the numbers aren't coming out right, that must mean that our old definitions are inadequate, not reflective of a changing world environment, and lend themselves to misinterpretation.
So...
New definitions are drafted. Whereupon the data is mined again, statistics are reanalyzed, and more presentations are built.
Which prove that the agencies in question are protecting this fair land from untold evils that would have befallen it had it not been for their rather Herculean efforts which are all the more remarkable given how under funded and shorthanded the agencies actually are.
Regards,
FirstFreedom
Moderator
R-man: Hilarious. And spot on!
"Since you're so all fired up about the good use this potential terrorist database could be put to, let me put the question to you: Where would you draw the line? What would be too intrusive for you? A criminal background check every time you use a credit card? Every time you buy groceries? ID cards? Transponder chips worn by the certified good guys? I mean, hey, it would all be for a good cause..."
Actually, I think I am the least fired up by this whole topic....I should probably be more paranoid...sorry!
The last two would be intrusive...they require me to actively submit to something. The others could be happening right now for all I know!
The other two would torque me off if I suddenly got refused despite being a good guy...but otherwise I am all good.
To be honest, the credit reporting bureaus bother me more than criminal checks because of some of the horror stories I have heard..but not experienced.
Back to the original premise....this is not about being denied some right to buy a home...it is about flagging certain people/behaviors
Like the $10,000 cash reporting limit....now that really cramps my style
Actually, I think I am the least fired up by this whole topic....I should probably be more paranoid...sorry!
The last two would be intrusive...they require me to actively submit to something. The others could be happening right now for all I know!
The other two would torque me off if I suddenly got refused despite being a good guy...but otherwise I am all good.
To be honest, the credit reporting bureaus bother me more than criminal checks because of some of the horror stories I have heard..but not experienced.
Back to the original premise....this is not about being denied some right to buy a home...it is about flagging certain people/behaviors
Like the $10,000 cash reporting limit....now that really cramps my style
FirstFreedom, [RE: "I can't remember any election contest that more fully epitomized the "lesser of two evils" than this Prez race"]
..... What do you expect from two members of the same frat club?
------------------------------------
"We must press on with our agenda for peace and prosperity in every land." - George Bush, to the United Nations General Assembly, November 10, 2001
..... What do you expect from two members of the same frat club?
------------------------------------
"We must press on with our agenda for peace and prosperity in every land." - George Bush, to the United Nations General Assembly, November 10, 2001