patrick.net

HuggyBumbers McLovkins says

Yes: Obama perpetuated the Patriot Act.

Now how, exactly does this exonerate libertarians in 2003 who lined up to support it?

Go back to watching Fox News.

from LP News

[March 19. 2002] The Libertarian National Committee has voted to call for the repeal of the USA/Patriot Act, charging that it "sacrifices" the liberties of American citizens.

At its meeting in Evergreen, Colorado on March 16, the Libertarian National Committee (LNC) voted 10 to zero, with one abstention, to urge the repeal of the bill, which was rushed through Congress in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks.

The resolution said the USA/Patriot Act "sacrifices many of our liberties and curtails many of our freedoms in the name of military security, thereby compromising some of the purposes for which [the United States] government was created."

While "securing our liberties and protecting our rights are among the primary purposes of the United States government," Libertarians "do not support sacrificing our liberties and curtailing our rights in the name of military security," the resolution noted.

Therefore, "the Libertarian National Committee calls for the repeal of the USA/Patriot Act," it stated.

The resolution was introduced by LNC Secretary Steve Givot.

LP Executive Director Steve Dasbach applauded the LNC's action, and said the resolution will help define what Libertarians stand for in the post-September 11 world.

"The Libertarian Party has previously endorsed appropriate military action to bring to justice the ruthless terrorists who killed 3,000 Americans on September 11," he said. "However, with this resolution, the LNC has drawn a line in the sand, and made it clear that Libertarians will not tolerate any infringement of our basic civil liberties in the name of combating terrorism.

"When Republicans and Democrats passed the USA/Patriot Act, they did an easy thing, given the mood of the public. When the LNC voted to repeal the bill, they did a difficult thing -- because real patriotism entails defending the Bill of Rights, even when doing so is unpopular, instead of sacrificing fundamental American principles during a time of crisis."

The USA/Patriot Act gave the U.S. attorney general the power to install the carnivore e-mail snooping system without a court warrant; expanded the legal definition of a "terrorist;" and made it easier for the government to tap multiple phones as part of a "roving wiretap."

The bill was signed into law by President George W. Bush on October 26, 2001, after passing the U.S. Senate 98-1, and the U.S. House 356-66.

Oilwelldoctor says

I don't understand this. Don't you see... it is not about a political party. It is about America. Why is this so difficult for so many? We are being played as if we can make a difference.

I am part of each species.

But why do dudes like Clinton get a pass when dating other women in office and lying, and Christie get pummeled for 3 months for parking his car on a bridge in NY?

Entitlemented says

Oilwelldoctor says

I don't understand this. Don't you see... it is not about a political party. It is about America. Why is this so difficult for so many? We are being played as if we can make a difference.

I am part of each species.

But why do dudes like Clinton get a pass when dating other women in office and lying, and Christie get pummeled for 3 months for parking his car on a bridge in NY?

Err...

Bgmall I oppose concentrations of power in institutions, corporations, political parties, states, mobs and governments etal as they lead to abuse

bgamall4 says

smaulgld says

that's rich-taking people's money would balance the budget- the assumption there is it's better for the government to have the money than individuals.

If the individuals are in the top 1 percent I would say yes, it is better if the government has it. For the rest of us, no.

Why not take it from the top 2% and give it to the government? Or top 3%
In a democracy eventually the top 49% will have all their money turned over to the government if that type of confiscatory mentality takes hold

bgamall4 says

But government protected us in the Great Depression from the banksters. Just because it isn't doing so now does not mean it can't in the future.

That is ABSOLUTELY not true. In fact just the opposite they ran the money supply up in the 20s to create the problem in the 1st place.

Bernanke "the expert" will say that they did not keep the money supply going in 1929 and keep the banks liquid in 1933 but that is propaganda.

As the Roosevelt administration stopped the usual remedy for a run on the bank because it was a private market solution. IOW the run on the banks was COMPLETELY caused by FDR.

The oversupply of money was completely caused by the Fed.

bgamall4 says

The Fed and the government are two different entities.

Technically but not in reality, who appoints the Fed chairman?

bgamall4 says

the financial modernization act and the commodities modernization act repealed those laws.

They would not have had any impact on the meltdown in 2007,
Glass Steagall did not regulate derivatives.

bgamall4 says

So, Indigenous, you are wrong on this. The Fed is a private bank.

Not really

mell says

Short of a unanimous filibuster, the Democrats had no way of stopping the Iraq war.

Why do you think the Dems did not want war, history indicates otherwise?

bgamall4 says

That is a lie. Those laws would have stopped the liar loans along with the FIRREA Act of 1989 that made banks subject to civil penalties for lending to people who could not pay it back.

That was not a majority of the problem as indicated by AF.

It was a bunch of stuff but the thing that sent it ballistic was derivatives because they were so leveraged.

bgamall4 says

But the commodities laws in place regulated derivatives. The repeal of both the derivatives laws and Glass Steagall were a tag team act by Phil and Wendy Gramm, and those led to the housing bubble.

Don't know nor really care

bgamall4 says

Indigenous, read these Wikipedia articles about the

1. Commodities Futures Modernization Act:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_Futures_Modernization_Act_of_2000

and:

The Financial Services Modernization Act (IE the Repeal of Glass-Steagall):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm%E2%80%93Leach%E2%80%93Bliley_Act

As you can see, they are twin laws set to undermine the financial system.

No, TLTR

Give me the reader digest version without any generalities. I am not that interested.

APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch says

I think it's pretty clear:

The CRA forced Bush's hand

You got purdy lips

bgamall4 says

If you aren't that interested why are you on Patrick.net which talks about the housing bubble and bust?

Because you are not correct.

bgamall4 says

The repeal of the commodity futures act allows gambling to be part of the financial system. It allows insurance to be sold on the bets. The insurance is unregulated. The bankers can take large positions in commodities now as well because of the new rules. They are able to corner the markets in oil, food, etc.

I don't think so. Rules have changed to prevent banks taking undue risk at potentially tax payer expense.

bgamall4 says

The insurance is unregulated.

No it is highly regulated, otherwise it would not be insurance.

AIG had some branches of their business exposed but none of it was the insurance part of AIG.

My understanding was bankers had a lot of exposure but Goldman and Morgan Stanley would have been done. At the same time a lot of this stuff is overblown due to the nature of derivatives being used as hedges.

mell says

Democrats could have stopped it.

again, talking (D) vs (R) confuses the issue.

The real divide in this country is left vs right, liberal vs. conservative, progressive vs. reactionary.

The left was powerless to stop the right's adventurism in the mideast, 2001-2003.

Not all (D)s are leftists, e.g. the (D) Senators that voted for war.

Kerry and Clinton excepted. I don't know WTF they were really thinking with their votes, other than in game theory terms casting a useless opposing vote in 2002 would have killed their careers if a) Saddam's regime had actually had WMDs of some significance, and/or if b) perchance the reconstruction had gone off as hoped.

Being wrong in 2002 and voting for Bush's march to war obviously did not fatally hurt their respective political careers, so if you do a 2x2 decision matrix it was a no-brainer for Dems to vote yes for war in 2002.

Bellingham Bill says

Kerry and Clinton excepted. I don't know WTF they were really thinking with their votes, other than in game theory terms casting a useless opposing vote in 2002 would have killed their careers if a) Saddam's regime had actually had WMDs of some significance, and/or if b) the perchance reconstruction had gone off as hoped.

I seem to have forgotten like many what happened for the 10 years prior to 2002..

how long has Saddam been delaying and blocking inspectors. Your ONLY legitimate critism could be that Bush I should have taken Saddams head back in 1992 and put all of Iraq under UN control.

1998. Where did he mention invading?

Bigsby says

1998. Where did he mention invading?

There is a reason we have a military.. to enforce resolutions.
It goes back to 1992...

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect2.html

Saddam Hussein's Defiance of United Nations Resolutions
Saddam Hussein has repeatedly violated sixteen United Nations Security Council Resolutions (UNSCRs) designed to ensure that Iraq does not pose a threat to international peace and security. In addition to these repeated violations, he has tried, over the past decade, to circumvent UN economic sanctions against Iraq, which are reflected in a number of other resolutions. As noted in the resolutions, Saddam Hussein was required to fulfill many obligations beyond the withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait. Specifically, Saddam Hussein was required to, among other things: allow international weapons inspectors to oversee the destruction of his weapons of mass destruction; not develop new weapons of mass destruction; destroy all of his ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometers; stop support for terrorism and prevent terrorist organizations from operating within Iraq; help account for missing Kuwaitis and other individuals; return stolen Kuwaiti property and bear financial liability for damage from the Gulf War; and he was required to end his repression of the Iraqi people. Saddam Hussein has repeatedly violated each of the following resolutions:

Bigsby says

Is this supposed to be a joke?

You seem to be short on memory.. do you recall anything from 1992 to 2002 ?

thomaswong.1986 says

Bigsby says

Is this supposed to be a joke?

You seem to be short on memory.. do you recall anything from 1992 to 2002 ?

Are you trying to be a parody of yourself?

thomaswong.1986 says

There is a reason we have a military.. to enforce resolutions.

It goes back to 1992...

The reason you have a military is not to invade every country that poses no immediate threat to your nation. I would have thought even you might be aware of that fact but apparently not.

Fucking hell Thomas Wrong, that is bloody moronic even by your sadly low standards.

Bigsby says

The reason you have a military is not to invade every country that poses no immediate threat to your nation. I would have thought even you might be aware of that fact but apparently not.

I ask you if you recall the events between 1992..2002. Which led to the invasion... you can either be a coward or a liar.. take you pick !

thomaswong.1986 says

Bigsby says

The reason you have a military is not to invade every country that poses no immediate threat to your nation. I would have thought even you might be aware of that fact but apparently not.

I ask you if you recall the events between 1992..2002. Which led to the invasion... you can either be a coward or a liar.. take you pick !

Oh, I recall them. The question is do you because you appear to be as clueless about that period as every other time in history. But hey, please feel free to explain what occurred during that decade that made going to war with Iraq the outstanding success it wasn't.

And I take it from your handle you were all of 6 years old at the beginning of that period, so hey, feel free to enlighten us all of your vast first hand experience of that particular time.

thomaswong.1986 says

Teddy Roosevelt

Say What?

Bigsby says

perhaps you'd care to explain what that has to do with his comment.

We have discussed this on this thread before but I never got an answer.

indigenous says

Bigsby says

perhaps you'd care to explain what that has to do with his comment.

We have discussed this on this thread before but I never got an answer.

Try and equate your response with the actual comment that was made. It might help.

Bigsby says

Oh, I recall them. The question is do you because you appear to be as clueless about that period as every other time in history. But hey, please feel free to explain what occurred during that decade that made going to war with Iraq the outstanding success it wasn't.

No it seems you dont recall the UN resolutions that Saddam keep breaking.

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect2.html

Bigsby says

And I take it from your handle you were all of 6 years old at the beginning of that period, so hey, feel free to enlighten us all of your first hand experience of that particular time.

Oh do me credit i was much much older than that... But I see you are indeed a coward...

HECK.. dont worry no one is going to draft a coward.. there are plenty of real warriors who will take the fight ... even for your sake.

Bigsby says

Try and equate your response with the actual comment that was made. It might help.

No

thomaswong.1986 says

No it seems you dont recall the UN resolutions that Saddam keep breaking.

Oh, I do. I was actually an adult during that period. Your point being what?

thomaswong.1986 says

Oh do me credit i was much much older than that... But I see you are indeed a coward...

You were? So why the 1986? And how does my questioning your bizarre reasoning make me a coward? Your grasp of history seems tenuous at best.
thomaswong.1986 says

HECK.. dont worry no one is going to draft a coward.. there are plenty of real warriors who will take the fight ... even for your sake.

You have to laugh. Were you dressed in your cowboy outfit when you typed that?

Bigsby says

You were? So why the 1986? And how does my questioning your bizarre reasoning make me a coward? Your grasp of history seems tenuous at best.

if you want to sit in your little cottage in Cali coast that alright..

but certain you will NOT change the view many had be it in 80s 90s
or what ever...and will will fight with or with out you.. and if you dont like it..

well you can go back to where ever you came from ....

shit im older than you think... and still kicks ass like a youngster..

thomaswong.1986 says

Bigsby says

You were? So why the 1986? And how does my questioning your bizarre reasoning make me a coward? Your grasp of history seems tenuous at best.

if you want to sit in your little cottage in Cali coast that alright..

but certain you will NOT change the view many had be it in 80s 90s

or what ever...and will will fight with or with out your.. and if you dont like it..

well you can go back to where ever you came from ....

shit im older than you think... and still kicks ass like a youngster..

Er, I've lived in Kuwait for more than a decade, so care to try again? As for the rest of your idiotically childish gibberish, well who the fuck knows?

Bigsby says

Er, I've lived in Kuwait for more than a decade, so care to try again?

and even in Kuwait you dont recall Sadam breaking his agreements for 10 years over inspections to find WMD.

Bigsby says

You derived all that from his response? Impressive powers of complete bullshitting.

you should have stayed in Kuwait.. seems like your place.

thomaswong.1986 says

Bigsby says

Er, I've lived in Kuwait for more than a decade, so care to try again?

and even in Kuwait you dont recall Sadam breaking his agreements for 10 years over inspections to find WMD.

You seem to have singularly missed the point of how that then translates into it being a good idea to invade a sovereign nation even when hindsight demonstrates that it was fucking catastrophic.

thomaswong.1986 says

Bigsby says

You derived all that from his response? Impressive powers of complete bullshitting.

you should have stayed in Kuwait.. seems like your place.

I understand that comprehension of anything isn't your strong point, but just to be clear, I still live in Kuwait, I still have a far better understanding of what is going on in the ME than you, and I still think that you are a clueless bloody idiot who would be best served by keeping your stubby little fingers away from your keyboard.

Bellingham Bill says

again, talking (D) vs (R) confuses the issue.

The real divide in this country is left vs right, liberal vs. conservative, progressive vs. reactionary.

Where would you put Ron Paul in this matrix? Or Bernie Sanders? Dennis Kucinich? I agree that a lot of people distinguish themselves from their political "enemies" along those lines, but there are also quite a few who cannot be categorized that easily. And they often are leaders in preserving civil liberties and freedom while opposing warmongering and fascism.

Bigsby says

I still live in Kuwait, I still have a far better understanding of what is going on in the ME than you, and I still think that you are a clueless bloody idiot who would be best served by keeping your stubby little fingers away from your keyboard.

s
You should stay where your at then.. You still havent spoken about IRAQ, Libya, and Syrians plans to aquired WMD ever since the 70s. Their ties to Terrorist organizations and plenty of wars between them all.

IRAQ war was bound to happen over the past 30 years....

bgamall4 says

No, swaps are unregulated insurance. That is why AIG went belly up. It was not regulated insurance, like regular AIG insurance. But it was insurance.

Always question drivel coming from the NY times.

He means insurance in the sense of a hedge. NOT in the sense of State Farm or life insurance as they are highly regulated.

AIG did not go belly up nor would they have no matter what happened because they are an insurance company and the assets they have are rock solid. The area they got in trouble with was mortgage insurance but that by no means would have put them down it was a small part of their business.

bgamall4 says

Of course. But it was insurance. It insured losses, only problem was that the losses were too great and AIG was bailed out to save GS's ass.

True except not a typical insurance.

I think I recall AIG not wanting the bailout and were suing GS for damages.