Forum US Senate Vote (2nd bill of 2001-2003 session)

[vcczar]

Here's the 2nd bill: @Dobs @MrPotatoTed @WVProgressive @Rodja @JohnGRobertsJr @Cal @Rezi @DakotaHale @Sean F Kennedy @ConservativeElector2 @Cenzonico @Beetlejuice @Hestia @Patine @jnewt @Kitten @Magnus Rex @Pringles @The Blood @vcczar 

The Patriot Act: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act

Considering the US was just attacked, support of the bill is overwhelming. Only Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) is opposed to the bill. Will any of us join Feingold, or will we join the common cause of the country?

The bill is expected to easily pass, obviously. 

* Every Senator should make some sort of statement on the bill or attempt to sway fellow Senators. 

* Please wait a few days before voting unless you are 100% sure how you are going to vote, and you know you won't be convinced otherwise. 

***YOUR VOTE WILL NOT COUNT IF YOU DID NOT SIGN UP TO PLAY THIS SENATE FORUM GAME. If you'd like to join the game, let us know. Do not vote until you join the game. If you vote before requesting to join, then you will not be allowed to join.*** 

 

Edited April 27, 2021 by vcczar

[Cenzonico]

It is saddening to see so many of my fellow senators vote for an obvious infringement of the common civil liberties afforded to American citizens. We don't fight terrorism by spying on our own citizens! I do not believe we should be using the tragedy of September 11th to pass through a bill that is detrimental to the people we as senators represent, and I hope others will choose to follow suit.      

[vcczar]

We need a statement from @Rezi

[Rezi]

This Act is a dangerous expansion of Government Authority, proposed at a time in which emotions are running high, with the expectation that my fellow senators will sit by and let it pass because of a recent tragedy. This is unacceptable from a Government which is supposed to be for the people, and I urge my fellow senators to vote nay on this Act, or forever take your place in history as a destroyer of civil liberties.

[Pringles]

While I'm supportive of a multitude of measures to keep our citizens safe, and deter terrorism from the United States... this bill simply goes to far. I cannot support it in good conscience, and I urge my colleagues to abstain or vote no.

With that said, I plan to begin what will end up being the record breaker of my fellow South Carolinian, Strom Thurmond!

Senator Pringle begins a filibuster.

• Read all names of victims from 911.
• Read the entire Shrek Movie Script.
• Sing All Star by Smash Mouth
• Sing Without Me, by Eminem.

 

Edited April 27, 2021 by Pringles

[Kitten]

3 minutes ago, Pringles said:

While I'm supportive of a multitude of measures to keep our citizens safe, and deter terrorism from the United States... this bill simply goes to far. I cannot support it in good conscience, and I urge my colleagues to abstain or vote no.

With that said, I plan to begin what will end up being the record breaker of my fellow South Carolinian, Strom Thurmond!

Senator Pringle begins a filibuster.

• Read all names of victims from 911.
• Read the entire Shrek Movie Script.
• Sing All Star by Smash Mouth
• Sing Without Me, by Eminem.

 

The senator will be voting present in order to protest his disappointment in key sections of the bill.

Senator Kitten joins in the filibuster by reading the following

Every James Bond film script up to that year. The Senator is especially emotional during the reading of On Her Majesty's Secret Service.

He reads the names of Vietnam War veterans from the Vietnam War memorial

He reads his favorite book the rainbow fish

 

[The Blood]

The terrible day that was 9/11 shook this nation's very soul. However, we must not allow it to change that soul. Because the soul of America is liberty. The right of the average person to freedom and prosperity, free from both the dangers of an authoritarian government, and from the plight created by our currently broken system based on the needs and wishes of stockholders and CEOs, not on the potential for growth and happiness in our people and communities. The Patriot Act betrays the ideals every true patriot of America should believe in, and must be opposed to help prevent an infringement of the average person's rights. Vote nay, and support the filibuster against this bill.

[vcczar]

I concur with the opposition. I'll also take part in the filibuster with a 24 hour lecture of US history, US presidency, and US politics without the use of notes.  

[MrPotatoTed]

I denounce the filibusterers, decrying the use of vital legislative time during a time of war to...read movie scripts out loud?  This Hollywood infiltration of our nation's government has gone too far.  The American people are demanding that we keep them safe, not spoil Dreamworks Animation movies!

I will be voting aye, and at the next round of midterm elections, I'll be campaigning against those who fail to take a stand in defense of our nation!

[ConservativeElector2]

In times of crisis, we cannot look at the individual data protection. We need to use every tool available to counter the threat of our enemies.

[Cenzonico]

1 hour ago, Pringles said:

While I'm supportive of a multitude of measures to keep our citizens safe, and deter terrorism from the United States... this bill simply goes to far. I cannot support it in good conscience, and I urge my colleagues to abstain or vote no.

With that said, I plan to begin what will end up being the record breaker of my fellow South Carolinian, Strom Thurmond!

Senator Pringle begins a filibuster.

• Read all names of victims from 911.
• Read the entire Shrek Movie Script.
• Sing All Star by Smash Mouth
• Sing Without Me, by Eminem.

 

Senator Nico will join the filibuster, lecturing the chamber about his home state Alaska

[The Blood]

10 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

I denounce the filibusterers, decrying the use of vital legislative time during a time of war to...read movie scripts out loud?  This Hollywood infiltration of our nation's government has gone too far.  The American people are demanding that we keep them safe, not spoil Dreamworks Animation movies!

I will be voting aye, and at the next round of midterm elections, I'll be campaigning against those who fail to take a stand in defense of our nation!

I am certain that the American people will rally around you as you... um, campaign against your colleagues in the Senate who think personal liberties and the right to privacy matter.

[Rezi]

Senator Rezi will also join the Filibuster, reading a history book about Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, drawing comparisons between the Patriot Act and these nations.

[MrPotatoTed]

8 minutes ago, The Blood said:

I am certain that the American people will rally around you as you... um, campaign against your colleagues in the Senate who think personal liberties and the right to privacy matter.

Personal liberties and privacy are for people who aren't under attack!

;c)

[Sean F Kennedy]

“ I find it funny that many of my colleagues who claim they stand steadfast against big government are so eagerly passing such a disastrous bill that destroys the civil liberties of our citizens, I will be voting no on this bill because if we cave and take away the civil liberties of our citizens then the terrorists have already won.”

[vcczar]

31 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

Personal liberties and privacy are for people who aren't under attack!

;c)

I would be more supportive of the Patriot Act if it allowed for the elimination of it's worst aspects when 1) The War on Terror ends; 2) We go a specific period of time without a domestic attack. 

For #1, this requires 1) a clear definition of who the specific enemy is or are. 2) a specific definition of what victory is against this enemy. 3) A clear set of goals with timetables. 

The issue a lot of people have with a War on Terror it is a vague label. It's like a War on Drugs. Or as Gore Vidal said, "A war on dandruff." A War on England or Syria makes sense. It's a specific target and involved a target that can agree to end hostilities and accept peace. Drugs, dandruff, and terrorists cannot. A vague war and a vague label is putting the war on US citizens by making them live under a national security state, including all its annoyances and invasions of privacy. 

Any bill that aims to protect us this invasively needs to have quick expiration dates on most -- if not all -- of it's components. I'd rather massively increase funding for the CIA and FBI than have laws aimed at US Citizens. 

(I would never say so publicly as a US Senator, but I would be loathe to accept a Patriot Act after just two terrorist attacks in 10 years--both at the same location. I'd suggest that NYC, DC, and other potential target cities get more federal funding for their own national security. Terrorists aren't going to attack fly over country and most parts of states. As a US Senator, I wouldn't support a Patriot Act until these conditions are met: 1) We have two international terrorist attacks on US soil in a single year. 2) We have have two 9-11 attacks--resulting in over 1,000 deaths within a 5 year period. 3) We see a significant increase in domestic terrorism by US citizens aligned with terrorist organization. I say this as someone that lived in NYC for 5 years, loves NY and loves people in NY. But the whole country shouldn't have to be restricted because of what happened in NYC and DC. Tragedies in two cities shouldn't rule a continent. I'll also add that every airport should receive funding for national security as well. Overall, I'm not opposed to a legislative reaction to terrorism, I'm opposed to overreaction.)

[WVProgressive]

This bill is an affront to everything that America stands for, and I will be joining my fellow senators in filibustering it by reading the entire bibliography of work by Thomas Paine, and Animal Farm by George Orwell.

[MrPotatoTed]

7 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I would be more supportive of the Patriot Act if it allowed for the elimination of it's worst aspects when 1) The War on Terror ends; 2) We go a specific period of time without a domestic attack. 

For #1, this requires 1) a clear definition of who the specific enemy is or are. 2) a specific definition of what victory is against this enemy. 3) A clear set of goals with timetables. 

The issue a lot of people have with a War on Terror it is a vague label. It's like a War on Drugs. Or as Gore Vidal said, "A war on dandruff." A War on England or Syria makes sense. It's a specific target and involved a target that can agree to end hostilities and accept peace. Drugs, dandruff, and terrorists cannot. A vague war and a vague label is putting the war on US citizens by making them live under a national security state, including all its annoyances and invasions of privacy. 

Any bill that aims to protect us this invasively needs to have quick expiration dates on most -- if not all -- of it's components. I'd rather massively increase funding for the CIA and FBI than have laws aimed at US Citizens. 

(I would never say so publicly as a US Senator, but I would be loathe to accept a Patriot Act after just two terrorist attacks in 10 years--both at the same location. I'd suggest that NYC, DC, and other potential target cities get more federal funding for their own national security. Terrorists aren't going to attack fly over country and most parts of states. As a US Senator, I wouldn't support a Patriot Act until these conditions are met: 1) We have two international terrorist attacks on US soil in a single year. 2) We have have two 9-11 attacks--resulting in over 1,000 deaths within a 5 year period. 3) We see a significant increase in domestic terrorism by US citizens aligned with terrorist organization. I say this as someone that lived in NYC for 5 years, loves NY and loves people in NY. But the whole country shouldn't have to be restricted because of what happened in NYC and DC. Tragedies in two cities shouldn't rule a continent. I'll also add that every airport should receive funding for national security as well. Overall, I'm not opposed to a legislative reaction to terrorism, I'm opposed to overreaction.)

I am prepared to vote aye for a war against both England and Syria.  Pleased to have your support!

;c)

[Hestia]

It is profoundly troubling to see the provisions of this bill firstly, and then the lack of debate on the second part. I doubt that all of my colleagues have even been able to read the bill in its entirety, much less have time to pore over every detail. There has been little to no allotment for amendments. The fact that there are provisions in this bill that would make it possible to search library records of all things is ludicrous. For that, I will be voting nay on this bill. 

[DakotaHale]

I will be joining the filibustering of the bill by reading If You Give a Mouse a Cookie (I have to get home soon)

[Kitten]

6 minutes ago, DakotaHale said:

I will be joining the filibustering of the bill by reading If You Give a Mouse a Cookie (I have to get home soon)

I will say to my fellow senate colleague that I love that book!

[MrPotatoTed]

1 hour ago, Patine said:

First off, I proudly join this filibuster in support of core American values and ideals this was built upon that the Neocons seem to be viewing as luxuries to be ignored when they're unaccountable and non-transparent (and very disturbing) form of policy-making make it an, "impediment." We may be starting to see a greater enemy to our nation than a organization of Islamist terrorists here - but I will fall short of accusation or prophecy in that matter at this point. And Senator @MrPotatoTed's comments grow even more disturbing and dystopian. "Personal liberties and privacy are for people who aren't under attack!" Really? He sounds like he's drumming a Third World despotism of the type created by a declaration of a National Crisis, but one that's never meant to end and to give Government unlimited, unquestioned power and irrelevate all Constitutional rights and protections if they get in the way. And speaking about declaring war on long-standing, even in jest, because of a few of their authors? Really? And why is he talking about Syria? Is he privy to some plan of mission creep we have not made privy to? And, because he finds the sources of everyone else's quotes so flimsy and flakey and pop culture, perhaps he'll find this more solid:

"He who sacrifices liberty for security deserves neither,"

-Benjamin Franklin

I, again, solidly vote nay and join the filibuster, and remain concerned about our obtuse colleague.

I was jokingly referencing the honorable Senator from...wherever @vcczaris from in 2001..., who stated that war with England or Syria would be preferable to war against terrorists...even though terrorists attacked our great nation and England and Syria, to our knowledge, have not.

[vcczar]

6 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

I was jokingly referencing the honorable Senator from...wherever @vcczaris from in 2001..., who stated that war with England or Syria would be preferable to war against terrorists...even though terrorists attacked our great nation and England and Syria, to our knowledge, have not.

I'm from Massachusetts in 2001. I didn't say war was preferable with a nation. I'm saying that something can be called a war if the target isn't vague, because one can prepare a plan and exit plan against a foe that isn't vague. I can say I like the idea of a War on Poverty, but I don't like the use of a "state of war" against something that can't be defined specifically. A better alternative is, "a policy to reduce poverty." It should have been a policy to reduce terrorism but not a war on terrorism. That implies it can become eradicated and/or has a central government that can assure a period of peace. Tagging a patriot act to a vague war will ensure the act lives on in perpetuity.  

[MrPotatoTed]

14 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I'm from Massachusetts in 2001. I didn't say war was preferable with a nation. I'm saying that something can be called a war if the target isn't vague, because one can prepare a plan and exit plan against a foe that isn't vague. I can say I like the idea of a War on Poverty, but I don't like the use of a "state of war" against something that can't be defined specifically. A better alternative is, "a policy to reduce poverty." It should have been a policy to reduce terrorism but not a war on terrorism. That implies it can become eradicated and/or has a central government that can assure a period of peace. Tagging a patriot act to a vague war will ensure the act lives on in perpetuity.  

“A War on England or Syria makes sense.”  
 

But I knew what you meant, of course.  And I agree that a war on poverty is a poor choice of words.  But a war on terrorism is fitting.  Because while we do not kill those who engage in poverty, we can and will kill those who take up arms or bombs or civilian airliners against us.

[MrPotatoTed]

4 minutes ago, Patine said:

And the American Constitution has obviously been put on the List of Terrorist Organizations, judging by this act and the disturbing tone of rhetoric from the White House. Who will President Bush give the honours of the official torching of the document in the Smithsonian?

I’m sure you’d have to ask him.  I am but a humble Senator from Pennsylvania.