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

[Pringles]

@Patine @vcczar

After a tiring filibuster Senator Pringle would rise once again to contribute to the ongoing discussion of the War on Terror, and insinuations made by these two gentlemen.

"I once again have to rise to make my own points in response to what these gentlemen have said. I think it's an incredible disgrace that he even hinted that the United States Government is worse than an organization of Islamic terrorists. There's no denying throughout history our government along with any government has done things that have been morally wrong, but for this Senator to even suggest that somehow our Government is worse than an Islamic terrorist organization is morally horrible and shows the hypocrisy of the Senator in and of itself. These terrorists we are fighting have no regard for other humans, not Americans, not Europeans, not even themselves. They are radical extremists who believe they are justified in taking as many lives necessary to fuel their supposed religious reward. These are not true Muslims. There are peaceful Muslims around the world everywhere, even here in America. They are just as American as you or I am, and we got to protect them. The War on Terror is about ensuring these radical extremists never do such thing as 911 again. And I fully support this national, not only American, but human effort to eradicate these savages. This is an enemy who will not give quarter, and they deserve no such quarter themselves. They will not stop until anyone who does not subscribe to their extremist version of Islam is dead. They are a plague, and an abomination. We shall not stop until we ensure that this kind of attack never happens again, and we shall not stop until we escort Osama Bin Laden to the gates of hell. Just as we did Adolf Hitler in 1945.   I'm opposing this bill on the basis of civil liberties, I think there are certainly new security measures we need to take to keep our citizens safe, I just don't think this bill accomplishes that because civil liberties are important and this goes way too far."

"While my other colleague says the War on Terror is vague, I personally don't believe so. I think the Senator knows exactly what it means but is just using it to exploit the political message he is trying to push. War on Terror means War on Al Qaeda. War on Islamic Extremism. War on any organization that is willing to do what Al Qaeda did in New York. And kill innocent civilians. This is not vague if the honorable gentlemen knows the criteria. The criteria is quite clear. This is not some evil effort perpetrated by the United States Government as the Senator from Washington would like to say, this is a global effort to ensure what happened on September 11th never happens again. While we may falter, we may not be able to stop all attacks, and killings in the world, we can send a message right here, right now that we won't tolerate this extremism. This Government is taking action, the United Nations is taking action. And despite my disagreement with most of my party, and my President on this bill, I still support him. And I support the War on Terror."

"As my honorable colleague from South Carolina would say, Nuff said. Say what you like. This is all you'll hear from me. I've talked too damn much today."

[Hestia]

13 minutes ago, Pringles said:

"As my honorable colleague from South Carolina would say, Nuff said. Say what you like. This is all you'll hear from me. I've talked too damn much today."

Doth says the man who thinks the bill is important enough to filibuster but not important enough to vote against 😎 

😛 

[Pringles]

Bear in mind who started this filibuster movement that all of you seemed to hop along on. 

 

😛

[Cenzonico]

14 minutes ago, Pringles said:

Bear in mind who started this filibuster movement that all of you seemed to hop along on. 

 

😛

We all have our own ideals and morals that we want to stick up for.

[jnewt]

Senator jnewt will join the filibuster by reading the entirety of the "Bee Movie" script (that doesn't come out for 6 more years)

[vcczar]

@Dobs @MrPotatoTed @WVProgressive @Rodja @JohnGRobertsJr @Cal @Rezi @DakotaHale @Sean F Kennedy @ConservativeElector2 @Cenzonico @Beetlejuice @Hestia @Patine @jnewt @Kitten @Magnus Rex @Pringles @The Blood @vcczar 

If everyone votes I can move on to the next bill. 

[vcczar]

3 minutes ago, Patine said:

The Republic and it's Liberty, Ideals of Justice, and Form of Government by the People are about to be dealt a close to mortal wound, and you're in a rush to move on... 🤨

I just like how much better this forum is than the 2001 US Senate. We have 12 "nay" votes joining Russ Feingold. If the vote were just forum members, the Patriot Act would fail.

[MrPotatoTed]

9 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I just like how much better this forum is than the 2001 US Senate. We have 12 "nay" votes joining Russ Feingold. If the vote were just forum members, the Patriot Act would fail.

I think our forum 2001 US Senate mostly has a 2021 mindset -- perhaps because many of them barely remember or perhaps weren't even alive to have experienced the real impact 2001 had on the US psyche.  There's a reason it was so overwhelmingly supported in the 50-50 Senate in the real 2001.

Edited April 30, 2021 by MrPotatoTed

[vcczar]

11 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

I think our forum 2001 US Senate mostly has a 2021 mindset -- perhaps because many of them barely remember or perhaps weren't even alive to have experienced the real impact 2001 had on the US psyche.  There's a reason it was so overwhelmingly supported in the 50-50 Senate in the real 2001.

Patine, Rodja, and myself are older than you, and we all voted against it. 

[MrPotatoTed]

10 minutes ago, Patine said:

I was alive back then. And, I'm also aware of the many, many times in world history that tyranny and abuse and overreach of power have been done far more easily - often at all - in an atmosphere of intense emotion and passion when a dystopian, manipulative figure plays this sentiment like a harp. That is EXACTLY what Bush and Cheney did in 2001. The fact you can't - or won't - see it is not my flaw or error to remedy...

Alive, but not in or from America.

I know @vcczar is slightly older than I am and was in America during 9/11, so I can at least respect his views a little more on this even though they're largely the same as yours.  But Canada, along with most of the rest of the world, gets the luxury of deciding to not do anything or get their hands dirty, because if the shit really hits the fan, they know America will deal with it.  And that's fine.  That's the price we pay.  But it doesn't make the other nations more morally just than us.  They have the freedom to turn a blind eye to major problems, because we give them that security and freedom.  Nobody steps up when we choose not to though -- at least, nobody who is going to be more compassionate and selfless.  Russia certainly was happy to dive in while we ignored Syria, but their actions there weren't in anyone's interests but Russia's.

Edited April 30, 2021 by MrPotatoTed

[MrPotatoTed]

6 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Patine, Rodja, and myself are older than you, and we all voted against it. 

Yes, with a 2021 mindset.  Not a "hey, we might die tomorrow if we don't do something about these terrorists" mindset that existed in 2001.

[vcczar]

6 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

Yes, with a 2021 mindset.  Not a "hey, we might die tomorrow if we don't do something about these terrorists" mindset that existed in 2001.

Even in 2001, I was against it once I knew what the Patriot Act was. I'll admit, I was okay with it then only because I was ignorant of what it all entailed. I expected it to be something that wouldn't last more than a year. I also assumed it was something that would apply only to potential terrorists and would cause no restrictions on Americans. 

I never once thought I would die, even if we completely opened the borders. I was in San Marcos, TX. Maybe I'd feel differently had I been in NYC at the time. But then, as I said, I would have favored, as I do now, only increased funding for National Security in airports and in NYC and DC. 

I think it was just emotion carrying the Patriot Act. If we waited on it, I'm sure we would have seen a few more people vote against it. If we waited another year, we'd see even more. I'd like to see a vote of Senators from that time on how they'd vote today on the act. I'm sure most of them would still support it (at least publicly) because all money and power that goes to military and national security must always be money well-spent and power well-increased. 

[MrPotatoTed]

18 minutes ago, Patine said:

A complete and utter gross misunderstanding of how the rest of the world - or at least First World - sees things and is impacted by events in the U.S., the nation and culture with by far the, "loudest global broadcast signal," if you will, and who society and views are intertwined with everything else in some way. And a viewpoint thoroughly and shamelessly coloured deeply by uneducated, ignorant, isolationist, self-mythologized, and highly stereotyped views of the rest of the world which a lot of Americans still, unfortunately, cling to, and would be best to move beyond such handicaps. The fact is, on the morning of 9/11, there was a very palpable influence on the atmosphere here in Edmonton - I remember it well. There students risking being late for college gathered around the window of the A-Channel building (an old pre-digital local station that broadcast it's programming out that front window), watching the initial coverage. And, even though PM Jean Chretien declined to send troops to Iraq, there were quite a few Canadians who fought - and died - in Afghanistan. But, obviously, in your stereotyped, simple, Americo-centric, Neo-Manichaean world, things are much different as you see them. Perhaps it's time to adjust your vision...

I am well aware that we had a wide coalition of troops, and I am thankful for them -- I personally served with some of them in Iraq.  One of my friends was shot in the neck by a sniper in Afghanistan, his life was saved by the courage and quick action of Italian troops.

And I certainly don't doubt that people across the globe were interested by the attacks on 9/11, and stopped to watch them on the news.  They were indeed interesting.  We received a wide range of support, from all over the globe.

Until it became time to actually do something about it.  Then it was just the "Coalition of the Willing."

But my comment was intended to be more broad than "the morning of 9/11."  I am speaking more globally, and more currently.  Other nations have the freedom to act more "holier than thou" on the global stage because they don't have to clean up the mess that comes from doing nothing.

Edited April 30, 2021 by MrPotatoTed

[MrPotatoTed]

1 minute ago, Patine said:

Again, clueless and falling back on bad stereotype. This isn't an old G.I. Joe or Golden Age Captain America comic or Tom Clancy novel. Stop speaking on situations with a sense as though you knew what you were talking about when you have no clue. Here's a hint - American news media is a bad source for reliable information, especially on these sorts of matters.

I lived overseas for four years.  I saw many of the countries we're talking about first hand.  I personally spoke with some of the residents.  Did some hate us?  Of course!  Were others incredibly thankful we were there?  Yes.

It's not a cartoon.  It's a life that I actually, personally, lived.

The reality of geopolitics is infinitely more complicated than you pretend that it is.

Edited April 30, 2021 by MrPotatoTed

[MrPotatoTed]

Just now, Patine said:

But obviously you seem to claim you know enough about the attitudes and responses of the whole rest of the world at the time of 9/11 to make the specific claim you did - while saying clearly you were in the U.S. AT THE TIME, and even dictating to me the attitudes in Canada AT THE TIME. Why don't you rectify this bizarre enigma for me?

I was an 18 year old college student on 9/11.  I was not in position to know the attitude of the world on that day.  What I do know came from your hated US media, which did show an overwhelming level of support and sorrow from around the world.

But I think you're intentionally pretending to not understand the point that I was actually making.  When America led the response to 9/11, did some countries follow?  Yes, and I'm thankful for that.

But we still had to lead.  We always have to lead.  Because nobody else will.

[MrPotatoTed]

25 minutes ago, Patine said:

And I think that you're failing to understand my point - that the Bush Administration passed a number of laws and made a number of actions while the emotional zeitgeist allowed it to go over with minimal question that were highly Unconstitutional, illegal, overreaches of power that exceed the mandate of the U.S. Federal Government under ANY circumstances, violations of the Bill of Rights, betrayals of their own people and close allies, war crimes, and - oh, yes - the Medieval, barbaric acts of TORTURE, which only sick animals who should not be walking among ordinary folk, but locked up in the kind of facilities Hannibal Lector was in in, "the Silence of the Lambs," for enacting or ordering. You also believe that Bush and those in his Administration should also have permanent and unconditional immunity from an open and transparent review after the fact to discern if any serious wrongdoing was made, and potentially levying criminal charges (like a board of inquiry in the military), but that they should be considered automatically, permanently, irrevocably, and unquestionably above reproach and incapable of criminal culpability for ANY actions in office.

Yeah man.  I've heard.  You are hardly the first person to ever say this, and this isn't even the first time you've said this to me.

My point is that people in this game are voting with a 2021 mindset "what we know/believe now", rather than the actual mindset of our 2001 congress, which explains why this passed 99-1 in a Senate that was dominated by Democrats in 2001 yet most of the players in our game are expressing outrage at the proposal.

And that's fine.  I don't actually care how people want to vote.  It's a game, if people are having fun I'm happy.

But that's what I mean when I'm talking about 2001 where Democrats voted unanimously  in favor with one exception, while Democrat members of our forum in 2021 are almost entirely united against it.

Edited April 30, 2021 by MrPotatoTed

[MrPotatoTed]

1 minute ago, Patine said:

But you ignored the part about you're views on complete immunity to any sort of review with an open and transparent procedure, in sober retrospect, of any crimes or wrongdoings the Bush Administration committed in office, and, even, if sufficient evidence and cause are found, levying trial if warranted by standing, appropriate laws. You seem to hold that they inherently and inalienably deserves immunity to ALL possible criminal culpability for every action committed in office. You're support for an unconditional immunity from such for the Bush Administration is a different matter than the attitude of the time the attacks occured - because sober retrospect ARE the big element at play in such a regard.

Not really -- I get the benefit of hindsight, but he doesn't?  That's not really the way that I judge people.

[MrPotatoTed]

Just now, Patine said:

"A murder of passion," is second degree murder in Common Law (Anglosphere) courts, as an example. Emotional duress only usually gets you off in contract law if you're emotionally manipulated to sign a bad contract. Otherwise, not. Also, not foreseeing the expanding consequences of committing what you already know is a criminal act when you commit it does not mean you get off due to lack of hindsight of the broader consequences. That's no defense.

If President Bush murdered his wife's lover in a fit of jealous rage, I would completely agree with you.  I don't actually have time to continue this nonsense.  I don't understand what you want me to do.  Am I supposed to take the information you have presented here, hop on a plane down to Texas, and arrest him?  I have things I have to do today.

[MrPotatoTed]

7 minutes ago, Patine said:

It's nonsense, is it? I guess you just may never see. The unconditional love and loyalty you have for Dear Leader Bush is too great in your heart, and to you he, is infallible and walks high above ordinary men. *Sigh* :S

Leadership is hard and unpopular, especially when the people you are leading come under attack, with the promise of future attacks as well.

War is ugly and innocent people die.  I've never denied any of that.  But the reality is that sometimes war is necessary anyway, because innocent people die when we aren't willing to go to war, too.  

You're right, I will never subscribe to your cartoon vilification of someone who was doing their best to keep us safe during a time when our safety was indeed seriously in doubt.  President Obama, President Bernie Sanders, President Dennis Kucinich or whoever else you can offer -- they either would have done the same if they'd been President on that day, or they would have failed to do their job as President of the United States.  

Edited April 30, 2021 by MrPotatoTed

[vcczar]

We need @Cal @Magnus Rex and @JohnGRobertsJr to respond. The latter two never voted on the last bill. 

[vcczar]

@Patine while I agree with your stance on Bush, the war, and this act, I find your debate strategy and tone extremely tiring and futile. It's one thing to engage in a debate against someone who will not change their mind, and it's another to engage in a debate against someone who will not change their mind over and over again about the same topic. 

I feel like I'm forced to watch a rerun of the worst TV show on earth. 

[Dobs]

22 hours ago, MrPotatoTed said:

Alive, but not in or from America.

I know @vcczar is slightly older than I am and was in America during 9/11, so I can at least respect his views a little more on this even though they're largely the same as yours.  But Canada, along with most of the rest of the world, gets the luxury of deciding to not do anything or get their hands dirty, because if the shit really hits the fan, they know America will deal with it.  And that's fine.  That's the price we pay.  But it doesn't make the other nations more morally just than us.  They have the freedom to turn a blind eye to major problems, because we give them that security and freedom.  Nobody steps up when we choose not to though -- at least, nobody who is going to be more compassionate and selfless.  Russia certainly was happy to dive in while we ignored Syria, but their actions there weren't in anyone's interests but Russia's.

And while I disagree with the Patriot Act as contrary to the values of our Republic, on this we agree 100% my friend. America is the leader of the Free World and it is our cross to bear to lead it. That often means opening our pocketbook and as much as a deficit hawk I am, I can hack the price for global stabiliy and freedom.

I just have trouble with stomaching taking a meat grinder to the 4th amendment. On that it seems we diverge. But our Foreign Policy doesn't seem to be all that different.

Edited May 1, 2021 by Dobs

[MrPotatoTed]

55 minutes ago, Dobs said:

And while I disagree with the Patriot Act as contrary to the values of our Republic, on this we agree 100% my friend. America is the leader of the Free World and it is our cross to bear to lead it. That often means opening our pocketbook and as much as a deficit hawk I am, I can hack the price for global stabiliy and freedom.

I just have trouble with stomaching taking a meat grinder to the 4th amendment. On that it seems we diverge. But our Foreign Policy doesn't seem to be all that different.

Agreed.  And to be clear, if the conversation was “should we repeal the Patriot Act in 2021”, I’d be doing more listening and less talking, because there are more valid points to be made.  But in 2001, it was necessary.

 

[vcczar]

I'll create the next vote for the next bill once @Cal votes on this one.

[Magnus Rex]

My Pennsylvania Independent Senator votes Nay on the Patriot Act