Cliffs for this thread: the PATRIOT act is o.k because it might have saved lives, no matter the costs. If you're against it you're sacrificing Americans. This is only true in the case of terrorism, using extreme measures to rescue people from a bad diet, traffic accidents or cure them from terrible diseases is not allowed.

Absolutely agree here. It's not proper to say out loud, but even losing 3,000 people ain't exactly the end of the world.

It ain't.

I think everyone can agree that even if the patriot act saved 10,000 lives, which is a very generous concession, if not outright fanciful dreamland, the cost in terms of resources spent and rights taken away still make it a net loser in any reasonable cost/benefit analysis.

If you were looking, these points were made earlier. But why be a hypocrite? Either rationalize the discrepancy for us, or stop your hypocrisy.

really surprised everyone has engaged this obvious troll for 280 posts.

I don't agree with the Patriot Act but preventing a terrorist attack that kills 1,000 people is arguably more valuable than preventing 1,000 deaths by car accident or whatever because of the economic repercussions that terrorist acts have.

more of this flipping the burden of proof.

YOU prove YOUR claim.

I'm going to go a bit further and argue that the US effort in the "War on Terror" has actually killed US citizens.

It is a virtual certainty. Much, much more certain than any shadowy BS that FF is hinting at.

Also, the request is ridiculous. "Use classified, unknowable information to prove a negative."

But it is not ridiculous to prove a positive under the same premise? Thats the whole point. Obviously I can not prove it. You either believe it or you do not. Stop trying to turn the debate into what can be proven or disproved. I stated an opinion based on what I saw, I did not ask you to believe it or not believe it.

But if all you people want to talk about is what I can or cant prove go ahead and waste time, just remember you can not prove that the information did not save lives and for the most part that was my point to begin with. The ignorance in which people makes judgments based on a severe lack of information is astounding. Whats more they screams at the top of their lungs that they right despite this ignorance.

So your right I can not prove it. Can you move on to your next thing your going to talk about in which you have almost no insight on, consequently forming an ignorant opinion.


The absence of information does not prove or disprove anything despite the ignorant contention it does.

OhTheIronyFlamingDecalCarOnFire.jpg

Except that, absent evidence, we are logically justified in proceeding in this argument as if no lives have been saved, as long as we're willing to reevaluate when evidence comes to light. You cannot make a logical case that the Patriot Act is justified despite infringing on rights because it saves lives without evidence that it saves lives. You're absolutely correct that we don't know how or if it's saved lives. That's an argument against keeping the Patriot Act around not one in favor of it.

Is it not impossible to prove a negative?

And also really hard to quantify something like that anyway? Like, prove how many lives the US constitution has saved, would be a tough one.

You can prove that there isn't a number that is even and odd.

It only ironic to you and others here. However, imagine if you had access to the same information I have and you read some of the crap in this thread.

I am pretty sure that I have access to the same information you have and I read your posts in this thread, so no imagining necessary IMO

No, I think you are logically justified in proceeding in this argument as if you did not know any lives were saved. You do not have access to all the information. Forming an opinion based on incomplete information is rather ignorant wouldn't you agree?

It was an opinion. Only did you and fellow posters ask me to justify it or make a case. I.E. prove it. I'm confident I've never asked anyone here to believe me. Nor have I asked anyone to change their opinion.

Yet your first sentence in your post says you can logically conclude that the Patriot Act has not saved lives based on lack of information.


And your right you can argue that point. But then you get in to national security concerns. Should all intelligence that saves lives be public knowledge so we know the patriot act is serving a good purpose or people are aware that its saving lives? It's a catch-22 for supporters of it. You either expose state secrets that can put lives and operations in danger to prove its working or keep it a secret and let people make judgments based incomplete information. I understand people value their civil liberties as do I and ideally I would be opposed to a law such as the Patriot Act. However, having the insight I had I see the value. But I've said that before and it turned into prove it or it did not happen B.S. When clearly my point was, my background allowed me understand things.....and thats why I came to that conclusion.

I completely understand an respect the other side, civil liberties. It is valid. I just think the positives of the Patriot Act out weigh the consequences. How many of the opponents can say the same thing. Seems they can not even acknowledge the possibility exist that it does have a positive effect.

how do you ignore some ones post?


Edit: Never mind, found it.

Listen, I haven't taken a position in this thread, and you wrote a multi-paragraph screed against me. All I pointed out was that asking someone to use classified information to prove people *haven't* died is a ridiculous request.

I have no idea if the Patriot Act is a net benefit. Even if there was a way of knowing, that information wouldn't find its way to me because apparently it's classified. But now here you are, Mr. Bond, with your "insight."

Another poster said it best:

I work in a relatively low-level position for the federal judiciary. I would never, ever, ever reveal any kind of information about what happens here, no matter how trivial, and I definitely wouldn't try to dress it up like I was just expressing my opinion. There was a time, on this forum, when I expressed a very mild opinion on the federal government shutdown, and I insta-deleted it. I've regretted posting it ever since. I can't imagine what would possess someone with some type of security clearance to hint at classified information on a public forum.

I'm guessing the closest you ever came to a security clearance is the janitor's closet next to a locked room in a federal building somewhere. Either that or your judgment is severely lacking, and thus I feel confident in ignoring your opinion.

Okay. But you feel the need to point that out why? Who really ****ing cares If I had clearance or not. Get over it. Only ones making a big deal out of it is you people who question it and I do not care.

You make an ignorant post talking about "irony" when the same principal could of been applied to the other side of the argument. So sure attack my personal credentials as if they have any relevance to the discussion other than how I formed my opinion.

The other thing is, its the same thing I've been railing about the whole time. People making judgments based on incomplete information. You assume based on your court room job that you would know about me despite having no particular insight to who I am, what I've done, or where I've been. So gain why did you feel the need to point that out when clearly you have no basis to form any type of logical conclusion on the matter.

I don't claim to know about "you." I know that any competent government employee with access to any kind of information that shouldn't be made public won't even hint to the information they know.

And to get to the merits of this discussion, you're essentially telling people without "insight" that they aren't allowed to form an opinion about the Patriot Act, and by extending the logic, they can't form an opinion on basically anything involving classified information. Or else you'll crow about incomplete information.

Well congratulations then, you win this debate as well as the internet. You've done your high-level security clearance proud by using your special information to win an argument. I figured they gave that type of clearance to trustworthy and competent employees, but what do I know.

I still think that your expert janitorial services only helped you glean spectacular insight into the world of pine scented cleaners and which brooms perform best in quidditch.

You let the cat out of the janitor's closet bro, not me. This is a discussion about the Patriot Act, you profess to have special "insight" because of your security clearance, and now you wanna stuff crookshanks back into the bag by telling people to forget about it? Who cares? You do! That's why you brought it up! If you want to appeal to your own authority, don't get butthurt when people hold your feet to the fire about it.

FleeingFish is now the 2nd person on my ignore list.

What is 2.5? Even or odd?

I'm a bad boy then. Sue me. I think I've earned the right to express my opinion and support it with what ever I want no matter if it amounts to a hill of beans, oh wait, I've not only earned it, its granted to me by the constitution of the United States. So when you say I have to prove something after making a comment, **** you. I owe no one anything.

No......I'm not telling people that. I'm not telling anyone what they opinion they can or can not form. I'm telling people they are ignorant, due to no fault of their own, they are forming an opinion on incomplete information. Also, People are telling me that I can not form an opinion based on information I can not provide. I haven't told anyone they can not do anything. Only that its ignorant to do it.

I respect peoples opinion based on the fact that the Patriot Act can infringe upon your civil liberties. Thats a valid and legitimate concern. However, I do not respect people who use "doesn't work" or "doesn't save lives" on the basis of not having complete information.

You can stop mischarterizing my opinion and what I've posted thus far now. Thanks.



Blah, blah blah.

Someone should start a "Who are the bad Politics poasters" thread a la the SE forum.

I like how you invoke your First Amendment rights, as if I'm the police trying to shut you up.

protip: People on the internet can criticize you without violating the Bill of Rights.