The Patriot Act is not the product of people who respect the rule of law. It is the product of Republican politicians who bemoan the 'trashing of the constitution' in one moment, and then write legislation to supersede it's authority in the next - the same people you would vote in on the belief that it is social welfare that is killing America.
Your arrogance is absurdly stupid. Once again you assume you know something about me, and this time you assume you know how I vote. It is simply moronic to make such assumptions without any knowledge to back them up. Do you enjoy making a fool of yourself?
In regards to the Patriot Act being a product of Republican politicians, again you demonstrate remarkable ignorance. In terms of its passage, it is a product of both Democrats and Republicans. The appropriately named link below will edify you on exactly who voted for, and who voted against the Patriot Act in 2001, and 2006:
educate-yourself.org...
That link lets you know who voted for the Patriot Act. Who wrote the damn thing were a bevy of lawyers, not politicians...lawyers.
Your 'american dream' and the Mayflower analogy are not contextually appropriate. America was not made great solely by virtue of pure ambition - up and until the late 1930s and 1940s, the United States was neither a superpower nor the economic powerhouse that it became after the invigoration of its industry when the need to tool up for world war 2 and provide arms under lend-lease became necessary. It was a mixture of various factors which made America successful, whilst not discounting the ambition of its people. Pure ambition alone would have never got the United States anywhere, if it did not have the right natural resources and the prevailing economic conditions were not right.
Typical of the collectivist, it just rankles you to know end to think that individual effort alone is what made America great, and let's not for a single second confuse the "super power" status of the United States the last 50 or 60 years as demonstrative of that once great nation. The United States weathered many different types of economic conditions in its rise as successful nation, and that rise was not due to collectivism, it was due to individualism, and if America is ever to be great again, it will be because individuals on an aggregate level soundly reject the nonsense of collectivism and begin doing as individuals what they can, and most assuredly what they must.
The reason America is seeing its political and economic hegemony slowly receding is because the United States, although still the worlds largest economy, does not 'produce' in the sense that it used to. You certainly have more industry than the United Kingdom, but cheaper labour costs and higher profit margins are forcing production to move to China and India, both of whose economies are rapidly outgrowing the West.
Typical of the Marxist you insist on viewing economy in terms of industrialization, but if the U.S. as a nation of individuals ever hopes to break away from the trap of industrialization, the individuals within that nation are going to have to understand that industrialization does not create economies. Indeed, in the day and age of robotics, and artificial intelligence, the idea of paying any kind of labor for a job that can easily be done through automation is past the point of absurd, it is in every way inefficient. The idea of creating jobs just for the sake of jobs is a losing proposition. There are too many needs on the planet, and way more resources than scare mongers care to admit to, to diminish economy down to job creation for the sake of jobs.
And stop using that stupid phrase 'the priest lawyer class'. It makes you sound like an uneducated ponce repeatedly spouting the same thing which noone has ever heard before.
Yeah, right. Now, go put on your black robe and powdered wig, and all rise...all utter their prayers to the Lord Judge...all be seated. You are very much a part of the priest class lawyer set, and I am greatly pleased it annoys you to be labeled so appropriately.
And as for your assumptions? I imagine you think me to be someone in my mid 30s/40s? Wrong! I'm in my final year of law school.
Yet another stupid assumption. I have not imagined you at any age, or sex, or any other sort of characteristic other than the priest class lawyer mysticism you so clearly worship.
Not quite the East-Coast fat-cat you had in mind eh? Assumptions go both ways pal...
Obviously things go easier for you in your imagination. Welcome to the real world, sport.
