Does anyone think Obama might be helping the overall populace, by giving them a clear goal to fight against in the future?
When one is powerless to stop something on their own, the next best thing I imagine is to give others clear direction. Funneling these decisions through the executive branch gives us that, if ever it were abused in future administrations.
Someone might be able to answer this : I keep hearing that he was cornered into passing this law. So, what exactly are these mechanisms at work forcing him to do so ? I mean sure there are lobbies and money. But ... what else ? Can someone clarify this ?
Someone might be able to answer this : I keep hearing that he was cornered into passing this law. So, what exactly are these mechanisms at work forcing him to do so ? I mean sure there are lobbies and money. But ... what else ? Can someone clarify this ?
I'm not 100%, but I'm gathering that the offending section(s) of the bill were just a small part of a much larger piece of legislation - outlining the military's budget as a whole. Including things like aid for veterans and their families. You can't veto the bill without saying to hell with the entirety of it.
Additionally, from what I can tell, this thing had overwhelming support in both house and senate. Sure he could've vetoed it, but congress could've reversed that with the right numbers - which might not've been hard to get.
Which leaves the president in a position of saying "Well I can either just veto it, and have them likely push it into law anyway - possibly without funneling a lot of these decisions through the executive branch. Or I can sign it with some changes that put the power in my hands."
Looks like he was pretty well screwed either way. I suppose he could have vetoed it on principle, but his principles don't mean a whole lot with the way the system is built.
I could be misunderstanding some things, but that's what I'm getting right now.
First they came for the terrorists and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a terrorist.
Then they came for the protesters and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a protestor.
Then they came for the dissenters, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a dissenter.
Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.
Incredibility ignorant to compare any of this to the persecution of jews during the holocost... Just... What the fuck, seriously?
Number one way to make yourself look like a complete and total moron, compare some trivial disagreement with the current government to the genoecide of 6 million jews.
Honestly, I'm pretty disgusted with the bill too, but these sort of comparisons are beyond distasteful.
EQ, it's the principal of the thing. The idea that sticking up for yourself, and for others, is the only way to protect your rights. It wasn't a comparison to the holocaust, I don't think. Just a good quote about being a good human. Sticking up for your neighbors.
Ben Franklin Was asked "What Kind of Government do we Have?" He Responded, "A Republic, If you can keep it." If you can keep it. This is what they meant. Laws taking our freedoms, in the name of Safety, security, and justice. I do not like this at all, and I am a conservative.
The reason I do not like it, is the government might not be tyrannical today, but what about tomorrow, or the next day? We do not know, and have to retain whatever freedom we have as long as we can. There is no, the Government will not abuse it. The government abuses and screw up everything it gets its hands on. And it will abuse and screw this up too.
If We can Keep It??? The question I have for you guys is, have we lost it yet? With the way the government is growing and taking our rights, it is only a matter of time. How do we stop it, and get back this once great country of ours?
Incredibility ignorant to compare any of this to the persecution of jews during the holocost... Just... What the fuck, seriously?
Number one way to make yourself look like a complete and total moron, compare some trivial disagreement with the current government to the genoecide of 6 million jews.
Honestly, I'm pretty disgusted with the bill too, but these sort of comparisons are beyond distasteful.
No, it's about not letting people get away with oppression, because it emboldens them to escalate their oppression of others until they eventually come to oppress you. By not speaking up, you've given them permission and the power to oppress more and more people. If you don't speak up for the rights of others, who will speak up for your rights? That is the overall, core lesson that message teaches. We have to protect each other in order to protect ourselves.
Ben Franklin Was asked "What Kind of Government do we Have?" He Responded, "A Republic, If you can keep it." If you can keep it. This is what they meant. Laws taking our freedoms, in the name of Safety, security, and justice. I do not like this at all, and I am a conservative.
The reason I do not like it, is the government might not be tyrannical today, but what about tomorrow, or the next day? We do not know, and have to retain whatever freedom we have as long as we can. There is no, the Government will not abuse it. The government abuses and screw up everything it gets its hands on. And it will abuse and screw this up too.
If We can Keep It??? The question I have for you guys is, have we lost it yet? With the way the government is growing and taking our rights, it is only a matter of time. How do we stop it, and get back this once great country of ours?
Well, if we can't take back our country with the first amendment, we may have to look to the second amendment. It's not a thought a relish.
EQ, it's the principal of the thing. The idea that sticking up for yourself, and for others, is the only way to protect your rights. It wasn't a comparison to the holocaust, I don't think. Just a good quote about being a good human. Sticking up for your neighbors.
No, its more than that, its bullshit when Glenn Beck does it and its bullshit when greevar does it. Its about having even the slightest sense of perspective. I dont care how bad your day was, it doesn't compare. If he had no intention of comparing this to the holocost, he wouldn't be referencing that quote.
To reference that quote and not understand the impact is perhaps even more foolish and offensive.
No, it's about not letting people get away with oppression, because it emboldens them to escalate their oppression of others until they eventually come to oppress you. By not speaking up, you've given them permission and the power to oppress more and more people. If you don't speak up for the rights of others, who will speak up for your rights? That is the overall, core lesson that message teaches. We have to protect each other in order to protect ourselves.
See, you're perfectly capable of expressing your thoughts with your own words, no need to trivialize the suffering of the holocost to make a point.
No, its more than that, its bullshit when Glenn Beck does it and its bullshit when greevar does it. Its about having even the slightest sense of perspective. I dont care how bad your day was, it doesn't compare. If he had no intention of comparing this to the holocost, he wouldn't be referencing that quote.
To reference that quote and not understand the impact is perhaps even more foolish and offensive.
That quote is not just for Jews, or the Holocaust. It is for everyone that is, has, or will be oppressed. It is and will always be a reminder that if you do not stand up and fight for your neighbor, you could be next.
And calling someone a racist because they us it, does nothing but show your inability to disconnect yourself from the equation. I hope you do not take this the wrong way, but you calling him and a few other racist for using it, is racist in itself. You are asserting that they cannot use it because they are not the correct race, or do not understand what that race went through. I was not there, and I am pretty sure you were not either. And that makes your entire argument mute.
The quote is a beautiful, and eloquent way of saying, We died because we did not stand together against Oppression. And his use of it is directly in line with what the author meant it for.
No, its more than that, its bullshit when Glenn Beck does it and its bullshit when greevar does it. Its about having even the slightest sense of perspective. I dont care how bad your day was, it doesn't compare. If he had no intention of comparing this to the holocost, he wouldn't be referencing that quote.
To reference that quote and not understand the impact is perhaps even more foolish and offensive.
When did Greevar say that our current predicament is the same as the holocaust?
Here's greevar's quote:
"First they came for the terrorists and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a terrorist.
Then they came for the protesters and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a protestor.
Then they came for the dissenters, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a dissenter.
Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me."
1. Citizens can now be considered terrorists by the government stripping them of rights and due process.
2. Protester's have gotten right fucked up all over the world.
3. Anybody who now opposes the government will now be forced to shut the fuck up.
Considering how similar pre WWII germany was to modern day America, I would say it's a pretty applicable quote to use.
In your eyes I guess we shouldn't ever talk about the holocaust or try to learn from the history leading up to it...
When I was a teen my parents used to say how America was drifting closer and closer to the USSR and the eastern bloc they grew up in. I thoughtt hey were just being funny old people.
Now it's not funny at all.
The powers that be are shocked and appalled that the dirty masses can actually be unhappy at the injustice and corruption in the world, and they're rolling out the guns one by one. I expect worse than this to come. SOPA will pass. There will be some "domestic terror incident", and Washington will think of something worse to trot out. We've been drifting towards McCarthyism with terrorists since the mid 90s, so don't be surprised when Sen. Beck waves around a blank "list of known terrorist supporters" on the Senate floor in 2020.
When I was a teen my parents used to say how America was drifting closer and closer to the USSR and the eastern bloc they grew up in. I thoughtt hey were just being funny old people.
Now it's not funny at all.
The powers that be are shocked and appalled that the dirty masses can actually be unhappy at the injustice and corruption in the world, and they're rolling out the guns one by one. I expect worse than this to come. SOPA will pass. There will be some "domestic terror incident", and Washington will think of something worse to trot out. We've been drifting towards McCarthyism with terrorists since the mid 90s, so don't be surprised when Sen. Beck waves around a blank "list of known terrorist supporters" on the Senate floor in 2020.
And where "known terrorist supporters" is anything from people who is against the police methods and the war, to actually terrorists. So watch out that you don't speak against them, because you might be "a commie!" (funny how history repeats itself)
I'm not 100%, but I'm gathering that the offending section(s) of the bill were just a small part of a much larger piece of legislation - outlining the military's budget as a whole. Including things like aid for veterans and their families. You can't veto the bill without saying to hell with the entirety of it.
Additionally, from what I can tell, this thing had overwhelming support in both house and senate. Sure he could've vetoed it, but congress could've reversed that with the right numbers - which might not've been hard to get.
Which leaves the president in a position of saying "Well I can either just veto it, and have them likely push it into law anyway - possibly without funneling a lot of these decisions through the executive branch. Or I can sign it with some changes that put the power in my hands."
Looks like he was pretty well screwed either way. I suppose he could have vetoed it on principle, but his principles don't mean a whole lot with the way the system is built.
I could be misunderstanding some things, but that's what I'm getting right now.
The NDAA bill passed 86 to 14 in the senate and 283-136 in the House. Over the 2/3 majority needed to override presidential veto.
Personally I think he should have just veto'd it anyway because given the outrage over the provisions it's possible that enough congressmen reversed their position on it. Even if it hadn't at least he'd have done something.
I really don't believe this bill poses any threat to anyone that didn't already exist. As I said in the other thread everything in this bill is essentially unwritten law already by court precedent and is things the U.S. has already been doing since 2001. The fact that people are only upset about this now is baffling to me.
Everyone concerned about OWS protesters being rounded up has seriously misplaced fears because between the congressional statements written into the bill about it's intent and all the holes in it that trying to enforce it against HC and Hamdi, using this against a U.S. citizens without credible Al Qaeda ties in such cases would require a total collapse of responsibility of both the executive and judicial branches of the government.
This bill is horrible but it is not 1984, not yet anyway.
you r all blind to the truth: the NDAA is a tool for the zionist elite manipulating washington. Obama Mulsim? give me a break! it's a perfect cover-up i tell ya!
Think the purpose the the NDAA is more about fear than what the bill can actually do,
anyone who uses there 1st amendment right is already declared UN-American(wtf does that mean)
than since the late 90's there has been the war on terror, and the US shown they will be ruthless in it, so now there saying that protesters which is just people using there 1st amendment right are a form of terrorist.
For anyone who thinks you cant compare any of this to the holocaust, I suggest you watch the documentary "The End of America". They compare it extremely well, with 10 compelling examples of what was happening back then, and what is happening now that is the exact same.. It's up to you if you want to believe any of it, but all the examples they give and all the comparisons they make are frightening.... You can check it out on Netflicks. Or at least, Canadian netflicks. Its only an hour long, and totally worth a watch.
That may be closed now but I'm sure there is still plenty of companys which they are still using. Their is almost no difference between corporations and the US government. So you have companys looking for intelligence results for profits, people being tortured for information under a profit result based scheme. Nothings going to go wrong with that.
In Iraq they offered a large reward, 20,000 or so for people to turn in terrorists. You can guess what happened with that.
The US government is blatantly corrupt, maybe not as much as it was with Bush.
These people think they are doing the right thing that is the scary thing. They are inept corrupt stupid, they presumed guilt with a country from no evidence.
Something like this gives them free reign to do whatever they want. If they want to commit full free market policies(and make themselves richer and everyone else poorer). Anyone whom dissents against that is obviously a terrorist.
Something like this gives them free reign to do whatever they want. If they want to commit full free market policies(and make themselves richer and everyone else poorer). Anyone whom dissents against that is obviously a terrorist.
This is very very inhumane and bad, and should be lobbied against and opposed.
It's also not near as scary as you guys are acting like.
America is in many ways a toxic, corrupt culture, but the amount of transparency, openness, and individual power absolutely dwarfs pre-war germany and it's dishonest to imply otherwise. It will probably also be knocked down by the supreme court at some point, who still show virtually no signs of corruption after all these years.
A lot of people may just have to suffer horribly in the meantime if the law is abused.
I'm sorry, but it's illogical to toss off the correlations to past dictatorships as hyperbole. That this step is small is stating the obvious. But that's the actual problem. In many cases of past dictatorships, the transition into it was so small, so gradual, that nobody notices it until we're there.
And let's not blow this out of perspective either. It's not like people are saying "Oh, Obama signed this into law, we are now officially a dictatorship", and then go riot in the streets. This is simply a discussion meant to show that people are aware of what's going on, and that awareness alone is worth it.
"To live in this process is absolutely not to be able to notice itplease try to believe meunless one has a much greater degree of political awareness, acuity, than most of us had ever had occasion to develop. Each step was so small, so inconsequential, so well explained or, on occasion, regretted, that, unless one were detached from the whole process from the beginning, unless one understood what the whole thing was in principle, what all these little measures that no patriotic German could resent must some day lead to, one no more saw it developing from day to day than a farmer in his field sees the corn growing. One day it is over his head.
He goes on to say:
"Uncertainty is a very important factor, and, instead of decreasing as time goes on, it grows. Outside, in the streets, in the general community, everyone is happy. One hears no protest, and certainly sees none. You know, in France or Italy there would be slogans against the government painted on walls and fences; in Germany, outside the great cities, perhaps, there is not even this. In the university community, in your own community, you speak privately to your colleagues, some of whom certainly feel as you do; but what do they say? They say, Its not so bad or Youre seeing things or Youre an alarmist.
So again, I don't believe that we're actually doing that bad. But this is exactly why blowing things out of proportion, so to speak, should be looked at as a good thing. I don't see the advantage of pretending like bad things don't happen (not that anyone is saying that here), or that we shouldn't be alarmed. Or worse yet, that we shouldn't compare this to past events. If we can't learn from the past, then how dumb are we really?
I largely agree John, I just think it's too easy to fall slightly into the side of an alarmist. Things like this are worrying and should be fought, for sure, but for all its evils and endemic oppression and racism, american voters and politicians still show reverence to key checks and balances, such as the judicial system.
We may just have to agree to disagree, I think we centrally just have a very very slight disagreement on perspective. The book sounds cool. I'll bookmark it.
it's a common tactic, create a external and internal enemy, in WWII it was the Allies as the external enemy, and the jews as the internal enemy, and use that to create fear, in the society, and to get people to sigh there right away for so-called safety.
just different now since the internal and external enemy are both labeled terrorists, but it is still creating fear, and people allowing there rights to slip away, for the idea of safety, which is only temporary.
To give a little movie quote: "People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people."
Time to blow up the House of Parliament
Aka France, where they do peaceful demonstrations all the friggin time and get what they want way more than over here. better health care? they demonstrate, they get it. Affordable housing, the demonstrate, they get it. More vacation time, they demonstrate, they get it.
Governments will hear what you say, if your voice in loud enough.
My Mom always says "If you put a frog in a pot full of water, and boil it slowly, the frog will stay in there and die. But if you drop him into already boiling water, he'll hop out instantly", or something like that. Same idea as the farmer in the field who doesn't notice how his corn is growing until it has grown. The government is making small changes, but they will add up, and eventually, who knows, we could all be boiled frogs.
Who knows? I try not to jump to conclusions, but this whole thing is pretty scary.
I just hope the current Canadian federal government doesn't follow the State's footsteps
ya thats what i worry about too, Harper can be pretty extreme sometimes, and the 2 parties that would oppose it have completely fallen apart, so there is effectively no opposition party anymore.
didn't like Laytons policies about unions, but Canada really did need him alive as a counter balance to harper, so i think Canada lost hope with this death.
though on the upside the Canadian gov isnt "AS" bought as the American one.
I think this is absolutely a time to be alarmed. To follow the fire scenario the signing of this law is seeing smoke.
I've never really been much of a conspiracy theorist but i believe we've just gone past the government being against us as a theory into it being fact. I mean look at what's happened this past year that i for one am shocked by. The OWS movement being met with brutalizing force. Peaceful american protestors being beaten and jailed by american policemen on american soil. And the goverments response to us "waking up" is of course the NDAA. That gets rid of the protestors.
It just seems to me like they're systematically creating an america where we the people have absolutely no control and it scared the shit out of me.
I think this is THE time to be alarmed and do something about it because it's only going to get worse. We can't really afford to make assumptions like "oh they'll get rid of it sooner or later"....or "it wont get past supreme court". It got as far as the president signing it into a bill i'd say that's pretty far.
Our blind faith in our government is our weakness as a country.
Okay, maybe I just misunderstood you guys on where 'alarmed' is. I've been mistrusting cops and thinking I could be abused by my government since i was old enough to read, for ME alarm is when you start fighting in the streets and robbing grocery stores for resources.
DEFINITELY the time to start demanding reform from our public institutions. I think that time began before I was born.
it's a common tactic, create a external and internal enemy, in WWII it was the Allies as the external enemy, and the jews as the internal enemy, and use that to create fear, in the society, and to get people to sigh there right away for so-called safety.
just different now since the internal and external enemy are both labeled terrorists, but it is still creating fear, and people allowing there rights to slip away, for the idea of safety, which is only temporary.
Jews didn't blew up anything on 9/11, right? Somehow different story. (At least if you disregard some conspiracy theories...).
And guise, guise.
there was no Internet pre-WW2. Any conclusions? I can't imagine this going totally frantic and people not noticing. This whole NDAA thing... I don't know what to think really. Maybe it really is a sign of something.
Jews didn't blew up anything on 9/11, right? Somehow different story. (At least if you disregard some conspiracy theories...).
And guise, guise.
there was no Internet pre-WW2. Any conclusions? I can't imagine this going totally frantic and people not noticing. This whole NDAA thing... I don't know what to think really. Maybe it really is a sign of something.
that point was it doesn't matter of the threat is real or not, society just needs to believe it is.
I think this is absolutely a time to be alarmed. To follow the fire scenario the signing of this law is seeing smoke.
Why is now suddenly the time? You're over a decade late to be concerned about indefinite detainment.
I feel like a broken record here but: the NDAA does NOT state that Americans can be imprisoned indefinitely without trial, the issue is that the bill also does not state that they completely exempt. Critics argue that the latter implies the former, that because there is no exemption, Americans must be included. But this interpretation is false because it's directly at odds with the constitution which guarantees all citizens habeas corpus and a right to trial.
The abscence of an exemption only implies that the judicial system must make the judgement of the legality of it. Luckily it already has because as I said the U.S. has been doing this since 2001!! The Bush administration tried twice to hold Americans indefinitely without trial/habeas corpus under AUMF and failed both times. Here's an excerpt from the Supreme Court in one of those cases:
Justice O'Connor regarding the indefinite detainment of American Yaser Esam Hamdi:
"We have long since made clear that a state of war is not a blank check for the President when it comes to the rights of the nation's citizens."
In spite of what TYT would lead you to believe this does not shred the constitution.
Why is now suddenly the time? You're over a decade late to be concerned about indefinite detainment.
I feel like a broken record here but: the NDAA does NOT state that Americans can be imprisoned indefinitely without trial, the issue is that the bill also does not state that they completely exempt.
Ummm yeah that's actually exactly what it says. Refer to the video i posted in the start of this thread. There are two parts in this law. There is one part that says we are exempt, and then there's a second part that completely contradicts the first part in saying that we aren't exempt. That's one of the big controversies over this law is that it's contradictory in it's content. It's made to confuse us IMO.
Let me do some digging and find an article on that or video as i feel my words alone wont suffice.
Dude did you even read my post? No that is not what it says, and no It's not made to confuse, it's deliberately left vague to be subject to JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION.
It's one of those situations where it's ambiguous enough to give the government super-powers, and at the same time they can claim it's no biggie. Which means that, in reality, they're going to have to do it and wait for the supreme court to tell them they can't.
If you don't believe that, then look at Obama's very own statement regarding the bill, AFTER he signed it.
"I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists."
So the guy signing the bill says himself that he has issues with it. Yet he signs it anyway. But that's not even the worse, the worse is this:
"I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens...
Where he in fact recognizes that the bill now gives him the authority to indefinitely detain American citizens without trials, it's just that, you see, he's SUCH a nice guy that he pinky-promises to never use it. Say he is such a nice guy, and he never does use it. Even then he recognizes that HIS administration won't do it. But any future ones, like say in a year from now, are of course fully free to do so. He's not gonna be president forever.
The point is though, that there obviously is a threat if the president himself admits there is one. Even if you wanna say the bill doesn't do that, or that it's illegal or unconstitutional, there's still nothing to stop them from doing this. And they fully believe that they now can do this. And we're supposed to be happy that the supreme court may rule in our favor, should such case ever be brought before it. Of course, by the nature of indefinite military detention, without trial mind you, it's highly unlikely the supreme court will ever even find out such detention took place. Not for many years after the fact.
During the debates about this bill the point was raised that there was no American exemption, Carl Levin (who drafted the ammendment) stated on the senate floor that the Obama administration explicitly asked him to remove the language precluding American citizens.
And yes the whole point of this was to leave the issue some-what unresolved. But this brings us back to the AUMF, not the NDAA.
And my definition of being alarmed is just noticing the smoke. Seeing it and being like "oh shit...my apartment is on fire i should probably either do something or extinguish it or gtfo". I guess i am implying that some action needs to take place....but i feel that will only make the government react just as it has with the OWS movement but worse.
IMO this country is unfix able. Call me a cynic, anti American whatever.....We're asking the rich to be less rich and the powerful to be less powerful. That's not going to happen in this country ever. The rich and corrupt have been doing it for decades and arent about to change their ways simply because we're aware now.
It's a disastrous piece of legislation and I agree action should be taken. I'm glad this is receiving attention, I just don't like misrepresentation and I prefer people would see this bill for what it is instead of making it out to be something it's not.
Even understanding that the AUMF already grants the president these powers, I think that before people begin panicking that we're living in a military state and OWS protesters will be rounded up, they should keep in mind that the supreme court has already ruled in favor of the constitution on this issue twice. It is good to be upset by this but having a sense of perspective and proportion is the reason why we aren't locked in Glenn Beck's doomsday bunker.
Much as I love TYT but it's still an opinion journalism show...
I can understand being pessimistic, call me naive but I don't think the U.S. is so weak that it cannot survive this. The U.S. is only doomed when its people give up.
Edit: Supreme court has actually only ruled once, my mistake. Either way, point remains.
The ACLU does not disagree with me, perhaps I just haven't explained this well enough.
Misconception: This bill makes it legal for the president to detain U.S. Citizens indefinitely.
Truth: This bill does not make it legal or illegal, it leaves the scope of the authority of the bill to the supreme court to decide. Or to quote the ACLU: "...the final word on the scope of detention authority belongs to the Supreme Court, which has yet to rule on the scope of detention authority..."
We're asking the rich to be less rich and the powerful to be less powerful. That's not going to happen in this country ever. The rich and corrupt have been doing it for decades and arent about to change their ways simply because we're aware now.
So you're saying, because it's always been that way, we shouldn't try to change it? I think people have always been aware of it, but haven't done much about it, because things weren't so badly out of control. The rich have always been able to influence politicians, but in the last decade, politicians have stopped being 'influenced' and have flat out become puppets.
As for the NDAA, I'll give you a very recent scenario, where I can see it getting applied/abused, had this law existed a few months back. There were people calling the OWS people terrorists (google "OWS are terrorists"). Many of the protesters could have been detained until the whole moment died down. You have to be pretty naive if you don't think they would have done that.
Replies
When one is powerless to stop something on their own, the next best thing I imagine is to give others clear direction. Funneling these decisions through the executive branch gives us that, if ever it were abused in future administrations.
I'm not 100%, but I'm gathering that the offending section(s) of the bill were just a small part of a much larger piece of legislation - outlining the military's budget as a whole. Including things like aid for veterans and their families. You can't veto the bill without saying to hell with the entirety of it.
Additionally, from what I can tell, this thing had overwhelming support in both house and senate. Sure he could've vetoed it, but congress could've reversed that with the right numbers - which might not've been hard to get.
Which leaves the president in a position of saying "Well I can either just veto it, and have them likely push it into law anyway - possibly without funneling a lot of these decisions through the executive branch. Or I can sign it with some changes that put the power in my hands."
Looks like he was pretty well screwed either way. I suppose he could have vetoed it on principle, but his principles don't mean a whole lot with the way the system is built.
I could be misunderstanding some things, but that's what I'm getting right now.
Incredibility ignorant to compare any of this to the persecution of jews during the holocost... Just... What the fuck, seriously?
Number one way to make yourself look like a complete and total moron, compare some trivial disagreement with the current government to the genoecide of 6 million jews.
Honestly, I'm pretty disgusted with the bill too, but these sort of comparisons are beyond distasteful.
The reason I do not like it, is the government might not be tyrannical today, but what about tomorrow, or the next day? We do not know, and have to retain whatever freedom we have as long as we can. There is no, the Government will not abuse it. The government abuses and screw up everything it gets its hands on. And it will abuse and screw this up too.
If We can Keep It??? The question I have for you guys is, have we lost it yet? With the way the government is growing and taking our rights, it is only a matter of time. How do we stop it, and get back this once great country of ours?
No, it's about not letting people get away with oppression, because it emboldens them to escalate their oppression of others until they eventually come to oppress you. By not speaking up, you've given them permission and the power to oppress more and more people. If you don't speak up for the rights of others, who will speak up for your rights? That is the overall, core lesson that message teaches. We have to protect each other in order to protect ourselves.
Well, if we can't take back our country with the first amendment, we may have to look to the second amendment. It's not a thought a relish.
No, its more than that, its bullshit when Glenn Beck does it and its bullshit when greevar does it. Its about having even the slightest sense of perspective. I dont care how bad your day was, it doesn't compare. If he had no intention of comparing this to the holocost, he wouldn't be referencing that quote.
To reference that quote and not understand the impact is perhaps even more foolish and offensive.
See, you're perfectly capable of expressing your thoughts with your own words, no need to trivialize the suffering of the holocost to make a point.
That quote is not just for Jews, or the Holocaust. It is for everyone that is, has, or will be oppressed. It is and will always be a reminder that if you do not stand up and fight for your neighbor, you could be next.
And calling someone a racist because they us it, does nothing but show your inability to disconnect yourself from the equation. I hope you do not take this the wrong way, but you calling him and a few other racist for using it, is racist in itself. You are asserting that they cannot use it because they are not the correct race, or do not understand what that race went through. I was not there, and I am pretty sure you were not either. And that makes your entire argument mute.
The quote is a beautiful, and eloquent way of saying, We died because we did not stand together against Oppression. And his use of it is directly in line with what the author meant it for.
When did Greevar say that our current predicament is the same as the holocaust?
Here's greevar's quote:
"First they came for the terrorists and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a terrorist.
Then they came for the protesters and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a protestor.
Then they came for the dissenters, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a dissenter.
Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me."
1. Citizens can now be considered terrorists by the government stripping them of rights and due process.
2. Protester's have gotten right fucked up all over the world.
3. Anybody who now opposes the government will now be forced to shut the fuck up.
Considering how similar pre WWII germany was to modern day America, I would say it's a pretty applicable quote to use.
In your eyes I guess we shouldn't ever talk about the holocaust or try to learn from the history leading up to it...
Brazil, here you (we) go !
Now it's not funny at all.
The powers that be are shocked and appalled that the dirty masses can actually be unhappy at the injustice and corruption in the world, and they're rolling out the guns one by one. I expect worse than this to come. SOPA will pass. There will be some "domestic terror incident", and Washington will think of something worse to trot out. We've been drifting towards McCarthyism with terrorists since the mid 90s, so don't be surprised when Sen. Beck waves around a blank "list of known terrorist supporters" on the Senate floor in 2020.
And where "known terrorist supporters" is anything from people who is against the police methods and the war, to actually terrorists. So watch out that you don't speak against them, because you might be "a commie!" (funny how history repeats itself)
Personally I think he should have just veto'd it anyway because given the outrage over the provisions it's possible that enough congressmen reversed their position on it. Even if it hadn't at least he'd have done something.
I really don't believe this bill poses any threat to anyone that didn't already exist. As I said in the other thread everything in this bill is essentially unwritten law already by court precedent and is things the U.S. has already been doing since 2001. The fact that people are only upset about this now is baffling to me.
Everyone concerned about OWS protesters being rounded up has seriously misplaced fears because between the congressional statements written into the bill about it's intent and all the holes in it that trying to enforce it against HC and Hamdi, using this against a U.S. citizens without credible Al Qaeda ties in such cases would require a total collapse of responsibility of both the executive and judicial branches of the government.
This bill is horrible but it is not 1984, not yet anyway.
anyone who uses there 1st amendment right is already declared UN-American(wtf does that mean)
than since the late 90's there has been the war on terror, and the US shown they will be ruthless in it, so now there saying that protesters which is just people using there 1st amendment right are a form of terrorist.
~Old white dude 1775
[ame="
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterintelligence_Field_Activity
That may be closed now but I'm sure there is still plenty of companys which they are still using. Their is almost no difference between corporations and the US government. So you have companys looking for intelligence results for profits, people being tortured for information under a profit result based scheme. Nothings going to go wrong with that.
In Iraq they offered a large reward, 20,000 or so for people to turn in terrorists. You can guess what happened with that.
The US government is blatantly corrupt, maybe not as much as it was with Bush.
These people think they are doing the right thing that is the scary thing. They are inept corrupt stupid, they presumed guilt with a country from no evidence.
Something like this gives them free reign to do whatever they want. If they want to commit full free market policies(and make themselves richer and everyone else poorer). Anyone whom dissents against that is obviously a terrorist.
nailed it.
It's also not near as scary as you guys are acting like.
America is in many ways a toxic, corrupt culture, but the amount of transparency, openness, and individual power absolutely dwarfs pre-war germany and it's dishonest to imply otherwise. It will probably also be knocked down by the supreme court at some point, who still show virtually no signs of corruption after all these years.
A lot of people may just have to suffer horribly in the meantime if the law is abused.
And let's not blow this out of perspective either. It's not like people are saying "Oh, Obama signed this into law, we are now officially a dictatorship", and then go riot in the streets. This is simply a discussion meant to show that people are aware of what's going on, and that awareness alone is worth it.
If you'd like, you should check out this book called [ame="http://www.amazon.com/They-Thought-Were-Free-Germans/dp/0226511928/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1325794161&sr=8-1"]They Thought They Were Free[/ame]. It describes, from first-hand experience of the writer, how Germany went through that transformation. Here's an excerpt ([ame]http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/511928.html):[/ame]
He goes on to say:
So again, I don't believe that we're actually doing that bad. But this is exactly why blowing things out of proportion, so to speak, should be looked at as a good thing. I don't see the advantage of pretending like bad things don't happen (not that anyone is saying that here), or that we shouldn't be alarmed. Or worse yet, that we shouldn't compare this to past events. If we can't learn from the past, then how dumb are we really?
We may just have to agree to disagree, I think we centrally just have a very very slight disagreement on perspective. The book sounds cool. I'll bookmark it.
There's plenty of reason to be alarmed. If you're not then you don't know your political history.
Concern without alarm is optimum imo.
just different now since the internal and external enemy are both labeled terrorists, but it is still creating fear, and people allowing there rights to slip away, for the idea of safety, which is only temporary.
Time to blow up the House of Parliament
Aka France, where they do peaceful demonstrations all the friggin time and get what they want way more than over here. better health care? they demonstrate, they get it. Affordable housing, the demonstrate, they get it. More vacation time, they demonstrate, they get it.
Governments will hear what you say, if your voice in loud enough.
Who knows? I try not to jump to conclusions, but this whole thing is pretty scary.
ya thats what i worry about too, Harper can be pretty extreme sometimes, and the 2 parties that would oppose it have completely fallen apart, so there is effectively no opposition party anymore.
didn't like Laytons policies about unions, but Canada really did need him alive as a counter balance to harper, so i think Canada lost hope with this death.
though on the upside the Canadian gov isnt "AS" bought as the American one.
I've never really been much of a conspiracy theorist but i believe we've just gone past the government being against us as a theory into it being fact. I mean look at what's happened this past year that i for one am shocked by. The OWS movement being met with brutalizing force. Peaceful american protestors being beaten and jailed by american policemen on american soil. And the goverments response to us "waking up" is of course the NDAA. That gets rid of the protestors.
It just seems to me like they're systematically creating an america where we the people have absolutely no control and it scared the shit out of me.
I think this is THE time to be alarmed and do something about it because it's only going to get worse. We can't really afford to make assumptions like "oh they'll get rid of it sooner or later"....or "it wont get past supreme court". It got as far as the president signing it into a bill i'd say that's pretty far.
Our blind faith in our government is our weakness as a country.
DEFINITELY the time to start demanding reform from our public institutions. I think that time began before I was born.
And guise, guise.
there was no Internet pre-WW2. Any conclusions? I can't imagine this going totally frantic and people not noticing. This whole NDAA thing... I don't know what to think really. Maybe it really is a sign of something.
that point was it doesn't matter of the threat is real or not, society just needs to believe it is.
I feel like a broken record here but: the NDAA does NOT state that Americans can be imprisoned indefinitely without trial, the issue is that the bill also does not state that they completely exempt. Critics argue that the latter implies the former, that because there is no exemption, Americans must be included. But this interpretation is false because it's directly at odds with the constitution which guarantees all citizens habeas corpus and a right to trial.
The abscence of an exemption only implies that the judicial system must make the judgement of the legality of it. Luckily it already has because as I said the U.S. has been doing this since 2001!! The Bush administration tried twice to hold Americans indefinitely without trial/habeas corpus under AUMF and failed both times. Here's an excerpt from the Supreme Court in one of those cases:
In spite of what TYT would lead you to believe this does not shred the constitution.
Ummm yeah that's actually exactly what it says. Refer to the video i posted in the start of this thread. There are two parts in this law. There is one part that says we are exempt, and then there's a second part that completely contradicts the first part in saying that we aren't exempt. That's one of the big controversies over this law is that it's contradictory in it's content. It's made to confuse us IMO.
Let me do some digging and find an article on that or video as i feel my words alone wont suffice.
Maybe this will help you:
http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/12/ndaa-faq-a-guide-for-the-perplexed/
If you don't believe that, then look at Obama's very own statement regarding the bill, AFTER he signed it.
So the guy signing the bill says himself that he has issues with it. Yet he signs it anyway. But that's not even the worse, the worse is this: Where he in fact recognizes that the bill now gives him the authority to indefinitely detain American citizens without trials, it's just that, you see, he's SUCH a nice guy that he pinky-promises to never use it. Say he is such a nice guy, and he never does use it. Even then he recognizes that HIS administration won't do it. But any future ones, like say in a year from now, are of course fully free to do so. He's not gonna be president forever.
The point is though, that there obviously is a threat if the president himself admits there is one. Even if you wanna say the bill doesn't do that, or that it's illegal or unconstitutional, there's still nothing to stop them from doing this. And they fully believe that they now can do this. And we're supposed to be happy that the supreme court may rule in our favor, should such case ever be brought before it. Of course, by the nature of indefinite military detention, without trial mind you, it's highly unlikely the supreme court will ever even find out such detention took place. Not for many years after the fact.
During the debates about this bill the point was raised that there was no American exemption, Carl Levin (who drafted the ammendment) stated on the senate floor that the Obama administration explicitly asked him to remove the language precluding American citizens.
And yes the whole point of this was to leave the issue some-what unresolved. But this brings us back to the AUMF, not the NDAA.
[ame="
IMO this country is unfix able. Call me a cynic, anti American whatever.....We're asking the rich to be less rich and the powerful to be less powerful. That's not going to happen in this country ever. The rich and corrupt have been doing it for decades and arent about to change their ways simply because we're aware now.
Even understanding that the AUMF already grants the president these powers, I think that before people begin panicking that we're living in a military state and OWS protesters will be rounded up, they should keep in mind that the supreme court has already ruled in favor of the constitution on this issue twice. It is good to be upset by this but having a sense of perspective and proportion is the reason why we aren't locked in Glenn Beck's doomsday bunker.
Much as I love TYT but it's still an opinion journalism show...
I can understand being pessimistic, call me naive but I don't think the U.S. is so weak that it cannot survive this. The U.S. is only doomed when its people give up.
Edit: Supreme court has actually only ruled once, my mistake. Either way, point remains.
Misconception: This bill makes it legal for the president to detain U.S. Citizens indefinitely.
Truth: This bill does not make it legal or illegal, it leaves the scope of the authority of the bill to the supreme court to decide. Or to quote the ACLU: "...the final word on the scope of detention authority belongs to the Supreme Court, which has yet to rule on the scope of detention authority..."
So you're saying, because it's always been that way, we shouldn't try to change it? I think people have always been aware of it, but haven't done much about it, because things weren't so badly out of control. The rich have always been able to influence politicians, but in the last decade, politicians have stopped being 'influenced' and have flat out become puppets.
As for the NDAA, I'll give you a very recent scenario, where I can see it getting applied/abused, had this law existed a few months back. There were people calling the OWS people terrorists (google "OWS are terrorists"). Many of the protesters could have been detained until the whole moment died down. You have to be pretty naive if you don't think they would have done that.