Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Unknown Target on January 05, 2004, 03:01:11 pm
-
http://story.news.yahoo.com/fc?cid=34&tmpl=fc&in=US&cat=Immigration
Wooohoooo, can't wait until the totalitarian state sets in.
The terrorists won, end of story. We may be killing them, but they killed all our rights.
-
that is just stupid
-
Yep, terrorists won.
-
its not like babies get "footprinted" when they are born :rolleyes: this way the po-lice can match fingerprints to an indentity.
-
Well, we can all thank Wal-Mart for this... :nervous:
-
Don't they do this to Americans as well? But only if you have a criminal record? I guess they can't be sure of the backgrounds of foreigners.
-
That's it? I was expecting much worse :doubt:
-
Originally posted by Solatar
Don't they do this to Americans as well? But only if you have a criminal record?
exactaly
i wouldnt say this is a push towards totalitarianism, as it only applys to immagrnts. If everyone was gettin fingerprinted, that would scare me. But the US is far from being totalitarian but with G.W and his liberty-be-dammed domsetic policy, we seem to be gettin just a little bit closer every day. grrrrr
-
I don't see how this is really bad as much as it kind of makes sense. There isn't any harm in it if you are not a terrorist.. and if you are.. then i guess they hae your finger prints now..
whoopdee doo.
-
Quite frankly, it was Britains inability to decisively take any action about anything that led to us being Al Quaida's favourite part of Europe.Something had to be done, right or wrong, it's more to protect the public than our government are doing.
-
...and how does this help when the actual terrorists are unknown people who probably haven't had their fingerprints taken?
-
Hmm. I see nothing wrong with doing that. Me personally, I don't feel in any way violated that they got my picture and my finger prints stored in their systems cause I have nothing to hide. Its the sky marshal idea which I think is ridiculous.
-
It doesn't. At best, all this class of measures are exercises in well-meaning distraction, giving the people the illusion of security because no matter what they do it doesn't help to have a civilian populace that's aware of how helpless the government is against any reasonably inventive group of individuals- particularly in an election year. At worst, it's just yet another excuse to harass and humiliate, which is after all basically what cops live for. Well, that and shooting stuff.
Totalitarianism, though? Hardly. The federal government has enacted infinitely worse in the past few years, and indeed in the case of this one I'm surprised they didn't do that in the first place. You want totalitarianism, go take a look at what they're doing to internet privacy, or the overtly corrupt and inaccurate voting system that's been put into place, or all the people being dissapeared away to Camp X-Ray, and quit hyperventilating about the small things most people wouldn't even think twice about.
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
...
Well put. My feelings exactly.
-
you guys are freakin' stupid if you think that this has any affect on our rights. heck, everyone in america should be finger printed. the sheer amount of big government paranoia that has been floating around these boards lately is shocking. stop thinking whatever the media is telling you to some time.
-
Originally posted by Carl
you guys are freakin' stupid if you think that this has any affect on our rights. heck, everyone in america should be finger printed. the sheer amount of big government paranoia that has been floating around these boards lately is shocking. stop thinking whatever the media is telling you to some time.
11 / 10 on the ridiculous scale.
---
When should you be paranoid of the government? When they take away your protection (guns). Ohh... woops... already happening.
Guess what? In the US guns are used four times more for defense than for crime. And yet, still, there are those politicians who would like to revoke your right to defend your person and family.
Chew that one.
~Beowulf
-
i wouldnt say this is a push towards totalitarianism, as it only applys to immagrnts
Rules like this targeted towards immigrants have had tendencies to eventually have tendencies to become targeted towards citizens as well.
-
on Immigrants = Good
on Citizens = Bad
Wall between US and Mexico = Uber Good
-
Beowulf: One in four is a **** ratio. If there's a one in four chance of some guy shooting you in the head, you gonna give him a pistol? I have my own reasons to be interested in gun legalization, but that's a pretty poor one.
Carl: And, um, when exactly are we supposed to start distrusting the government? Seems to me like military tribunals of civilians, reinstatement of most of the same disgusting behavior that pushed things over the edge in the sixties, and constant warmongering are pretty ****ing good signs that something's amiss. You don't see those traits in healthy, democratic governments. Nor do you see a president coming out in support of a hugely inaccurate voting system run by some of his major contributors, or running a reelection campaign based largely on hating a largely disliked minority group.
In fact, there've been damn few militant dictatorships in history that didn't start right there. Oh, and with a passive, compliant populace that trusted its government too long.
Honestly, even given the minor chance that Bush is actually honest (and, let's be realistic here, he isn't. I haven't even personally met a Republican who still buys that crap after Iraq), there's still no reason to trust him or the rest of the current setup in Washington. Even on the infinitesimal chance that they somehow do have the peoples' best interest in mind, there's nothing to lose from distrusting them. There is nothing we won't lose if we trust them when we should not.
-
The *pulls facts out of ass* factor on this forum is pretty nasty too.
and don't tell me I pulled that out of my ass.
Also, I'm appalled by the left wing whine-*****-ass-off media. Seriously, I'm generally a lefty but the whine/***** I hear on radio, see on tv, read on the 'net is awful. A chain reaction of silly, pointless *****ing (then the people go on ignoring other actual major breaches of human rights 'cause the media don't feed it to them).
-
I'm not sure what you mean Stryke. It's not right to defend yourself? Funny, I seem to recall the sight of a gun to be a deterent to crime. I also seem to recall most gun owners are much more hesitant to engage in a quarrel or altercation when having a gun on their person.
I am not talking about criminals here... I am talking about LAW ABIDING citizens who buy LEGAL guns. There is a myth out there that most gun owners are irresponsible. This is simply not true.
Now if only it were legal to carry in more states.... crime rates would drop, GARUNTEED. How do I know this? Because EVERY study of gun control has yielded the following results: (1) change in crime and gun death has remained unaltered or increased; or (2) armed (any weapon) crime has remained static or risen; or (3) results can not be confirmed, more data needed.
About Bush... as much as I want to like the man, I just cannot. He:
(1) Blatantly ignored the 1st Amendment (Campaign finance reform bill)
(2) Affirmed affirmative action (June 23, 2003 -- GRATZ et al. v. BOLLINGER et al. -- The day America died)
(3) Passed the largest Welfare bill in the past 30 years
(4) Started distributing billions of American dollars to countries that hate us to fight a disease that is caused by ignorance.
(5) Renamed the White House Christmas tree the "Holiday Tree".
Guess the only good thing he is doing is bringing the fight to the terrorists and brought us out of Clinton's recession.
Originally posted by Stryke 9
Honestly, even given the minor chance that Bush is actually honest (and, let's be realistic here, he isn't. I haven't even personally met a Republican who still buys that crap after Iraq), there's still no reason to trust him or the rest of the current setup in Washington. Even on the infinitesimal chance that they somehow do have the peoples' best interest in mind, there's nothing to lose from distrusting them. There is nothing we won't lose if we trust them when we should not.
Ohh... and the Democrats surely have everyone's best intrests in mind, what with the tax hikes, abortion, judicial activism, welfare, affrimative action, gun control and the like. All the programs that have destroyed America.
Or would you suggest the greens? :rolleyes:
~Beowulf
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
I haven't even personally met a Republican who still buys that crap after Iraq
I have, the guy is rather depressing.
-
...who are the candidates for the green party?
-
I heard about this on the local news. *moves world one notch closer to "police state" on wall chart*
-
Beowulf you do realise that studies have also shown that you're more likely to be killed by your own gun than ever have to use it to defend yourself?
And yes the fact is that it isn't gun ownership that causes the high gun crime in America. It's americans. The swiss have a much higher gun ownership record than the Americans and yet have virtually no shootings. The fact is that like the british you americans are too violent to be allowed to have guns. The difference is the brits have realised that fact and done something about it.
As for the fingerprinting thing. America is moving towards becoming a totalitarian state and no doubt this will be something that is abused when it get there but it is not a bad thing in and of itself. I see how it's any more intrusive than the passport/immagration form check you have to go through anyway to be honest. That's all it really.
What everyone needs to complain about are the actual abuses of the american ideals that Stryke mentioned.
-
Some of the Americans have realised it, but the government is too stupid to do anything about it anyway...afraid they are going to lose the election more than doing something good for the country.
-
I know that some americans have realised that but as you say the vast majority of people are unwilling to do anything about it.
-
Somehow, the phrase "False Security" springs to mind. The implication that all immigrants are dangerous and subversive and need to be kept track of is not only a gross breach of civil liberties, its also just not true. And yes, civil liberties apply to all people, not just citizens. As Stryke said, its not like anyone actually willing to do harm to the US will be caught by this dragnet, they're far too clever. The only people its gonna hassle are regular immigrants and so forth.
And Beowulf, let me get this straight? However, you dislike Bush because you find him to be too soft? Affirmative action, giving aid to countries that hate you, spent money on Welfare? Is this right? Well, atleast we agree in our dislike of him, but it seems to me that if you want to hate the man, there are far better reasons to do so. Stuff like ..oh, like starting wars, creating the largest deficit ever, giving the environment the finger, ****ing over the poor to give tax breaks to the rich. You know, that sort of stuff.
As for the whole guns in your home thing, let me ask you this. How many times have you or someone you know been saved by the presence of a gun in your house? How many times has someone broken in onyl to turn tail and run at the sight of you .45? Don't answer, its a rhetorical question. The answer is none. That gun law (The Right to Bear Arms) dates back several hundred years. Those were different times. Should we all also start running around with a sword at our side, for p[rotection right? Gimme a break. Its a excersie is stupidty, plain and simple.
-
Hey, that would be cool if we could caryy a sword around. Quite useful when you forget your keys, you slip the blade between the... huh? Oh, sorry, wrong forum :p
-
Lets face it the 2nd amendment exists for the sole purpose of preventing the british from invading. Is that likely to happen any time soon?
-
If having a gun is a crime, then only criminals will have guns. What you need to see is, there is no way to stop shooting deaths and armed crime, so why encourage it by stripping the weapons of the victims?
-
Is that why Britain has less armed crime than America then?
It's not like Britain is a peaceful calm place. There are plenty of violent idiots in both countries. The reason why Britain has a death rate from shootings that is 500 times less than that of America is because we don't have guns.
If you're so certain that having guns prevents crime why not make carrying guns mandatory! Surely according to your theory that would eliminate all crime.
-
Originally posted by demon442
If having a gun is a crime, then only criminals will have guns. What you need to see is, there is no way to stop shooting deaths and armed crime, so why encourage it by stripping the weapons of the victims?
You won't shoot if you don't have a gun. Is that so difficult to understand? rather than giving guns to everybody, doesn't it make more sense to remove all guns?
All that crap about self defense, anyway, it's ape poo, people want guns coz they think it's cool to have one. I'm pretty sure 80% of the people who own one never used it, 10% use it for hunt, and 9.9% accidently killed or injured someone else with it. Which leaves 0.1% for real self defense. I purposly meft the ones used for real crimes out, that would be too unbalanced :p
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Lets face it the 2nd amendment exists for the sole purpose of preventing the british from invading. Is that likely to happen any time soon?
Just wait until it's gone, I'm gonna be the first over. :drevil:
-
[q]The reason why Britain has a death rate from shootings that is 500 times less than that of America is because we don't have guns. [/q]
Interesting fact to note: under British law there is no defence for carrying a loaded gun - if you carry a loaded weapon you MUST (in the eyes of the law) be intending to use it.
[q]The terrorists won, end of story. We may be killing them, but they killed all our rights.[/q]
Quite so.
-
Originally posted by vyper
[q]The reason why Britain has a death rate from shootings that is 500 times less than that of America is because we don't have guns. [/q]
Interesting fact to note: under British law there is no defence for carrying a loaded gun - if you carry a loaded weapon you MUST (in the eyes of the law) be intending to use it.
Instead in Britain, crazies hack you up with swords. :p I remember some news a few years back about someone going crazy and attacking a whole church congregation that way.
Anyway, on the loaded gun thing. I do think that if a rule like that was held in the US, a lot of firearms accidents would not happen and it would support more gun safety.
-
Originally posted by Flipside
Quite frankly, it was Britains inability to decisively take any action about anything that led to us being Al Quaida's favourite part of Europe.
Makes you wounder when a certain hook handed cyclops says whatever the hell he likes without worry of being kicked out.
"Inciting racial hatred" I think it's called.
-
Originally posted by vyper
Interesting fact to note: under British law there is no defence for carrying a loaded gun - if you carry a loaded weapon you MUST (in the eyes of the law) be intending to use it.
Under britain law, in Yorkshire you can kill a scotsman outside the city walls after 10 pm or something. Same goes at Edinburgh, but this time it's an english you can kill.
Go wonder :doubt:
-
I think it's legal to kill a scotsman with a bow 'n' arrow in the Hadrians Wall area. Dates back to Roman times or something.
-
Bunk. All of it.
(1) Second Amendment
The Second Amendment was not written to protect against invading forces. That is merely an added objective. The first is to protect against an oppressive government, the second and third are added bonuses: protect the nation from foreign threats and to protect our families.
(Ever read the Federalist Papers?)
If you don’t believe me, do some actual study of history. Sure, I’m no doctor on the subject, but nonetheless, I’ve done enough research to establish that the founding fathers were brilliant men and one can understand their intentions. America was forged for personal freedom. Not personal oppression. One of those freedoms is the right to defend yourself. This is called personal choice. Any man who would deny another man this most basic right holds himself higher than his neighbors.
(2) Some Facts:
In America:
Guns are used over 2 million times a year for defensive purposes.
It has been shown that victims using guns have been consistently less likely to loose cash or other valuables REGARDLESS of the weaponry possessed by the offender.
Victims are less likely to report themselves injured if possessing a gun at the time than those who did not defend themselves or used another means to do so.
While 33% or robbery victims are injured, 25% of those who offer no resistance are injured, while of those who defend with a gun, this rate is 17%. For surviving assault victims these numbers are 30%, 27% and 12%, respectively.
Of studies on interviews of felons, one of the primary reasons for avoiding occupied homes is the chance to get shot.
While it is often said that a person who has a gun in their home is 43 percent more likely to shoot a family member than a criminal, this is simply not true. Kellerman (Who did this study) added up all gun suicides, murders, and accidents and compared this number to the justifiable homicides. In fact, in his study NEARLY ALL GUN DEATHS were attributed to suicide. Not to mention Kellerman DID NOT include cases that were acquitted do to acting in self defense. Most of all, Kellerman does not specify as to the type of person owning the gun... the vast majority of these accidents take place in homes of persons prone to self-destructive, reckless behavior; or in the homes of persons with arrest records for violent felonies; or in the homes where the police have had to intervene to deal with domestic violence.
While gun control reduces gun suicides, it does not reduce overall suicides. Japan, which prohibits all rifles and hand guns has a suicide rate of more than DOUBLE the US.
In a study of accidents, of those involved in a firearm accident, they are "disproportionately involved in other accidents, violent crime, and heavy drinking." (Philip Cook)
Fatal gun accidents declined by almost 60% from 1975 to 1995, even though the number of guns per capita increased by almost 40%
Fatal gun accidents involving children (aged 0-14) also fell significantly, from 495 in 1975, to under 250 in 1995. More children die from accidental drownings or burns than from gun accidents
81% of all homicide defendants have at least one arrest on their record.
66% have two or more arrests.
67% have at least one felony arrest.
56% have two or more felony arrests.
70% have at least one conviction.
54% have at least one felony conviction.
The National Criminal Justice Commission estimates that about 30 million Americans--approximately 15% of the U.S. population over age 15--have an arrest record. Studies of homicide, however, reveal that typically about 70% of U.S. offenders have been arrested in the past.
--- ---- ---
What can we gain from all this?
(1) You are more likely to NOT be injured if you possess and brandish or use a gun during a robbery or assault.
(2) People who are already criminals commit the overwhelming majority of gun crimes.
(3) Suicide rates are independent of gun ownership
(4) Accidental deaths happen a lot less frequently than reported and usually happen to someone who is engaged in reckless behavior.
The most important reason which should be good enough on its own: The right to bear originates as a protection against government, not foreign enemies.
~Beowulf
-
Originally posted by Beowulf
Fatal gun accidents involving children (aged 0-14) also fell significantly, from 495 in 1975, to under 250 in 1995. More children die from accidental drownings or burns than from gun accidents
I'll just take a part to make it shorter, since you like numbers. W00t, only 250 in 1995. In a country where guns aren't allowed, it's about 0.
Accidental drowings or burns are way enough, imho :doubt:
Oh, and:
Originally posted by Beowulf
(2) Criminals commit the overwhelming majority of gun crimes.
No **** Sherlock.
-
Originally posted by Nico
I'll just take a part to make it shorter, since you like numbers. W00t, only 250 in 1995. In a country where guns aren't allowed, it's about 0.
Accidental drowings or burns are way enough, imho :doubt:
Oh, and:
Originally posted by Beowulf
(2) Criminals commit the overwhelming majority of gun crimes.
No **** Sherlock.
This is EXACTLY the type of flawed logic that is just drives me crazy. You look at only one number and isolate that. Did you compare that to the lives saved by defensive gun use? No. Just form whatever opinion you want by taking bits and pieces here. If you ever took the time to absorb the whole arguement you would realize guns accomplish more good than ill. :rolleyes:
~Beowulf
EDIT: About the criminals... It means BEFORE the incident of gun use. Hence, already criminals when the crime was committed. You're obviously not that stupid.
BTW they're called facts, not numbers.
-
I'm not "for" guns but gun crime in the uk is up but the olympic/comonwealth/whatever shooting teams can't pratice in blighty 'cos of current legislation.
I like the protection against goverment bit though. What a brilliantly contradictive idea.
-
Originally posted by Beowulf
This is EXACTLY the type of flawed logic that is just drives me crazy. You look at only one number and isolate that. Did you compare that to the lives saved by defensive gun use? No. Just form whatever opinion you want by taking bits and pieces here. If you ever took the time to absorb the whole arguement you would realize guns accomplish more good than ill. :rolleyes:
Ok, then, so I like the "regardless of any weapon the offender has" part, that makes it sound like the guy could and is most likely armed with a spoon ( altho it's turned out to mean that firearms wielders can frighten other firearm wielders, oh the irony. The dude who wrote that down is very good with words btw, I concede that ). Yeah right. I wanna have number comparisons with a country where firearms aren't allowed, and where offenders don't all have access to firearms and hence are less likely to do ( fatal ) injuries. Your stats are darn biaised, you realise it?
-
Originally posted by Beowulf
on Immigrants = Good
on Citizens = Bad
Wall between US and Mexico = Uber Good
Isolationism = good for rest of world
Apparently. Whatever happened to 'Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free". Do you forget that the US is a nation of immagrants? The only native population are the Native Americans / Red indians, and they're pretty much gone thanks to the genocide persued against them in the 1800s. Not to mention that the Us probably depends on low paid economic migrants for the majoirty of low-levle, low paid 'service' jobs? (as does the UK.... if you took away the migrants - illegal or otherwise - the economy would probably collapse)
Secondarily, on the subject of gun control, I had a big argument against it (living in Scotalnd, the Dunblane massacre gives me a skew on this, and I'm proud our nation was intelligent enopugh to respond and ban them).... but sod it.
Answer this - is there a good reason for legalising gun ownership? i.e. the ownership of a device with the express & sole purpose of causing injury or death when used as intended?
Secondly, could this reason not be extended to other lethal weapons or devices, such as biological weaponry (i.e. mustard gas instead of CS gas spray)?
-
2nd amendment says something like:
A well armed/trained militia is essential to a stable country (something like that) the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
That's the basic idea of it anyway...but the entire thing gives reasons about milita.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Isolationism = good for rest of world
Apparently. Whatever happened to 'Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free". Do you forget that the US is a nation of immagrants? The only native population are the Native Americans / Red indians, and they're pretty much gone thanks to the genocide persued against them in the 1800s. Not to mention that the Us probably depends on low paid economic migrants for the majoirty of low-levle, low paid 'service' jobs? (as does the UK.... if you took away the migrants - illegal or otherwise - the economy would probably collapse)
Secondarily, on the subject of gun control, I had a big argument against it (living in Scotalnd, the Dunblane massacre gives me a skew on this, and I'm proud our nation was intelligent enopugh to respond and ban them).... but sod it.
Answer this - is there a good reason for legalising gun ownership? i.e. the ownership of a device with the express & sole purpose of causing injury or death when used as intended?
Secondly, could this reason not be extended to other lethal weapons or devices, such as biological weaponry (i.e. mustard gas instead of CS gas spray)?
Yes, closed borders are deffinitely a bad idea.
I know the Californian Enconomy in particular is dependent on immigrants, illegal or otherwise. Specifically, without Mexican immigrants, our agricutlural economy (not to mention other jobs such as retail, food, etc.) would collapse and we'd be even more fuxored.
-
ant zhen ahnold vould blow aahp ze vall
-
Beo: You think I like the Democrats? You haven't been paying attention.
However, they're a manageable evil. One that plays by the rules and can be dealt with. And they're ****in' spineless to boot, which is always nice in a dominant party. If I had a real option, I'd go for "bloody insurrection", but I don't. Can't even get the lazy ****ers I see these days to picket, for chrissakes.
Since when did Bush ever bring us out of a recession? Excuse me, but the economy's if anything more ****ed up than it was after the crash. And if changing the name of a Christmas tree is really the best you can come up with, particularly given the excerable things Bush has done involving gay rights in the name of his personal religious beliefs, maybe you had best take another look, hm?
About the guns: One in four non-hunting uses of a gun is for criminal purposes. Your statistic. Since rifles and shotguns are perfectly adapted to hunting, far better than, say, the sorts of weapons people typically use for "personal defense" and crime (rifles are a bit too hard to move around to be effective in crime unless you're shooting the wife at home or something), we can say then that roughly 1/4 of pistols used are used as aids to murder, rape, robbery, and basically any other unequivocally wrong crime you can think of. More isn't okay if it's not more by much, as the evil of a gun in the hands of a psychopath far outweighs the good of one in the hands of a responsible person.
You think that's a good ratio?
Rest of gun law: Yeah, right. You know how much money is spent every year on banning, say, I dunno, drugs? Funny, you wouldn't know it, it's easier for me to get an eigth than a good-quality vodka. Criminalizing gun ownership would just make gun owners criminals, wouldn't make every pistol in the country up and dissapear, and once a criminal you've got far less to lose in committing other crimes. You think gun crime is bad now? Imagine when all the gun nuts in the country (not even dealing with the regular owners, the guys who have like a freakin' class 3 in their yard must at least number in the tens of thousands. Lucky bastards.)
Besides, you're missing the point of the Second Amendment. Guns are a deterrent, but not particularly so to crime. A tyrant in a well-armed country is a dead tyrant, and there are few governments so stable that the threat of tyrrany isn't a pressing one.
Don't like guns? That's okay, you'll probably never see a real one then, unless you live in the country or spend time in a sporting goods store. Some of us would prefer to have them, and you'll be damned glad of it if ever more serious trouble than a recession happens. Personally, I can't see how anyone could trust cops with 'em, the pigly thugs they are in my experience, without wanting one themselves. But then, at least half of the gun-related deaths in my home area came from the piggies.
-
"It's amazing I won. I was running against peace, prosperity, and incumbency."
(George W Bush speaking to the Swedish PM on 14 June 2001, unaware the cameras were rolling)
On a similar note, the US election was billed - in the Uk - as being between a stable, successful economy (Gore) and a personality (Bush). That'll be the good old redneck vote shining through, then. Well, <50% of it, anyways.
-
This issue(gun control) comes up every few years, stagnates, and dissappears only to reappear in a few more years. Americans will not give up their guns or their second amendment rights. To think differently is foolish.
-D
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
Don't like guns? That's okay, you'll probably never see a real one then, unless you live in the country or spend time in a sporting goods store. Some of us would prefer to have them, and you'll be damned glad of it if ever more serious trouble than a recession happens. Personally, I can't see how anyone could trust cops with 'em, the pigly thugs they are in my experience, without wanting one themselves. But then, at least half of the gun-related deaths in my home area came from the piggies.
That why the police in the UK are unarmed. Instead a specially trained subset of the police are allowed access to guns.
The reason why you can't do that in America is cause of the easy availability of guns. If the police were unarmed it would be a massacre.
Stryke you comment about a well armed general population being a deterant to a tyrant is obviously rubbish. Most of the countries in the world that are run by a tyrant have a far higher level of weapons ownership than Europe or Japan. There are plenty of guns on the streets of Iraq yet they had a tyrant rule them for two decades.
Maybe that's why it was originally put into the constitution but it's obvious that it doesn't work. Besides America is currently descending into tyrany and yet the last president to be successfully killed was a liberal and the most popular president of the last century!
-
We already know that, but we like arguing over pointless topics :D
-
What's really funny is that Brazilian airports are now taking photos and fingerprints of all incoming american citizens. But only americans. :p
-
muwhaha.
(that was how i first heard of this, actually. The Uk is exempt, because...er...all our terrorists are happy blowing up stuff or spraying ricin gas in London)
-
Originally posted by Styxx
What's really funny is that Brazilian airports are now taking photos and fingerprints of all incoming american citizens. But only americans. :p
lol :D
-
Originally posted by Styxx
What's really funny is that Brazilian airports are now taking photos and fingerprints of all incoming american citizens. But only americans. :p
:lol: :D
-
Originally posted by Styxx
What's really funny is that Brazilian airports are now taking photos and fingerprints of all incoming american citizens. But only americans. :p
:lol: Funny. I also heard that some americans have been interrogated. Styxx, you better watch out for all those fearsome american terrorists.
-
Well yeah. You gotta watch out for americans. They're the only people in the world who have ever detonated nukes, and on two civilian targets at that. Dangerous, those americans. ;)
-
Now thats poetic justice.
-
This should be implemented worldwide, even in the countries not currently on the "damn foreigners" list. Even the countries exempt from this law should comdemn it, becuase to do nothing would be to bow down to the sheer power of stupidity. Its like when someone goes around stealing people's lunch, and then you feel all proud cause he took mercy on you and decided to leave you alone.
I strongly hope Canada comdens this one.
-
Originally posted by Pez
Styxx, you better watch out for all those fearsome american terrorists.
Actually, it's probably easier to find American terrorists flying to other countries than Brazilian ones. Mostly because almost every 'terrorist attack' that happens here is planned by criminals that are already in jail. :p
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
"It's amazing I won. I was running against peace, prosperity, and incumbency."
(George W Bush speaking to the Swedish PM on 14 June 2001, unaware the cameras were rolling)
:wtf: :wtf:
-
Exactly. How anyone can think that he's an decent and honest man, even when he himself does not, baffles me.
-
Well actually, I was wtf'ing the ligitimacy of the quote... however fitting it may be.
-
I can't believe how many people here are donning tinfoil hats and screaming police state. Totalitarianism!? Give me a freakin' break. Sure it's easy to point at America from half a world away and claim we're "descending into tyranny" while giggling with glee, but you're utterly wrong. I'm literally surrounded by anti-Bush anti-Iraq anti-Republican far-leftists...I'll let you guys know when the jackboots drop from black helicopters to take them away in the night. :rolleyes:
Just because you disagree with the policies of the current administration doesn't make Bush a dictator. I'm also curious about the legitimacy and the context of that Bush quote.
As for the original post, maybe I'm missing the boat here but how does allowing immigrants to work here translate to "police state"?
Don't brush off the Reagan assassination attempt so eagerly, kara. There's no difference between an assassination and an attempted assassination besides the competency of the gunman.
-
Since, I'm sitting less than half a world away, Shivan Archon, I'm going to agree with you. We don't have a police state.
The only thing between us and a police state, however, is people watching the government, and doing their damnedest to make sure that as many people as possible know what the government is trying to slip by. You cannot ever completely trust those in power. That's one of the core principles of our Constitution. That's why there's THREE branches of government, and a second amendment.
Things start with the weakening of a protection here and adding regulation there. In isolation, these are not necessarily bad things. When you start taking the long view, however, its easy to see where things could be headed. Wanting to make sure things never go as bad as they could is not "donning a tinfoil hat". Its doing your patriotic duty.
When did wanting to protect the people's freedoms become wrong? When did wanting to make sure your government was accountable for its actions become the province of tinfoil hat conspiracy theorists? And isn't the very idea that such normal, sane government watching has become the realm of the tinfoil hats a good sign that the country is headed in the wrong direction?
-
oh god, now all of mexico is coming to get "temporary" citizenship.
-
Originally posted by Shiva Archon
Just because you disagree with the policies of the current administration doesn't make Bush a dictator. I'm also curious about the legitimacy and the context of that Bush quote.
Don't brush off the Reagan assassination attempt so eagerly, kara. There's no difference between an assassination and an attempted assassination besides the competency of the gunman.
Mikhael makes the point nicely. America isn't a police state at the moment but these sorts of laws are often the beginning of a slippery slope.
-
Well, one of the definitions of a dictator is that he siezed power through illegal means. This can be either a coup, or by the rigging of elections. The entire world pretty much agree that thats what happened (not the coup, the elections) and there has been ample evidence to prove it.
If you even think about posting "No, its not true, he won fair and square", please have be ready to refute with concrete evidence all the claims made about how Bush stole the election. The fact is, Al Gore should havve won. Now, that that I think Gore would have been a good president, but he would have been a hell of a lot better than what you've got now.
Oh and, yeah pretty much agree with mikhael. Its you duty as a citizen to keep the government in check. Here's another way to think of it. Those in power want more power, ideally they wan't comlpete power. The only things that are stopping them are
a)skepticism and dissent (defined as holding the government espobsible for their actions and demanding that they be ethical and fair in their actions) on the part of the citizens and
b)The illusion that the government is a just and noble institution who's goals are only to better the lives of its citizens and the people of the world. If the people think they're living in a democracy, they won't rebel too much. As long and the illusion s there, its good enough.
-
Originally posted by Shiva Archon
I'm also curious about the legitimacy and the context of that Bush quote.
Well, firstly it's all over the web on various sites, both news and otherwsie.
Secondly, it's true in every respect. He was running against the incumbent vice-President, a successful economy, and a generally peaceful world situation - at least so far as the US was concerned*
(*Insofar as I can remeber...twas several years ago)
It's worth remebering that Hitler gained power in Germany legally* - and suceeded in destroying German democracy by misdirecting the attention of the public. Whilst Bush in no Hitler (he's more dumb than insane), it's a classic case study in how a citizenship can be made to ignore the erosion of their long term rights.
(* the Nazi party was never the most popular in Germany. But it did form a coalition with the largest - largely to counter the threat of the growing Communicst party - a condition of which was to make Hitler the Chancellor of Germany.)
-
Lets not kid ourselves the Democrats are as bad, if not worse, than Bush's Republican party. At least the right wing admits its ruthless and completely exploitative.
-
Originally posted by vyper
Lets not kid ourselves the Democrats are as bad, if not worse, than Bush's Republican party. At least the right wing admits its ruthless and completely exploitative.
Shame they don't admit to being bald faced liars, or cowards-cum-warhawks (or is that a chicken hawk? I dunno).
But the Republicans DO deny that they are out to screw the people. Remember Bush's taxcut? the one that was supposed to help the middle class? The same one that gave most of its cuts to the richest 1%? Yeah. That was completely ruthless and exploitive and i don't recall them admitting it.
-
Isn't the US government/budget running at a record deficit anyways?
(could be mistaken, and I can't be arsed to check)
-
As a matter of fact YES, it is. In fact, in three years it went from a record SURPLUS to a record deficit. Three successive years of tax cuts for the richest americans and corporations couldn't POSSIBLY have had anything to do with that, though.
-
I agree the government needs to be watched, and I'm a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment and checks and balances. However, it seems to me that people are unnecessarily blowing things out of proportion. Trying to argue via slippery slope is a fallacious argument and proves nothing. "Descending into tyranny" and "The terrorists won" are examples of falsely assuming that current security steps are automatically going to result in totalitarianism.
And the election was not rigged, Rictor. Go ahead, hit me with whatever you got, I'm ready to refute it. If you don't like Bush's policies, use your democratic power and don't vote for him. Vote for Democrats in the congressional elections (or are those rigged as well?).
Aldo - Yeah, the US gov't is in a huge deficit. Tax cuts + war + excessive spending don't mix well. One of my problems with Bush is he spends too much domestically, but I digress...
Mikhael - Every economist in every paper I've read credits the Bush economic strategy with the current boom in the American economy. I agree it's partly the business cycle, but all worries of "double dip" recession seemed to evaporate now that those tax cuts have boosted American business.
-
Tax cuts booming American business? Tell that to the people on unemployment.
Oh that's right, social security, unemployment, and all of the other safety nets for people should be removed because they're evil socialist/communist constructs! How dare they pollute the US of A!
-
Originally posted by Shiva Archon
Mikhael - Every economist in every paper I've read credits the Bush economic strategy with the current boom in the American economy.
Everyone credits Bush for stomping so thoroughly on Afghanistan too, but they forget that it was Clinton's military that did it.
"The Terrorists Won" is not assuming that the current security steps are automatically going to result in totalitarianism. "The Terrorists Won" is an indication that their purposes have been fulfilled. Terrorists seek to instill Terror (hey, look at that. Terror. Terrorism. What will they think of next?). They did that. The American people are reacting to things out of fear, irrationally and foolishly. The American Government is doing the same. Look at the USA-PATRIOT act. A bigger abrogation of civil liberties has not been seen in this country since BEFORE THE REVOLUTION. We have "terror alerts" now, and we've got every civilian jumping at shadows wondering which one of their fellow passengers migh have a weapon in his underwear. We're introducing "security" measures that don't provide actual security, just the illusion of security. This is a terrified populace. This is a populace that got its ass handed to it on the backs of four airliners (does anyone ever remember the other two? christ!).
We're not automatically headed into totalitarianism, yet. As long as there are those of us around who are willing to do our duty and point out the abusive measures being taken, then we haven't quite made it to a totalitarian way of life. Not yet.
-
--snip--
-
Kara: And Saddam was pretty popular, no? I mean, ****, look at what we're mired in in Iraq now. Never mind that he had to put in place the most ****ing elaborate security system on the face of the damned planet to keep from getting blown away by some Kurd and it was a matter of time even with that. Yes, Saddam survived his own misrule, but looking at the things he had to do to stay alive it was a life lived in constant fear and it's genuinely shocking he lasted as long as he did.
Besides which, Iraq did have quite a bit of gun control, particularly relative to its neighbors. It's not like you could just run down to the Baghdad corner market and pick up a Kalashnikov with your fruit. Well, then you couldn't, such isn't entirely clear now, what with the sudden proliferation of grenade launchers and general anarchy.
Vyper: Indeed. But the virtue of an honest villain is lost when nobody will fight them anyway. The Bushies are upfront about their rapacity because they have no need to hide it any more. The Democrat oligarchs still do, because they aren't in the same safe position as Bush and co.- and because of that are infinitely preferable.
Mik: I think al Qaeda is out for a bit more than sophomoric scares on a mass level. They're fighting a war, not running bets on how stupid they can get dem dumb Yanks to act.
-
The goal of al Queda is the destruction of all non-Muslim civillisation. Whether it's self destruction or not, doesn't matter.....
-
I'm sure they'd like that very much, but it's a terribly inefficient way to get about that goal. And there'd be no reason to concentrate their attacks in the Middle East if such was the case, rather than more American-populated areas such as, say, America. Their job is to make the middle east too hot to handle- just keep us the **** away. Whatever we do to ourselves, or incidential damage to a few thousand US civilians, is of secondary interest, if even that.
We're ****ing ourselves just fine, and quite a lot of it is us personally- you and I. Don't need to find anyone else to do the work for us, and it's terribly irresponsible to place the blame on a couple of bombers off doing their own thing who don't give a flying monkey **** what happens to you either way.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
They did that. The American people are reacting to things out of fear, irrationally and foolishly. The American Government is doing the same. Look at the USA-PATRIOT act. A bigger abrogation of civil liberties has not been seen in this country since BEFORE THE REVOLUTION. We have "terror alerts" now, and we've got every civilian jumping at shadows wondering which one of their fellow passengers migh have a weapon in his underwear. We're introducing "security" measures that don't provide actual security, just the illusion of security. This is a terrified populace.
You forgot, Lincoln suspended habeus corpus during the Civil War. Nothing even remotely close to that action is set into the PATRIOT act. Don't forget the Alien and Sedition acts put in place under John Adams, either, though that was a long time ago. Regardless, all it does is extend the same powers the government uses against the mafia to potential terrorists.
At worst, it's a nervous populace. If it were terrified, air travel would not be back up to pre-9/11 levels and business would still be awful. It seems more to me that most people have terrorism in the back of their minds, but are not terrified by any means. They sure didn't look terrified in Times Square at New Years.
-
Actually, no. I didn't forget that Lincoln suspended habeus corpus nor the Alien and Sedition Acts. I also haven't forgotten that Bush and his puppet Congress have essentially done the same thing as all three of those actions in the three years that he's been in office.
Holding people without charges? Rounding up foreigners? Okay, maybe they haven't jailed people for disagreeing with their policies, but they've illegally jailed people for being of arab descent.
People may not look terrified, no. But I'm not talking about individuals. I'm talking about the populace as a whole. Who but a cowed populace would allow things like the USA-PATRIOT act to stand? Who but a cowed populace would put up with the bull**** "terror alert level"? Its a culture of fear and we've let ourselves be trapped by it.
-
As long as the American people fear "da terrorists", which is in and of itself such a broad and misused term, they won't care about how some guy is going to spend the rest of his live living in what amounts to an internment camp even though he's innocent. They won't care that the system of checks and balances have all but been taken away, with supreme power flowing from the neocons in general and John Ashcroft in specific (pertaining to the judicial system). They will gladly stomach the terror alerts, thw almost daily warnings about impending doom, which never actually happen, and so forth. While they live in fear of another 9/11, anything and everything that offers them comfort and assurance (however false it may be) will go unopposed, and any voice of dissent will immediatlly be dismissed as treasonous and yes, even dangerous.
-
Excactly, Rictor. That's precisely what I'm talking about.
-
Rounding up foreigners and jailing Arabs for no reason? Where? When? I hear this a lot from liberal columnists and such, but they never give any proof or any specific examples.
What is the big beef with USA-PATRIOT? I read Title II of the bill, which is the only part of it that seems relevant to people's complaints about it. Besides the stupid name, I don't see anything about it that bothers me. What are the specific parts of the bill that are so bad as to be worse than automatic jailing for speaking out against the government, or worse than the internment camps for Japanese Americans during WWII?
I hate to keep asking for clarification on everything, but how are checks and balances taken away? What supreme power does Ashcroft wield?
Voices of dissent in America are everywhere. Whether they are right or not, you cannot honestly say that the American populace as a whole is just sitting back when a significant portion of it hate Bush passionately and are not afraid to voice that opinion. The majority disagree with the dissenters, yet this does not eliminate their existence nor their influence.
BTW - Is this the same puppet Congress that, to this day, refuses to confirm any of Bush's federal court nominees? Republican control of the Senate hangs by a thread, and the Democrats have shown they have the power to block Bush's initiatives if they want to.
EDIT - I kant spel good.
-
Mindless *****ing ain't worth ****. Who cares if people are "speaking out" by whining on their blogs or whatever, it's the sort of talk that people use as a surrogate for action, rather than an inspiration to it.
-
Originally posted by Shiva Archon
Rounding up foreigners and jailing Arabs for no reason? Where? When? I hear this a lot from liberal columnists and such, but they never give any proof or any specific examples.
Not a single person in camp X-ray has had a trial. It's also probable that they've been tortured too (I seem to remember there being something about cruel and unusual punishments in the constituition)
-
Originally posted by Shiva Archon
Rounding up foreigners and jailing Arabs for no reason? Where? When? I hear this a lot from liberal columnists and such, but they never give any proof or any specific examples.
So did you miss the whole part of recent history where everyone in the US of arabic descent had to go to their local INS offices to have a little chat? Did you miss the part where people were carted off for longer chats with nebulous authorities? Or the part where people were moved from place to place, given nothing to eat or drink for days while it was decided what was to be done with them? For reference, that was between February and April of 2003. Most were eventually let go, deported or moved to Camp X-ray (yeah, that place in Cuba where people are still being held without trial, without charges, without counsel. W00t! Go Constitution!
I hate to keep asking for clarification on everything, but how are checks and balances taken away? What supreme power does Ashcroft wield?
How about the part where, without judicial oversight, the FBI can do snatch and grab seizures without informing anyone (least of the victim) of the fact that they were there, why they were there, or when? Explain to me where the oversight is when NO ONE except the FBI itself and a rent-a-judge know what went on. Oh, and the part where the Rent-A-Judge doesn't even have to be told WHY the warrant is being issued. Maybe you missed that bit.
How about the wiretaps that fall under "intelligence needs" now, instead of judicial investigations? The same wiretaps that never have to be revealed to anyone, due to "intelligence" concerns. But hey, Big Brother would only listen in if there was a reason right? You'll never know because he doesn't even have to tell you--even at trial--that you were listened to. Tell me where the oversight is? Tell me where the checks and balances are.
BTW - Is this the same puppet Congress that, to this day, refuses to confirm any of Bush's federal court nominees? Republican control of the Senate hangs by a thread, and the Democrats have shown they have the power to block Bush's initiatives if they want to.
Maybe you should pay more attention to the facts and less to what FoxNews spits out. To listen to Murdoch's mouthpieces speak, you'd think that ALL of Bush's appointees were knocked down.
Time to go check the Congressional record. Only a handful of Bush's appointees were stopped, through marathon filibustering. The vast majority (this is the dictionary defintions of 'vast' and 'majority' not the Bush definitions of 'vast' and 'majority') were passed and approved. The simple fact of the matter is that the BLOCKED appointees are the most newsworthy. No one, least of all Murdoch's cronies, is going to tell you that MOST of his appointees passed quietly.
-
I'm breaking this out seperately. Shiva Archon asked what was so BAD about the USA-PATRIOT act. Obviously, he didn't read enough of it.
Section 215: Access to Records Under Foreign Intelligence Security Act (FISA)
- Allows an FBI agent to obtain a search warrant for “any tangible thing,” which can include books, records, papers, floppy disks, data tapes, and computers with hard drives.
- Permits the FBI to compel production of library circulation records, Internet use records, and registration information stored in any medium.
- Does not require the agent to demonstrate “probable cause,” the existence of specific facts to support the belief that a crime has been committed or that the items sought are evidence of a crime. Instead, the agent only needs to claim that he believes that the records he wants may be related to an ongoing investigation related to terrorism or intelligence activities, a very low legal standard.
- Libraries or librarians served with a search warrant issued under FISA rules may not disclose, under of penalty of law, the existence of the warrant or the fact that records were produced as a result of the warrant. A patron cannot be told that his or her records were given to the FBI or that he or she is the subject of an FBI investigation.
- Overrides state library confidentiality laws protecting library records.
Wow. Not only can the FBI act without probable cause, you aren't allowed to know that he did. And you're not protected by your states confidentiality laws. So much for the 1st, 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments and the protections against unreasonable search and siezure. How are you supposed to credibly defend yourself when you're not allowed to know what they were looking for or why they're investigating you, or even when you were investigated?
I'll add more as I think of them.
In fact, here: The Electronic Frontier Foundations Analysis of USA-PATRIOT (http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Terrorism/20011031_eff_usa_patriot_analysis.html). IF that doesn't turn your stomach, you're probably the sort that likes the idea of yanking people from their beds in the middle of the night never to be seen again.