Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Rictor on May 19, 2005, 10:41:04 am
-
The coffin of US democracy has been nailed shut.
What am I talking about? The United States Senate unanimously passed the $82 billion Iraq Supplemental Spending Bill, already approved in Congress, which includes the Real ID act driver's license reform.
Aside from the obvious implications of a national id program, which you can all pretty much guess at, the bill also authorized something else.
Here's the gem:
"No court shall have jurisdiction to hear any cause or claim arising from any action undertaken, or any decision made, by the Secretary of Homeland Security, or order compensatory, declaratory, injunctive, equitable, or any other relief for damage alleged to arise from any such action or decision."
Read that again. See the problem?
That's right, there's an entire department of the US government, consisting of over 20 police and spy agencies, which is essentially above the law; any law. And this department is under the direct control of the Executive branch, with no oversight possible, because laws simply do not apply.
Now, not to sound like a panicker, but I'm wondering whether pretending like the Magna Carta, not to mention the US Constitution, never existed is really the way to a better future.
-
Wow...
And national ID program? What's that all about?
-
I believe the drivers license program also gives the authorities carte blanche to expand the information held on said licenses - biometrics, DNA samples, etc
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/05/11/real_id_makes_terrorists_happy/
[q]
Soon it will be impossible to obtain government services, travel domestically by hired car, intercity bus, train, or plane, enter a building, open a bank account, pay by check, drink at a pub, enroll in school, or obtain insurance without having your unique federal ID card scanned at the gate. The potential for mission creep, and for mass data aggregation, is absolutely unlimited. DHS can decree that photographs are not enough; it may decide that it also wants fingerprints, iris scans, and DNA information encoded in the cards, and in its massive databases. And Congress has given it the power to decree that, and more.[/q]
This sort of thing is one of the main reasons I not only wouldn't consider working in the States (whereas I would in, for example, Australia or Canada), but also why I won't go on holiday there; it seems the whole places is going tits up rapid-style.
-
scarey stuff
-
Wired ("http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,67498-2,00.html?tw=wn_story_page_next1") has some additional info on the aftermath of the Real ID bill's passage.
-
Holy ****. You guys are... so screwed. This is how it starts.
And quite frankly, that worries me a whole lot too...
-
This is an assault on states rights as well. ****.
****ed in the ass by republican and democrats. And people honestly think one is better than the other.
Next we can start a national gun registry.
-
Originally posted by Roanoke
scarey stuff
Just wait until Darth Blunkett puts RFID in pension books........
-
EPISODE III IS NOW! Aggh! We're all doomed!
-
The reason this was able to pass at all is because politicians can attach riders at will. No one would dare vote against the Iraq Supplemental Spending Bill, so it's a free ticket to attach all sorts of unpopular bull**** which would never pass by itself.
It's a formula for diaster, and especially pork. Just package the fascist laws in with popular legislation, and voila - it passes.
-
Originally posted by redmenace
This is an assault on states rights as well. ****.
****ed in the ass by republican and democrats. And people honestly think one is better than the other.
Next we can start a national gun registry.
No. It was just the republicans - they slipped it into a "must pass" bill, that the democrats had no choice but to pass - the funding for the Iraq war.
-
If they had a spine they wouldn't be funding the Infinite War in the first place. Their crime (this time) isn't belligerance, but simply lacking what people 'round these parts call "balls".
-
[q]unanimously passed[/q]
"So this is how liberty is destroyed, to the sound of applause" - Padme Amidala as Palpatine announces the conversion of the republic to empire.
-
If any of the senators had voted against the bill, their careers would basically be over. They would be labeled "anti-American" and trying to deny our troops funds, and it would haunt them forever.
They were effectively blackmailed into passing the bill.
-
Populism always gets to rape democracy....
-
All it takes for evil to flourish is for one good man not to stand up.
-
Actually, I believe the quote was more like "All it takes for evil to win is for good men to do nothing." Winston Churchill, correct?
-
Originally posted by Rictor
If they had a spine they wouldn't be funding the Infinite War in the first place. Their crime (this time) isn't belligerance, but simply lacking what people 'round these parts call "balls".
Let me tell you a little story. There once was a democratic senator from georgia named max cleland (or however his last name is spelled. Max is a Vietnam veteran who lost both his legs and one arm saving his unit from an enemy grenade (I can't remember for certain, but he may have gotten a medal). Max lost the 2002 election to a republican who never served in the military. The reason he lost was because his opponent called him a coward for not supporting the invasion of Iraq. It was that one thing, and that one thing only.
-
il be so glad when were finally a military dictatorship, then we can start invading things at will :D
-
Hmm, all we need is an emperor now. We should plan the rebellion.
It sounds like even the Supreme Court wouldn't be able to strike this down. That's very scary. I can't believe no one would stand up to this, not one person. That's hard to believe when this is something that can cause ripples throughout the country, and the method used to pass this is just despicable.
-
The bit about the homeland security department will be flat out ignored by the courts. It's by far in the best interests of the courts to declare such an act unconstitutional, someone will challenge it and it will go down.
-
this is... ah, terrible.
i'm just thinking that we have to think about all these ethical issues each time we ask people to give us some blood or tissue or whatever so we can test them and make sure they're not sick- this is something we do _for the people_. now there are no ethical issue about forcing people to give bodily samples for purposes of identification?
probably this is not relevant since i have never been in such a situation, but i think i would resign rather than vote for such a bill. career? screw that. i have my morality and my conscience to answer to.
-
Now my sourcers are sketchy (the daily show, although they dont tend to make up news, just make fun of it) but aparently florida passed a law that makes it legal to open fire on someone if you feel threatened.
Like on the roadways for example, someone cuts you off, and you have every right to blow the everliving **** out of him with you .22
Someone pinch me.
Ive lost all faith in my country and its people.
-
so basically Michael Chertoff cant be sued, is what that excerpt is saying
-
Originally posted by Krackers87
Ive lost all faith in my country and its people.
Welcome to America. Please deposit your freedoms at the door. You are to obey our will. Any contradictory statements, actions, or thoughts will result in your incarceration. You are to carry an ID card. Loss of ID card will result in your incarceration. Have a nice day.
-
after reading the bill (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:3:./temp/~c109lEI1dA:e47420:) youll notice that half of the statments in the registers article is just speculation, hell calling it a national id card is a strech all it does is set up rules that the states have to follow when making their own drivers liscenses. alot of states do this crap already, with databases (minus the pictures) and avalable on the internet. basically its making state ids harder to alter. youll probably see holograms and barcodes and maybe even chips, but thats totaly the state's jurisdiction; other than that the only thing the states are required to do is share their information.
-
Originally posted by icespeed
but i think i would resign rather than vote for such a bill. career? screw that. i have my morality and my conscience to answer to.
:lol:
you'r not a politition. :)
think about it, do you think these people would be were they are today if they didn't have the opposite of that sort of personality?
-
The things is that one person, or a few at most, could potentially have the morals to take a principled stand like that. But it would essentially be career suicide in vain, since the vast majority would still vote them down. There are a few independents, and moderates in both parties who have some degree of ethical decency, but there's no way you could get enough people to defeat the motion.
I'm holding out hope that the law can be declared unconstitutional, but seeing as how Bush is likely to get his guys up on the Supreme Court pretty soon....
-
The Supreme Court doesn't always decide to its political leanings, you know. In fact it has a history of going the other way in major cases.
-
Originally posted by Drew
after reading the bill (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:3:./temp/~c109lEI1dA:e47420:) youll notice that half of the statments in the registers article is just speculation, hell calling it a national id card is a strech all it does is set up rules that the states have to follow when making their own drivers liscenses. alot of states do this crap already, with databases (minus the pictures) and avalable on the internet. basically its making state ids harder to alter. youll probably see holograms and barcodes and maybe even chips, but thats totaly the state's jurisdiction; other than that the only thing the states are required to do is share their information.
The first step to tyranny is ignoring the worst case scenario.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
The things is that one person, or a few at most, could potentially have the morals to take a principled stand like that. But it would essentially be career suicide in vain, since the vast majority would still vote them down. There are a few independents, and moderates in both parties who have some degree of ethical decency, but there's no way you could get enough people to defeat the motion.
No need to block the bill. Just do what the others did an attach a rider making gay marriage legal. Then the bill would simply turn into a game of one-upmanship with each side trying to come up with riders which are more and more repugnant to the other side until both sides cave in and pass the bill with no riders at all :D
Or have I misunderstood exactly who can attach what to a bill?
-
Originally posted by Krackers87
Now my sourcers are sketchy (the daily show, although they dont tend to make up news, just make fun of it) but aparently florida passed a law that makes it legal to open fire on someone if you feel threatened.
Like on the roadways for example, someone cuts you off, and you have every right to blow the everliving **** out of him with you .22
Someone pinch me.
Ive lost all faith in my country and its people.
Frankly I would read the bill first before trusting Jon Stewart. And besides in the right situations this is a great law. Say somone breaks into your home. You can shoot them and don't have to worry about a lawsuit.
-
Originally posted by Krackers87
Now my sourcers are sketchy (the daily show, although they dont tend to make up news, just make fun of it) but aparently florida passed a law that makes it legal to open fire on someone if you feel threatened.
That actually is a good idea. An old man down here had his house broken into, so he grabbed his shotgun and shot the guy as he was coming through the window. He didn't kill the guy, instead only wounding him. So guess what the thief did? He sued the old man.
Anyway, I'm also hoping the Supreme Court will take a look at this.
-
Originally posted by redmenace
Say somone breaks into your home. You can shoot them and don't have to worry about a lawsuit.
´
What if i´m the meter man, and enter your house to check the meter, and you just shoot me, because you weren´t expecting the meter man to come by?
Right, no lawsuit...
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Unknown Target
That actually is a good idea. An old man down here had his house broken into, so he grabbed his shotgun and shot the guy as he was coming through the window. He didn't kill the guy, instead only wounding him. So guess what the thief did? He sued the old man.
Anyway, I'm also hoping the Supreme Court will take a look at this.
It's also a get-out-of-jail-free card.
Shoot a bystander knocking on your back door? Fair enough - you felt threatened. Don't approve of your daughters boyfriend visting at night and chucking pebbles at the window? Get the shotgun out.
The more the consequences of force - especially lethal force - are reduced, the more likely it is that it'll be used. You might think it's fair enough to kill a burglar, but then why not introduce the death penalty for theft?
-
Originally posted by Swamp_Thing
´
What if i´m the meter man, and enter your house to check the meter, and you just shoot me, because you weren´t expecting the meter man to come by?
Right, no lawsuit...
:rolleyes:
metermen ask to enter your home.
Metermen ask to check your meter or atleast tell you that they are there.(when the meter is on the outside.)
Basically, your analogy doesn't work.
On the subject of an intruder. People who have boobie trapt their property because of repeated break ins and the police don't bother to help and been sued when some dumb ass black kid broke and was killed.
-
On the subject of an intruder. People who have boobie trapt their property because of repeated break ins and the police don't bother to help and been sued when some dumb ass black kid broke and was killed.
And the first step to bigotry...
-
Well that is not exactly bigotry. If anything it points out a trajedy of the inner cities.
If you really want bigotry, I can do bigotry. I could say all blacks are dishonest, drug dealing, murders etc. But I am not because, besides from being unfair and a stereotype is wrong since I HAVE A BLACK BROTHER AND SISTER.
-
Originally posted by redmenace
metermen ask to enter your home.
Metermen ask to check your meter or atleast tell you that they are there.(when the meter is on the outside.)
Basically, your analogy doesn't work.
Just because you don´t want it to work, that´s all.
Suppose you are in the shower, and can´t hear the door bell. The meter man still needs to enter your yard. So you get out of the shower, and notice some guy creeping around your yard. You feel threatened, so out comes the customized assault rifle, and bye bye goes a meter man...
What this bill is trying to do is turn every house into a man´s medieval castle, where you do what the hell you want to anyone coming in, even if they come in peace. It´s a license to kill your neighbour, and go scott free.
Maybe i don´t like the milkman, because i got it through my thick skull that he´s banging my wife. So all i need to do is wait behind the bushes... Goodbye milkman.
:doubt:
-
Neat :D I have a bunch of black relatives too! :D I have a very mixed family :)
-
Originally posted by Swamp_Thing
´
What if i´m the meter man, and enter your house to check the meter, and you just shoot me, because you weren´t expecting the meter man to come by?
Right, no lawsuit...
:rolleyes:
Most meters are on the outside as I recall. Oo;
-
Originally posted by Swamp_Thing
Just because you don´t want it to work, that´s all.
Suppose you are in the shower, and can´t hear the door bell. The meter man still needs to enter your yard. So you get out of the shower, and notice some guy creeping around your yard. You feel threatened, so out comes the customized assault rifle, and bye bye goes a meter man...
What this bill is trying to do is turn every house into a man´s medieval castle, where you do what the hell you want to anyone coming in, even if they come in peace. It´s a license to kill your neighbour, and go scott free.
Maybe i don´t like the milkman, because i got it through my thick skull that he´s banging my wife. So all i need to do is wait behind the bushes... Goodbye milkman.
:doubt:
That's what he gets for screwing the missus! XD
-
Originally posted by delta_7890
Most meters are on the outside as I recall. Oo;
No, they aren´t. Not usually. In apartment buildings, the electricity meter is inside your flat. And in houses, the meter is on your yard. Either way the meter man needs to enter your property.
I would like to see what those who suport this bill would say, if they or some family member got shot by an over zealous home owner, while doing their job.
It´s always good untill it happens to them...
-
Originally posted by Swamp_Thing
Just because you don´t want it to work, that´s all.
Suppose you are in the shower, and can´t hear the door bell. The meter man still needs to enter your yard. So you get out of the shower, and notice some guy creeping around your yard. You feel threatened, so out comes the customized assault rifle, and bye bye goes a meter man...
What this bill is trying to do is turn every house into a man´s medieval castle, where you do what the hell you want to anyone coming in, even if they come in peace. It´s a license to kill your neighbour, and go scott free.
Maybe i don´t like the milkman, because i got it through my thick skull that he´s banging my wife. So all i need to do is wait behind the bushes... Goodbye milkman.
:doubt:
I guess you would have criminals freely entering homes getting shot and suing?
I am sure this bill would not pass with out some provisions for what would be threatening. A person coming onto your property to your door obviously is not threatening. So basically a standard of reason is most likly applied. Now if a person enters your property and after repeated requests to leave and threats to the intruder of being shot that would be a threat to your self and property. Walking down the street and a bum flashes a knife and I feel threatened. That situation would be within reason. A Bum comes after me for some change and I shoot the bum. That is not within reason.
-
Originally posted by Swamp_Thing
No, they aren´t. Not usually. In apartment buildings, the electricity meter is inside your flat. And in houses, the meter is on your yard. Either way the meter man needs to enter your property.
I would like to see what those who suport this bill would say, if they or some family member got shot by an over zealous home owner, while doing their job.
It´s always good untill it happens to them...
Not what happens around here. Houses...all meters are outside. Apartments may be different. Meter man just goes from house to house checking meters. Must be different down there.
The rest is lunacy.
-
Originally posted by Swamp_Thing
No, they aren´t. Not usually. In apartment buildings, the electricity meter is inside your flat. And in houses, the meter is on your yard. Either way the meter man needs to enter your property.
Every meter in my street, other than my house, is located outside the house. Same for most places AFAIK, because otherwise checking the meter would be dependent upon people being in the house.
-
Meters are all inside here...
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Every meter in my street, other than my house, is located outside the house. Same for most places AFAIK, because otherwise checking the meter would be dependent upon people being in the house.
Outside the house, or outside the yard? Also, water meters are outside, but electric meters are not, due to the possibility of people tampering with it. If the meter is outside, you are no longer liable for anything that happens to it, including someone steeling juice from your pipeline.
Gas meters are also inside, to avoid any tampering that could lead to a gas leak.
It´s all in the building code. And i should know, that´s what i did for a living in my previous life.
Now, if the code is diferenty in the US, and you allow gas meters outside, you should start looking there for your next possible terrorist hit, shouldn´t you? How much does it take to pull in your driveway, rupture a main pipe, and wait for the gas to build up to a nice little bright explosion?
But never mind the meter man. How about the milkman? Or the neighbour that comes asking for a cup of sugar, or your lawn mower ( yeah, i know, people who borrough land mowers never return them, so they should be shot). Or how about your son´s new study partner, who happens to be a black kid, and as all black kids he must be a thief? (sarcasm)
The meter man was just an example. Let´s not dwell on it.
-
Originally posted by redmenace
I guess you would have criminals freely entering homes getting shot and suing?
I am sure this bill would not pass with out some provisions for what would be threatening. A person coming onto your property to your door obviously is not threatening. So basically a standard of reason is most likly applied. Now if a person enters your property and after repeated requests to leave and threats to the intruder of being shot that would be a threat to your self and property. Walking down the street and a bum flashes a knife and I feel threatened. That situation would be within reason. A Bum comes after me for some change and I shoot the bum. That is not within reason.
I believe there are alread laws allowing self defense in the US; there certainly are in the UK. The emphasis is on proportionate self defense, I believe; same as you'd prosecute a police marksman for killing someone under the wrong circumstances.
-
Originally posted by Swamp_Thing
Outside the house, or outside the yard? Also, water meters are outside, but electric meters are not, due to the possibility of people tampering with it. If the meter is outside, you are no longer liable for anything that happens to it, including someone steeling juice from your pipeline.
Gas/Electrical meters are on the outside of the house, within a large locked plastic thing which the meterman checks. AFAIK we don't actually have water meters, at least not in Scotland.
EDIT; IMO it's perfectly possible that a jumpy houseowner could be spooked by a meterman coming at the evening and think their searching for the meter box was an attempt to break in.
I think a more likely scenario is someone panicing - either from being a vitcim of crime, witnessing an accident, etc - knocking on a door to get help, and being shot for their troubles. IIRC this has happened before.
-
(Red 1\4th of topic)
Im scared now. Thats ****ed up ****. Man, why do i live here?
Thats it, soon im moveing to Canada.. tho i never wanted to leave Wisconsin. *Sigh*
-
oh sure, give $83 billion dollars to Iraq so they can build more weapons and destroy the US. my god, is anyone THINKING up there?
-
...no
that was a stupid question. hehe.
-
yeah, they're not thinking at all. lights are on but nobody's home.
-
I'm not moving. I'm staying in the US as long as I can, to try and help fix things. But if they start to get really draconian, I'm moving. And you can be sure as hell if I have any kids (doubtful, but still) - they're going to be Canadian.
-
In that kind of scenario, Canada would be overwhelmed with refugees. I don't know if they could handle it all. I'm staying here as well, until every last glimmer of hope fades. Then we will run the rebellion from Canada. :p
I think a few states would go rogue though. I doubt they would all pledge their allegiance to a dictatorship. I could be wrong however. Why am I even talking about this? Such morbid thoughts, this is terrible!
-
Such a dictatorship would come extremely slowly, to the point that no one would realise it is one.
Look at the power that the executive branch has now compared to when the country was first founded. Originally being a senator was a more powerful role, the President was a figurehead.
Now the President has direct control of nuclear weapons, and an entire security department. In my mind, the President has had too much power since the Cold War primarily due to being 'Commander and Chief' of the military and nuclear weapons falling under military control.
-
Naaah, you guys are just in shock because you just witnessed a democracy falling at the sound of aplause, and Palpatine happens to look a bit like Bush. :p
Though there was a striking resemblance, between Palpatine´s adress of the senate and Bush´s state of the union speech...
:nervous:
EDIT:
Ok, who´s the first to photoshop Bush´s face into Darth Sidius´s body?
-
Historically, though, the conversion from democracy to dicatorship is not a slow process. It comes quite rapidly, within the space of 4 or 5 years at most. That's not quite long enough for nobody to notice large portions of the Constitution being overturned or rewritten.
-
In regaurds to proportinate response, obviously there is something wrong when criminals can enter your home then sue when you shoot them for it.
-
Originally posted by ngtm1r
Historically, though, the conversion from democracy to dicatorship is not a slow process. It comes quite rapidly, within the space of 4 or 5 years at most. That's not quite long enough for nobody to notice large portions of the Constitution being overturned or rewritten.
This happens to with both parties as well. Each side it is a different issue. With democrats it is the right to keep and bear arms. They wish to legislate it to death, regaurdless of the provisions for changing the constitution.
-
Originally posted by ngtm1r
Historically, though, the conversion from democracy to dicatorship is not a slow process. It comes quite rapidly, within the space of 4 or 5 years at most. That's not quite long enough for nobody to notice large portions of the Constitution being overturned or rewritten.
Well, if the United States is one thing, it's ahistorical. Pretty much the entire history of the country is out of tune with historical standards.
But I wouldn't start packing the bags just yet. Things can and do change pretty quickly (for better or worse) and the US is still a long way from anything resembling fascism.
Keep in mind, people's political beliefs tend to form before they are 20, so as all the "Clinton kids" grow up and start getting involved in politics, things ought to change significantly.
-
Originally posted by redmenace
In regaurds to proportinate response, obviously there is something wrong when criminals can enter your home then sue when you shoot them for it.
I'd wager its equally if not more wrong to legalise murder under the conditions of any perceived 'threat'.
-
So defending ones self is murder?
As I see it a person has a right to defend ones property and life especially when the police can't do much or don't have time to bother.
But like I said before, the content of the law should be scrutinized for ones self other than just trusting Jon Stewart, an obviously biased source that misconstrues facts on a daily basis for entertainment(which is incredibly funny BTW).
-
And this happens RIGHT as Episode 3 is released... Sh!t happens...
-
Or is it Sith happens? :p
-
Big Brother is watching. :shaking:
-
Originally posted by EtherShock
Or is it Sith happens? :p
Shi'ite happens :p
the US has steadily gone off the deep end.. i can sense history repeating itself
-
I've been saying it for years. It's just a matter of time before the US crumbles in on itself. The question is, how much power will they get and how much dominion will they achieve before everything hits the fan?
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
The first step to tyranny is ignoring the worst case scenario.
oh thats a cop-out, viewing everything as its worst case scenario ignores its usefull perposes; anyway lets try to keep this from an argument of slogans. this bill gives express directions to the states, basically giving the states the power to follow the directions any way they wish, its not even covered by the Central jurisdicion of the government in washington; its not even close to a centralized servalence(sp) program, that power isnt even in the bill. what bugs me the most is this bill constitutionality is questionable, as its giving an executive created DHS the power to order the states around, and origianlly, the only branch allowed to order the states around is the congress. (unless i misunderstand the DHS) getting down to it, the congress dosnt have the constitutional jurisdiction to tell the states to make IDs; the 10th ammendemnt gives the states its own power to make its own ids.
-
i can see states like california receding from the union if things get too bad. well if the us goes to **** im in a state theats kinda off by itself. alaska could easily become a self-sufietient country because of its oil and gold resources.iirc, we got nukes. we can do without the rest of the us sucking out our oil supply.
-
Indeed, this is the harbringer of Doom and the beginning of the end for Freedom and Democracy in the United States of America. I give it about 3 years before Secret Police Forces not unlike the Gestapo or NKVD beginning a campaign of Terror to find all opposition to the current administration and start picking them up indescriminantly in the early hours of the morning all around America...In 7 Years, the Government will Sieze all power over the Country and abolish Democratic Elections, establishing an Authoritarian style Government...In 10 Years, the United States of America will be firmly entrenched as possibly the greatest Dictatorships in Human History, more powerful and oppressive than the old Soviet Union ever was...in 15 Years, the United States will launch an all out campaign to bring the rest of the world under its power, which will either end in the total domination of the World by the US, or an all out Nuclear War ending in the complete annihilation of Humankind as we know it...
...i've got $20 going for it, any takers...?
-
Originally posted by Raa
Welcome to America. Please deposit your freedoms at the door. You are to obey our will. Any contradictory statements, actions, or thoughts will result in your incarceration. You are to carry an ID card. Loss of ID card will result in your incarceration. Have a nice day.
Hmmm....sounds like Singapore. Well, at least here the government (despite having an iron grip) isn't that bad as compared to what you guys got :p
*notes to stay away from America.
-
Originally posted by Mefustae
Indeed, this is the harbringer of Doom and the beginning of the end for Freedom and Democracy in the United States of America. I give it about 3 years before Secret Police Forces not unlike the Gestapo or NKVD beginning a campaign of Terror to find all opposition to the current administration and start picking them up indescriminantly in the early hours of the morning all around America...In 7 Years, the Government will Sieze all power over the Country and abolish Democratic Elections, establishing an Authoritarian style Government...In 10 Years, the United States of America will be firmly entrenched as possibly the greatest Dictatorships in Human History, more powerful and oppressive than the old Soviet Union ever was...in 15 Years, the United States will launch an all out campaign to bring the rest of the world under its power, which will either end in the total domination of the World by the US, or an all out Nuclear War ending in the complete annihilation of Humankind as we know it...
...i've got $20 going for it, any takers...?
muhahahaha
the final solution to the human question is at hand :D
-
Originally posted by Unknown Target
I'm not moving. I'm staying in the US as long as I can, to try and help fix things. But if they start to get really draconian, I'm moving. And you can be sure as hell if I have any kids (doubtful, but still) - they're going to be Canadian.
bah! Dont move to Canada! Move to a 3rd world country and use the currency difference to become a comparitively rich baron with unequaled education and significant job oppurtunities! :p
-
Originally posted by Singh
bah! Dont move to Canada! Move to a 3rd world country and use the currency difference to become a comparitively rich baron with unequaled education and significant job oppurtunities! :p
Your compassion towards those worse off than you is touching :p ... When you've established yourself, don't forget to stand in front of a large group of starving men, women & children...and eat a Big Mac...:p
...Back to something slightly resembling the topic...we're all doomed...*goes out to a street corner, stands on a soap box, and starts yelling out 'THE END IS NEAR'*...
-
Originally posted by Mefustae
Your compassion towards those worse off than you is touching :p ... When you've established yourself, don't forget to stand in front of a large group of starving men, women & children...and eat a Big Mac...:p
...Back to something slightly resembling the topic...we're all doomed...*goes out to a street corner, stands on a soap box, and starts yelling out 'THE END IS NEAR'*...
Sadly, my compassion to my fellow men went out of the window many, many years ago. That's what happens when you live in India all your life.....after seeing it around everywhere, and there little to actually do about it, it kinda fades into the background.
Nobody's telling you to do that anyway...now that's just sick.
back to the topic....
The end is indeed nigh!!
-
Originally posted by Drew
oh thats a cop-out, viewing everything as its worst case scenario ignores its usefull perposes; anyway lets try to keep this from an argument of slogans. this bill gives express directions to the states, basically giving the states the power to follow the directions any way they wish, its not even covered by the Central jurisdicion of the government in washington; its not even close to a centralized servalence(sp) program, that power isnt even in the bill. what bugs me the most is this bill constitutionality is questionable, as its giving an executive created DHS the power to order the states around, and origianlly, the only branch allowed to order the states around is the congress. (unless i misunderstand the DHS) getting down to it, the congress dosnt have the constitutional jurisdiction to tell the states to make IDs; the 10th ammendemnt gives the states its own power to make its own ids.
The bill creates the conditions to allow a central surveillance program; firstly, it will de-facto require Americans to possess machine readable ID cards (although these are deemed as voluntary, they will be required to travel on train or aeroplane, wll be needed to access/open bank accounts, gain access to social security, entry to national parks; i.e. anything which federal employees control access to). The Deparment of Homeland Security will have unrestricted rights to define what information constitutes this id - ranging from photo, to fingerprint, to further biometric data, and even RFID.
I'd point out that the US state department is already adding RFID chips into passports that would enable radio-tracking of said passport (i.e. rather than an ID chip requiring contact with the scanner), and which are capable of storing biometric id data.
Note the 'machine readable' part; at the very least, that means the legislature will support a system for tracking the movement of citizens using train & air transport.
Also note that the Real ID act does not apparently include a single mention of the world 'privacy'.
The states may be able to choose how they implement the cards / licenses, but it's the DofHS that specifies what they contain; the most any state can do is choose to add extra on top of that spec.
And the state which specifies these requirements, and can extend them, is one exempt from legal action against it.
If you ask me, that';s got a tremendous potential for abuse, and IMO this an administration more than willing to do so in order to demonstrate it's being 'protective'.
Originally posted by redmenace
So defending ones self is murder?
As I see it a person has a right to defend ones property and life especially when the police can't do much or don't have time to bother.
Yes, it's murder if it's disproportionate to the threa or unecessary.
Especially if it's used as a first resort, i.e. killing before attempting another method to scare off / capture the aforementioned criminal; defending your own life does not always require killing the other person.
-
We'll see how the country is fairing at the next election. If Bush suddenly declares that he can stay in office longer, or (maybe) if the Republicans "win" again - then we're in trouble. Otherwise, it shows they're not going for total domination.
-
My guess is that even the Democrats somehow win in 2008, the Republicans can and probably will retain control of both houses. As long as they've got Karl Rove ("http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/architect/view/") around, they're well nigh invincible.
Originally posted by Mefustae
Indeed, this is the harbringer of Doom and the beginning of the end for Freedom and Democracy in the United States of America. I give it about 3 years before Secret Police Forces not unlike the Gestapo or NKVD beginning a campaign of Terror to find all opposition to the current administration and start picking them up indescriminantly in the early hours of the morning all around America...In 7 Years, the Government will Sieze all power over the Country and abolish Democratic Elections, establishing an Authoritarian style Government...In 10 Years, the United States of America will be firmly entrenched as possibly the greatest Dictatorships in Human History, more powerful and oppressive than the old Soviet Union ever was...in 15 Years, the United States will launch an all out campaign to bring the rest of the world under its power, which will either end in the total domination of the World by the US, or an all out Nuclear War ending in the complete annihilation of Humankind as we know it...
...i've got $20 going for it, any takers...?
I hope you're being sarcastic. Listen, I'm the last person to downplay the recent resurgence of nationalism, but seriously....
The US is a first world country, which means a) people are used to lving in freedom and comfort, and b) a significant section of the population is educated enough and smart enough to see the writing on the wall, so any attempts at large scale state repression would be met with a ton a resistance.
-
Exactly. If Bush tries to run away with the next election again (he won't), then people would be in an uproar.
-
Originally posted by Unknown Target
Exactly. If Bush tries to run away with the next election again (he won't), then people would be in an uproar.
I thought there was a 2-term limit?
-
There is. If he tries to run away with the election and claim "executive powers" or whatever (like a lot of you people seem to believe he will) - he'll shoot himself in the foot. The uproar would be enormous. That's why he won't do it. However, if he could, I'm sure he would.
-
Um, at risk of sounding stupid, why isn't this being covered by any of the media?
-
Because the focus is on the filibuster right now, and since it was slipped into the bill, it's existence isn't widely known.
-
As was intended. What's the point of going through all the trouble, just so a few uppity "citizens" can complain on and on how their "liberties" are being "trampled on".
Diversion, that's the name of the game. The entire nation is too busy looking for a missing bride and watching the super duper season finale of The Apprentice, they don't have time for trivilities like politics and freedom.
-
Originally posted by Unknown Target
There is. If he tries to run away with the election and claim "executive powers" or whatever (like a lot of you people seem to believe he will) - he'll shoot himself in the foot. The uproar would be enormous. That's why he won't do it. However, if he could, I'm sure he would.
Yeah well, Bush hasn never been the brain behind anything. Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rove, Condi, Wolfowitz - these are the people responsible for pretty much anything and everything that the Bush administration has done over the past few years. And somehow I don't see the Republican party suddenly switching gears to moderates like McCain. Bush is proof enough that the President doesn't necessarily run things. As long as the hawks, the militarists, the neoconservatives (and neoliberals) - in short, the imperialists - are in power, nothing much is likely to change.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
I thought there was a 2-term limit?
there is, it's imposable for Bush to run again unless they pass a constitutional amandment. and they can't even get one to outlaw "evil sexual preversion" (or as most nornal people call it gay marage), so I highly doubt they'll get a term limit amendment any time in the near future.
-
really i dont think the government is in any real danger of being overthrown, however it is good to have hope that one day the earth will die in a massive thermonuclear fireball :D
-
Nah, we will be "conquered" by the Shivans Vasuda style ;)
-
Originally posted by Drew
... The only branch allowed to order the states around is the congress. (unless i misunderstand the DHS) getting down to it, the congress dosnt have the constitutional jurisdiction to tell the states to make IDs; the 10th ammendemnt gives the states its own power to make its own ids.
Actually, the 10th Amendment grants all other powers not granted to the federal government to the States, and only they can grant the federal government any other powers (by amending the Constitution). We did this because we were afraid of the government having too much power over the States, like the British did. Over time, the States have slowly lost their powers, but what you said is technically correct. I just wanted to clarify what you meant.
Originally posted by aldo_14
Also note that the Real ID act does not apparently include a single mention of the world 'privacy'.
Privacy isn't mentioned in the Constitution. However, it is a right that is simply understood. To prevent people from violating our rights to privacy, it should be amended into the Constitution, but I don't see that happening anytime soon. It's something that should've been done long ago though.
Originally posted by aldo_14
I thought there was a 2-term limit?
It's more like a tradition. I guess kind of like how the electoral college would vote for whoever their state votes for (but they don't have to). After over 200 years, I guess it's kind of a rule, a rule that doesn't have to be followed, but the strong precedent kind of dictates their actions. Washington set the two-term precedent as our first president, but one has stayed in office longer, and that was Franklin Roosevelt. He stayed in for over two terms, but didn't finish his third because he died. He only did it because of WWII, so we're told. Our government bases a lot of things on precedent.
Originally posted by Rictor
Bush is proof enough that the President doesn't necessarily run things. As long as the hawks, the militarists, the neoconservatives (and neoliberals) - in short, the imperialists - are in power, nothing much is likely to change.
It's very unlikely, but for all we know, Bush could actually be smart and his stupidity could just be an act.
Originally posted by Corsair
Um, at risk of sounding stupid, why isn't this being covered by any of the media?
The media are a bunch of idiots, and their only intention is to keep us focused on the shadows on the walls, instead of going outside the cave and seeing the light.
Originally posted by Rictor
Diversion, that's the name of the game. The entire nation is too busy looking for a missing bride and watching the super duper season finale of The Apprentice, they don't have time for trivilities like politics and freedom.
They found the bride in New Mexico. It was a hoax. She had some nerve to do that. She couldn't confide in anyone? Anyway, it's nice to escape reality once in a while through entertainment, but using it to ignore reality completely is just as bad as drug abuse.
Jeez, I feel like a teacher. Class dismissed. :p
-
No, after Roosevelt, the two-term limit was either ammended or made into law. (spelling corrected as needed)
-
Originally posted by EtherShock
Privacy isn't mentioned in the Constitution. However, it is a right that is simply understood. To prevent people from violating our rights to privacy, it should be amended into the Constitution, but I don't see that happening anytime soon. It's something that should've been done long ago though.
You wouldn't really expect privacy in the Constitution, as it was drafted in a time of laissez faire governments without the ability to even try to infringe privacy to the degree possible today. As such it *should* fall to the government to ensure legislature provides the sensible protection (which may itself be implied or required by the UN Convention on Human Rights); when the government fails to do so, there's no barrier to potential misuse.
-
Ive lost all faith in my country and its people.
Welcome to the club.
The uproar would be enormous.
Don't be so sure of that. A great many people are being kept in a permenant state of fear on purpose. A great many people are also being brainwashed with the republican view that critisizing a republican controlled government is unpatriotic. They will use those two things to silence most of the people.
It's just a matter of time before the US crumbles in on itself.
It's already starting to happen.
The "War on Terror" is yet another front to keep the people pacified.
-
Originally posted by EtherShock
It's very unlikely, but for all we know, Bush could actually be smart and his stupidity could just be an act.
Y'know, i think it's pretty damn clear that the United States is being run by a Puppet, i mean, when Dubya was a Governer, he sounded like he knew what he was doing and he at least appeared intelligent. When he got to be President thanks to some very creative rigging, he instantly became a Puppet, most likely to the people that got him into office and bankrolled his Election Campaign. I'm glad i'm not living in the US, because i just don't like the idea of a Country i'm living in being run by a group or groups who's indentity and true agenda are yet to be revealed...
...but then, if the US is transformed into a Dictatorship or something like it, it won't matter where we live, we're all in trouble, evidenced by several thousand Nuclear Weapons and the most powerful Military Force known to man...
-
Originally posted by Charismatic
(Red 1\4th of topic)
Im scared now. Thats ****ed up ****. Man, why do i live here?
Thats it, soon im moveing to Canada.. tho i never wanted to leave Wisconsin. *Sigh*
And when you become a Canadian citizen you can ***** about the current Liberal/NDP vs Conservative/Bloc stalemate in parliament :)
-
Well, at least that's nice and boring. The worst that can happen is an opportunistic bimbo (dipstick, was it?) running across the floor and having her boyfriend give a teary interview.
I prefer that to the stink of nationalim.
-
I prefer that to the stink of nationalim.
Yeah, nationalism is nothing but trouble.
-
"No court shall have jurisdiction to hear any cause or claim arising from any action undertaken, or any decision made, by the Secretary of Homeland Security, or order compensatory, declaratory, injunctive, equitable, or any other relief for damage alleged to arise from any such action or decision."
Am I looking at the right bill (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c109:./temp/~c109jB0DAh)?
The closest I found is around Sec. 102 (with some text searching for Homeland Security.
SEC. 102. WAIVER OF LEGAL REQUIREMENTS NECESSARY FOR IMPROVEMENT OF BARRIERS AT BORDERS; FEDERAL COURT REVIEW.
Section 102(c) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1103 note) is amended to read as follows:
`(c) Waiver-
`(1) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall have the authority to waive all legal requirements such Secretary, in such Secretary's sole discretion, determines necessary to ensure expeditious construction of the barriers and roads under this section. Any such decision by the Secretary shall be effective upon being published in the Federal Register.
`(2) FEDERAL COURT REVIEW-
`(A) IN GENERAL- The district courts of the United States shall have exclusive jurisdiction to hear all causes or claims arising from any action undertaken, or any decision made, by the Secretary of Homeland Security pursuant to paragraph (1). A cause of action or claim may only be brought alleging a violation of the Constitution of the United States. The court shall not have jurisdiction to hear any claim not specified in this subparagraph.
`(B) TIME FOR FILING OF COMPLAINT- Any cause or claim brought pursuant to subparagraph (A) shall be filed not later than 60 days after the date of the action or decision made by the Secretary of Homeland Security. A claim shall be barred unless it is filed within the time specified.
`(C) ABILITY TO SEEK APPELLATE REVIEW- An interlocutory or final judgment, decree, or order of the district court may be reviewed only upon petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States.'.
-
I wonder.... with respect to (B), is there a requirement for the Secretary of Homeland Security to disclose decisions within 60 days?