NationStates Jolt Archive

According to Kos, and the US senate website, the torture bill passed the Senate 65-34-1 (The one was Snowe, the only remaining sane Republican). Luckily enough, the courts will probably strike it down, but this is just disgusting. Torture, suspension of Habbeus Corpus, and removal of judicial oversite all wrapped up into one. It's like a stir-fry of "Tyrants needed, speak to manager for application" signs.

I'm all for the War on Terror, when it isn't commiting attrocities, but this is a step too far. Not only do we unbalance the checks and balances system, but we also subject US troops to torture as well, by making it a morally acceptable choice.

Snowe abstained? Well, I'd have felt better if she'd have voted against it, but it's better than our other Senator (Collins), who apparently voted for this obscene bill. I'll have to remember that then next time Collins is up for re-election. :mad:

so i've been saying it for awhile now, but can we call it tyranny yet?

Not to mention a very loose warrantless wiretapping bill passed the House.
The House is working on tihs philosophy: "Ok, the president is breaking the laws, let's make the laws slightly more lenient and still look like protective laws, the nmaybe he won't break them and we won't look like dicks for doing nothing!"

I do not think it will be shot down in court. I think it will be upheld and then we are all screwed :(

Torture, suspension of Habbeus Corpus, and removal of judicial oversite all wrapped up into one.

As one of the younger members of NSGeneral, and having to live in America until I graduate college in 201-. I officially announce this.

I'm scared. Scared for this country and scared for my freedom. I don't want to have to fear the leaders any more than I already do.

[QUOTE=Kinda Sensible people;11745329] Torture, suspension of Habbeus Corpus, and removal of judicial oversite all wrapped up into one.[QUOTE]

As one of the younger members of NSGeneral, and having to live in America until I graduate college in 201-. I officially announce this.

I'm scared. Scared for this country and scared for my freedom. I don't want to have to fear the leaders any more than I already do.
You aren't alone...

Maybe it's time that all of you who, at one point or another have said they'd move to Canada or elsewhere do just that. Here is the first link Google provided me:

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/index.html

We could use you blue-staters. Except up here, blue is the colour of our own variety of slackjawed, backwater lunatic yokel whackjob Bush-wannabes. Don't worry, though - we've got lots of political parties. It's not Coke vs. Pepsi. You'll like it. I promise.

Maybe it's time that all of you who, at one point or another have said they'd move to Canada or elsewhere do just that. Here is the first link Google provided me:

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/index.html

We could use you blue-staters. Except up here, blue is the colour of our own variety of slackjawed, backwater lunatic yokel whackjob Bush-wannabes. Don't worry, though - we've got lots of political parties. It's not Coke vs. Pepsi. You'll like it. I promise.

*raises hand* I'm close to being a red stater, and this scares ME, am I welcome?

Maybe it's time that all of you who, at one point or another have said they'd move to Canada or elsewhere do just that. Here is the first link Google provided me:

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/index.html

We could use you blue-staters. Except up here, blue is the colour of our own variety of slackjawed, backwater lunatic yokel whackjob Bush-wannabes. Don't worry, though - we've got lots of political parties. It's not Coke vs. Pepsi. You'll like it. I promise.

We promised to stay it out and fight to take back our country. Besides, do you really want an America with an unchecked Republican party? We may have some very evil people in control of us, but we're still an uberpower.

*raises hand* I'm close to being a red stater, and this scares ME, am I welcome?

Look at it from my point of view: why would I want to encourage the emigration of those who have , either directly or through omission of action helped bring about this turn of events in your country, to my own? We have enough trouble with our current wannabe-Republican PM right now - I couldn't abide an influx of the sort of people my PM would prefer us to emulate.

Sorry, but my own couch doesn't accomodate red-staters. Maybe Mikesburg'd help you out - he fancies himself a Tory - but not me.

Look at it from my point of view: why would I want to encourage the emigration of those who have , either directly or through omission of action helped bring about this turn of events in your country, to my own? We have enough trouble with our current wannabe-Republican PM right now - I couldn't abide an influx of the sort of people my PM would prefer us to emulate.

Sorry, but my own couch doesn't accomodate red-staters. Maybe Mikesburg'd help you out - he fancies himself a Tory - but not me.

I can't vote yet. And I'm close to being a liberterian, though with a slight (VERY SLIGHT) conservitive lean.

Maybe it's time that all of you who, at one point or another have said they'd move to Canada or elsewhere do just that. Here is the first link Google provided me:

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/index.html

We could use you blue-staters. Except up here, blue is the colour of our own variety of slackjawed, backwater lunatic yokel whackjob Bush-wannabes. Don't worry, though - we've got lots of political parties. It's not Coke vs. Pepsi. You'll like it. I promise.

Appreciate the offer, but I'm looking to stay low for a few years, then take power once our authoritarianism is firmly established. Once I've got power, the change'll be made to take us back to the Constitution. After all, so long as all that power is going to be there, I might as well position myself to wield some of it for a good cause.

We promised to stay it out and fight to take back our country. Besides, do you really want an America with an unchecked Republican party? We may have some very evil people in control of us, but we're still an uberpower.

I've already had an America with an unchecked Republican Party or the last six years, and I've been terrified by them the entire time. I wouldn't characterize you as an uberpower - I'd characterize your leaders as the world's most ruthless gang of terrorists the world has ever seen. Uberterrorists. Uberjunta. Ubertotalitarian dictatorship. Ubernot a frickin' democracy no more, no way & all according to some creepy lil' backroom motherfucker's plans.

We promised to stay it out and fight to take back our country. Besides, do you really want an America with an unchecked Republican party? We may have some very evil people in control of us, but we're still an uberpower.

Yeah! Sure! It's much better to live in a country controlled by evil people with torture legal, and so on - who cares, the only thing that matters is to live in an uberpower!

Appreciate the offer, but I'm looking to stay low for a few years, then take power once our authoritarianism is firmly established. Once I've got power, the change'll be made to take us back to the Constitution. After all, so long as all that power is going to be there, I might as well position myself to wield some of it for a good cause.

They might even offer power to a select few - but their power will come with a leash.

Maybe it's time that all of you who, at one point or another have said they'd move to Canada or elsewhere do just that. Here is the first link Google provided me:

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/index.html

We could use you blue-staters. Except up here, blue is the colour of our own variety of slackjawed, backwater lunatic yokel whackjob Bush-wannabes. Don't worry, though - we've got lots of political parties. It's not Coke vs. Pepsi. You'll like it. I promise.
I better start saving up then. More than just two of the same party is a dream come true.

Yeah! Sure! It's much better to live in a country controlled by evil people with torture legal, and so on - who cares, the only thing that matters is to live in an uberpower!

Not exactly what I meant.

The US needs Democrats with firm ethics to counter the Republicans because we are an uberpower. If the Dems leave, the Republicans can fuck over the world that much more easily.


I've already had an America with an unchecked Republican Party or the last six years, and I've been terrified by them the entire time. I wouldn't characterize you as an uberpower - I'd characterize your leaders as the world's most ruthless gang of terrorists the world has ever seen. Uberterrorists. Uberjunta. Ubertotalitarian dictatorship. Ubernot a frickin' democracy no more, no way & all according to some creepy lil' backroom motherfucker's plans.

I'm sorry, but this is what it's like when Dems are in the minority, not when there are no dems. If there were no Dems, we'd be much closer to a military theocracy than we are now (like it or not, the course is still reversable). I agree that our leaders are evil and opportunistic, however I feel that you vastly overstate what they are. They might like to be an ubertotalitarian dictatorship, but they are not, yet.

And watch it with the backroom strategists. My goal is to become one.

They might even offer power to a select few - but their power will come with a leash.

Makes it easier to bite the guiding hand when you can follow the leash back to the owner. I'd rather stay and subvert more than settle somewhere else, in any case.

*bows head*

I feel for you people.

They might even offer power to a select few - but their power will come with a leash.

After getting power, all those few (or one) have to do is suddenly claim that the leashholders are really some kind of traitors.
Purges have been a fairly common occurance on the road to the consolidation of power...

BTW I think it sucks that the bill passed.

But I suppose someone has to pave the way for my eventual coup ;)

If the Dems leave, the Republicans can fuck over the world that much more easily.

though given the way the official dems have been acting, the difference might not be all that noticeable

Anyone else notice how this whole Bush admin seems like its based off starwars(the prequels)

Anyone else notice how this whole Bush admin seems like its based off starwars(the prequels)

That's because the prequels were based off of the bush admin, can't improve on true evil.

though given the way the official dems have been acting, the difference might not be all that noticeable

The leadership of the dems all voted to oppose this.

The dems who voted for:

Tom Carper (Del.)
Tim Johnson (S.D.)
Mary Landrieu (La.)
Frank Lautenberg (N.J.)
Bob Menendez (N.J)
Bill Nelson (Fla.)
Ben Nelson (Neb.)
Pryor (Ark.)
Jay Rockefeller (W. Va.)
Ken Salazar (Co.)
Debbie Stabenow (Mich.)

And the "Dem" who voted for

Joe Lieberman (Conn.)

Source: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/9/28/195456/183

That's because the prequels were based off of the bush admin, can't improve on true evil.

oh yeah

The leadership of the dems all voted to oppose this.

as i understand it, there are any number of blocking and delaying tactics they could have used. i didn't see any of them employed. shit, even without having the votes to sustain it, there was an ethical obligation to attempt to filibuster the damn thing.

or better yet, walk out of congress entirely and set up a new government in the streets.

as i understand it, there are any number of blocking and delaying tactics they could have used. i didn't see any of them employed. shit, even without having the votes to sustain it, there was an ethical obligation to attempt to filibuster the damn thing.

What part of 34 do you not understand? You need 40 people to fillibuster.

Additionally, this Congress is winding down, and they have yet to pass all the budgets they need. A delaying tactic would have prevented necessary bills from passing, which would have done a great deal of harm. As it is, we can reverse this shit in January when we sweep the congress.

What part of 34 do you not understand? You need 40 people to fillibuster.

you get a couple days, even without the votes to hold off cloture.

Additionally, this Congress is winding down, and they have yet to pass all the budgets they need. A delaying tactic would have prevented necessary bills from passing,

good

it is right and proper to shut the whole damn thing down to stave off the legal enshrinement of tyranny and dictatorship, even if only temporarily.

Free shepmagans, allow me to apologize.

I just can't abide social conservatism. Fiscal conservatives I can hold my nose and live with for a few years at a time, but there's just no room in my 21st-century notion of Canada for social conservatives who want to turn the clocks back on everything we've become over this last generation (and curtail everything we might want to become). To my foreign-devil ears, 'red-staters' would have implied 'conservative', hence a potential Bush-enabler-of-sorts. I jumped to a conclusion - I should have known, what with this notion of libertarianism that seems to make the rounds - but meh, it's late & I'm tired and - if you're socially progressive, but fiscally conservative - I'd put you up on my couch, you Tory-bastard-in-training, you.

Free shepmagans, allow me to apologize.

I just can't abide social conservatism. Fiscal conservatives I can hold my nose and live with for a few years at a time, but there's just no room in my 21st-century notion of Canada for social conservatives who want to turn the clocks back on everything we've become over this last generation (and curtail everything we might want to become). To my foreign-devil ears, 'red-staters' would have implied 'conservative', hence a potential Bush-enabler-of-sorts. I jumped to a conclusion - I should have known, what with this notion of libertarianism that seems to make the rounds - but meh, it's late & I'm tired and - if you're socially progressive, but fiscally conservative - I'd put you up on my couch, you Tory-bastard-in-training, you.

I'm so fiscally conservitive it ain't funny. I'm practically an anarcho-capitalist (and would be if I could get the whole world to change at once). :p

A second US Civil War or Revolution looms now. There is very little we can do to stop it after these "Intolerable Acts" by King George. How many people think the US populace will have the will to actually fight- in warfare- against this government?

A second US Civil War or Revolution looms now. There is very little we can do to stop it after these "Intolerable Acts" by King George. How many people think the US populace will have the will to actually fight- in warfare- against this government?

The south will... it'll then promptly set up a theocracy, but it'll still fight...

The south will... it'll then promptly set up a theocracy, but it'll still fight...

well at least someone will fight.

The South thing though, I do know allot of southerners turned on the current gov. because of katrina, perhaps that'll help fuel some more postive fires of revolt.

The south will... it'll then promptly set up a theocracy, but it'll still fight...
Not to mention South Riverside, Cali. I'll fight. I like fighting. The last fight I was in was awesome. Turned into some weird, sadomasochisty brawl.

Actually, that last bit was kind of creepy. On my part. Don't ask.

A second US Civil War or Revolution looms now. There is very little we can do to stop it after these "Intolerable Acts" by King George. How many people think the US populace will have the will to actually fight- in warfare- against this government?

The majority of the people would only fight if they had nothing left to lose. As long as they are making a little money, have a home and car, abundant entertainment and food, and a free "education" for their children, they won't risk taking up arms. Too much to loose. Sadly, they'll give up their rights before they give up their material possessions/standard of living. At least that has been my impression. "Bread and circuses" and such.

The leadership of the dems all voted to oppose this.

The dems who voted for:

Tom Carper (Del.)
Tim Johnson (S.D.)
Mary Landrieu (La.)
Frank Lautenberg (N.J.)
Bob Menendez (N.J)
Bill Nelson (Fla.)
Ben Nelson (Neb.)
Pryor (Ark.)
Jay Rockefeller (W. Va.)
Ken Salazar (Co.)
Debbie Stabenow (Mich.)

And the "Dem" who voted for

Joe Lieberman (Conn.)

Source: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/9/28/195456/183

Now that we have a list, does anyone have a realife Mr. 47's contact details? I'm thinking we may be in need of his services.

These mojos need to watch their loved one's being subjected to what they do in Gitmo. They would not have voted that way and act like a true opposition.

you get a couple days, even without the votes to hold off cloture.

good

it is right and proper to shut the whole damn thing down to stave off the legal enshrinement of tyranny and dictatorship, even if only temporarily.

So... What you're saying is that you want the US to not pass all of it's budget, harming all the people on government programs, fail to adress other critical legislature, and fail to complete it's yearly business, all in the name of stalling for two days on a bill that will pass anyway.

That's not a constructive use of time. This congress is already the Do-Nothing Congress, but we need to have it finish it's job in office, or we are stranded until January. By stalling, we make it more necessary to pass budget bills as they are, meaning that Republicans can modify them to suit their needs, or that they won't be passed at all. Neither is an acceptable choice because both will cause great harm.

Why won't anyone stand up for the 5th, 6th and 8th Amendments? Are rights no longer given to certain people because we say they are too "evil" to deserve rights? It seems to me the people leading our country are the ones who hate freedom.

The majority of the people would only fight if they had nothing left to lose. As long as they are making a little money, have a home and car, abundant entertainment and food, and a free "education" for their children, they won't risk taking up arms. Too much to loose. Sadly, they'll give up their rights before they give up their material possessions/standard of living. At least that has been my impression. "Bread and circuses" and such.

Don't forget "as long as they have guns." People will sit around and take it up the ass until they come for the guns, then it will be too late.

Why won't anyone stand up for the 5th, 6th and 8th Amendments? Are rights no longer given to certain people because we say they are too "evil" to deserve rights? It seems to me the people leading our country are the ones who hate freedom.

It's that whole "us v. them" mentality. So long as your one of "us", you have rights, but if you're one of "them", you no longer deserve basic human rights.

Some people see that kind of a stubborn, certain stance as a strength, "At least we know our President stand for something!" They never bother to think where they're standing, or who they're standing on. Certainty is all fine and good, but ignorant certainty like a false "us v. them" dichotomy is the sort of thing exploited by facists, racists, and religious extremists for centuries.

Don't forget "as long as they have guns." People will sit around and take it up the ass until they come for the guns, then it will be too late.

Nice to hear people would rather own a gun then be able to speak freely without worry of being detained for being a "security risk" of some kind.

Maybe it's time that all of you who, at one point or another have said they'd move to Canada or elsewhere do just that. Here is the first link Google provided me:

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/index.html

We could use you blue-staters. Except up here, blue is the colour of our own variety of slackjawed, backwater lunatic yokel whackjob Bush-wannabes. Don't worry, though - we've got lots of political parties. It's not Coke vs. Pepsi. You'll like it. I promise.

I looked into it back when Bush was re-elected. I would need more money in the bank than I have or a job already waiting for me. Can anyone tell me the nessisary qualifcations for a special education paraprofessional (classrom aid for those not up on current jargon) in Canada?

So... What you're saying is that you want the US to not pass all of it's budget, harming all the people on government programs, fail to adress other critical legislature, and fail to complete it's yearly business, all in the name of stalling for two days on a bill that will pass anyway.

if the option is either go along with the installation of a dictatorship with the legally recognized power to 'disappear' and torture people or to kick up as much of a fuss as you can even if it causes some short term harm, you fucking obstruct, scream, and do anything that you can to even remotely undermine the legitimacy of the government. hell, you get together and you beat up the fuckers that are pushing for this. you chase them from the halls of power. and then you try them for treason and crimes against humanity.

there is no other possible tactical option at work here - once you have sat there and given any level of legitimacy to allowing the executive branch to disappear people, it's fucking over. you lost forever. it takes a revolution or a coup to undo that sort of shit.

don't talk to me about elections. the executive branch can fucking disappear people.

don't talk to me about the orderly operation of the federal government. the executive branch can fucking disappear people.

this is not a fucking game. this is not business as fucking usual.

Three pages and not a single blind sheep bleating of "This will help us fight terrorism" or "Why do you hate freedom?"

I hope this means more people are waking up. Hopefully in time to stop the country's transformation into The Kingdom of Gilead.

Very sad day for the country.

"Beacon of freedom and justice" my ass.

There's no way this is going to pass the supreme court.

They may have all been appointed by republicans, but they aren't elected, and don't have to worry about losing votes to the "you're with us or the terrorists win" crowd.

there are some that are still in the pocket of the Party, but there's no way this thing is going to pass.

no way...

*tries to be optimistic* :mad:

Very sad day for the country.

"Beacon of freedom and justice" my ass.

No, that would be the beacon being shined into your ass for the cavity search prior to the Gitmo field trip.

if the option is either go along with the installation of a dictatorship with the legally recognized power to 'disappear' and torture people or to kick up as much of a fuss as you can even if it causes some short term harm, you fucking obstruct, scream, and do anything that you can to even remotely undermine the legitimacy of the government. hell, you get together and you beat up the fuckers that are pushing for this. you chase them from the halls of power. and then you try them for treason and crimes against humanity.

there is no other possible tactical option at work here - once you have sat there and given any level of legitimacy to allowing the executive branch to disappear people, it's fucking over. you lost forever. it takes a revolution or a coup to undo that sort of shit.

don't talk to me about elections. the executive branch can fucking disappear people.

don't talk to me about the orderly operation of the federal government. the executive branch can fucking disappear people.

this is not a fucking game. this is not business as fucking usual.

to quote mario savio (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Bi0z3N7tXc):

"There's a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can't take part, you can't even passively take part, and you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop! And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all!"

The president has announced that he doesn't know what an outrage against human dignity is. I had hoped the senate would see through this obscene bullshit and at least be able to fillibuster it. Now I just don't know what to fucking do. I don't want to live in a country by this policy. I love America too much to abandon her, but I just don't know how to effectively fight back. This cannot be allowed to stand. Either we have to turn back dramatically, or there will have to be a revolution. We need people in the senate who actually respect human dignity.

What monsters have we allowed ourselves to become?

The leadership of the dems all voted to oppose this.

The dems who voted for:

Tom Carper (Del.)
Tim Johnson (S.D.)
Mary Landrieu (La.)
Frank Lautenberg (N.J.)
Bob Menendez (N.J)
Bill Nelson (Fla.)
Ben Nelson (Neb.)
Pryor (Ark.)
Jay Rockefeller (W. Va.)
Ken Salazar (Co.)
Debbie Stabenow (Mich.)

And the "Dem" who voted for

Joe Lieberman (Conn.)

Source: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/9/28/195456/183

WTF?! I need to draft up a very angry letter.

you said that snowe was the only repub to not vote for it?

what about this guy:

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) yesterday assailed the provision as an unconstitutional suspension of habeas corpus, which he said was allowable only "in time of rebellion or in time of invasion. And neither is present here."

he said that (at least: that's the quote I pulled from the other thread) while this was still in debate.

how did he vote

how did he vote

i believe the exact words were "yes, sir! may i have another?"

does anyone here know the number of the bill?

I want to read the bill text itself.

[edit] 3930?

SEC. 6. HABEAS CORPUS MATTERS.

(a) In General- Section 2241 of title 28, United States Code, is amended--

(1) by striking subsection (e) (as added by section 1005(e)(1) of Public Law 109-148 (119 Stat. 2742)) and by striking subsection (e) (as added by added by section 1405(e)(1) of Public Law 109-163 (119 Stat. 3477)); and

(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:

`(e)(1) No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who--

`(A) is currently in United States custody; and

`(B) has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.

`(2) Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 1005(e) of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (10 U.S.C. 801 note), no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any other action against the United States or its agents relating to any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of confinement of an alien detained by the United States who--

`(A) is currently in United States custody; and

`(B) has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.'.

(b) Effective Date- The amendments made by subsection (a) shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply to all cases, without exception, pending on or after the date of the enactment of this Act which relate to any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of detention of an alien detained by the United States since September 11, 2001.

there's the section on Habeus Corpus.

it seems to me like it's applying to alien combatants.


I hate to be a party pooper, but can someone point out exactly where the part of the bill that says the president can 'disappear people' is?

I just dont get how this could pass...

How can oversight/checks and balances be a bad thing?

I hate to be a party pooper, but can someone point out exactly where the part of the bill that says the president can 'disappear people' is?

because while there is no specific denial of habeas corpus for citizens, it does specifically provide for the president to declare whoever he wants to be an unlawful enemy combatant, and for that declaration to be final. and the bush admin's use of the status of 'unlawful enemy combatant' was invented in order to hold people indefinitely without charges.

A step in the right direction has been taken, but we must go much further along this path, without heeding the liberals trying to drag this country down.

What, you'll only be happy when they're actually kicking in our doors and dragging us off to camps?

What, you'll only be happy when they're actually kicking in our doors and dragging us off to camps?

I'll be happy once we wake up and realize that we're at war, and we can't pretend that there isn't an enemy out there who will stop at nothing to kill us. This is the least we can do to combat the threat -- in fact, we should be much more offensive and strike at the root of terrorism instead of passively defending ourselves with these flimsly bills. We need to take serious action.

A step in the right direction has been taken, but we must go much further along this path, without heeding the liberals trying to drag this country down.

1. Praise any measure claiming to protect us from terrorism, whether it does or not.
2. Ignore any measure which threatens US freedom, as long as it follows #1.
3. Blame liberals.

Yep... you're an idiot.

3. Blame liberals.

Who else should I blame? Only the extreme liberal wing of the Democratic Party voted against this measure (and one crazy Republican, who's a conservative Benedict Arnold, no doubt); they are the ones to blame if there is another terrorist attack against the US and they are the ones who are allowing terrorist attacks to happen.

Who else should I blame?

Gee, I dunno. Terrorists maybe? Osama bin Laden? Al Queda?

Only the extreme liberal wing of the Democratic Party voted against this measure (and one crazy Republican, who's a conservative Benedict Arnold, no doubt); they are the ones to blame if there is another terrorist attack against the US and they are the ones who are allowing terrorist attacks to happen.

What a funny way you have of placing responsibility. It's no longer a terrorist's fault if he blows up something... it's "liberals." I guess you're not really a conservative, or at least if you are you're one of those quasi-socialists who hates the concept of individual responsibility.

Who else should I blame? Only the extreme liberal wing of the Democratic Party voted against this measure (and one crazy Republican, who's a conservative Benedict Arnold, no doubt); they are the ones to blame if there is another terrorist attack against the US and they are the ones who are allowing terrorist attacks to happen.

Yup. Those lousy liberals trying to protect the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights. Trying to stop such un-American practices like torture and ignoring habeas corpus because somehow some people don't deserve it. You don't end freedom to keep "safe". Which is what is now happening. I am much more worried about our own government then any terrorists.

I am much more worried about our own government then any terrorists.

Yes, our democratically-elected government is much more of a threat than extremists abroad who are willing to give up their lives to kill Americans. This is the problem with America these days -- liberals just don't have their priorities straight.

Yes, our democratically-elected government is much more of a threat than extremists abroad who are willing to give up their lives to kill Americans. This is the problem with America these days -- liberals just don't have their priorities straight.

"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." - FDR, noted anti-American liberal terrorist.

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Ben Franklin, noted Al Queda apologist

oh noes the terrorists are gunna destroy Amuricuh! we're all in danger of losing our way of life so lets restrict the rights of everyone so as to uh.... I dunno how it will help to give more power to the President and disregard checks and balances but a Republican is doing it so it must be okay!!!

Yes, our democratically-elected government is much more of a threat than extremists abroad who are willing to give up their lives to kill Americans. This is the problem with America these days -- liberals just don't have their priorities straight.

My priorities are keeping our civil rights intact. The very thing that makes us a great nation. I am not going to let fear of terrorists make me give up my freedom. Supposively it is our freedom that makes the terrrorists hate us and here we are cutting back on that very freedom...

Our government is using fear so it can stay in power which really disgusts me. Then of course anyone who criticizes is accused of sympathizing with terrorists. I for one am not going to let conservative manipulation trick me into giving up my rights. Besides, politicians voted for this torture bill not the American people. Given how we are more likely to die in our bathtubs then in a terrorist attack and given how the government is willing to sacrifice our rights it is time for new leadership. I can only hope in November that we begin the change.

It sure would be nice if the Supreme Court would grow a backbone...

One problem with having the supreme court handle this:
If I know the american legal system right, you can't challenge a law unless it affects you.
By the reading this normally gets, anyone the Bush Administration throws in Gitmo can't challenge it in court.
So this bill is totally immune to the judicial system.

Yep, ordering those Benedict Arnold masks, cool hats, capes, body armor and throwing knives now.

Of course, now that habeus corpus is gone (in effect - your right to your freedom), what is GW gonna blather on about the terrorists hating you for?

Yep, ordering those Benedict Arnold masks, cool hats, capes, body armor and throwing knives now. Put me down for one... In fact, Buy bulk please. There may be a high turnover rate.

*Offers his condolences to the good people of the United States of America. The erosion of democratic rights and freedoms over the past 6 years is mind boggling. The passage of this bill is truly a sad day for the people of America in particular and for the people of the world in general. A sad day indeed!!

Universal Declaration of Human Rights (http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html)

PREAMBLE
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,

Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,

Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,

Some relevant Articles:

Article 5.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 6.
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article 7.
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 8.
Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

Article 9.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.


The beacon of America gets dimmer and dimmer!! :(

Oooooh. Newt Gingrich just said on the O'Reilly Factor that we shouldn't give suspected terrorists lawyers because they might give other suspected terrorists we haven't caught yet information to attack America. So what is the solution? Don't give them any lawyers! I guess he sees that as a logical reason to deny them legal representation. :rolleyes:

I have to find something better to watch than this crap...

Oooooh. Newt Gingrich just said on the O'Reilly Factor that we shouldn't give suspected terrorists lawyers because they might give other suspected terrorists in the outside world to attack America. So what is the solution? Don't give them any lawyers!

I have to find something better to watch than this crap...

Sorry, I didn't quite understand that first sentence. Was his reason for not allowing terrorists to have lawyers because those lawyers may pass on messages from the detained terrorists to other external terrorists? If so, that is a very good reason. The only lawyers they should be afforded are the bottom-of-the-line military lawyers who show up drunk or high and don't know the meaning of mens rea. That'll teach the terrorists a lesson -- we're not going to help those who attempt to massacre us. Of course, many liberals insist on treating them like cute puppy dogs, so who knows?

Sorry, I didn't quite understand that first sentence. Was his reason for not allowing terrorists to have lawyers because those lawyers may pass on messages from the detained terrorists to other external terrorists? If so, that is a very good reason. The only lawyers they should be afforded are the bottom-of-the-line military lawyers who show up drunk or high and don't know the meaning of mens rea. That'll teach the terrorists a lesson -- we're not going to help those who attempt to massacre us. Of course, many liberals insist on treating them like cute puppy dogs, so who knows?

I cleaned up my post, if you are confused look again. Now, I don't care what you have done, how evil it was, you deserve adequate legal counsel just like anyone else. Denying anyone that kind of thing is what dictatorships do. Not in the United States of America where everyone gets a fair trial no matter what they are accused of. Trying to justify denying people rights is a slippery slope that is something to be avoided at all costs.

you said that snowe was the only repub to not vote for it?

what about this guy:



he said that (at least: that's the quote I pulled from the other thread) while this was still in debate.

how did he vote

Specter (R-PA), Yea

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00259

so i've been saying it for awhile now, but can we call it tyranny yet?

No, because all of this only applies to non-US citizens.

Specter (R-PA), Yea

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00259

Chafee (R-RI), Nay

One Republican had some sanity. Snowe just not voting doesn't cut it as far as I'm concerned.

Chafee (R-RI), Nay

One Republican had some sanity. Snowe just not voting doesn't cut it as far as I'm concerned.

I agree. Snowe's abstention, however, was better than Collins' yea vote. She has some explaining to do to me and the other voters in this state.

1. Praise any measure claiming to protect us from terrorism, whether it does or not.
2. Ignore any measure which threatens US freedom, as long as it follows #1.
3. Blame liberals.

Yep... you're an idiot.
Yesterday RealAmerica was deleted and MeansToAnEnd was created. I wonder if there is any co-releation? Hmmmm. Seems to have an identical agenda?

Yesterday RealAmerica was deleted and MeansToAnEnd was created. I wonder if there is any co-releation? Hmmmm. Seems to have an identical agenda?

Quite a coincidence. Of course, the "identical agenda" of which you speak describes millions of people in this great country, so it's kind of hard to narrow it down to just two.

Yesterday RealAmerica was deleted and MeansToAnEnd was created. I wonder if there is any co-releation? Hmmmm. Seems to have an identical agenda?

*raises eyebrows*

I can see how the two are similar. I hope he keeps to the rules this time. Having a conservative like him keeps things interesting on NS. Debate can sputter when most have similar views. It is the few like him that keeps things moving. :)

Quite a coincidence. Of course, the "identical agenda" of which you speak describes millions of people in this great country, so it's kind of hard to narrow it down to just two.
It is easier to narrow it down to two when we only have a few hundred posters in NS. :p

You also remind me of the dynamic duo of USBarryAlpenGoldwaterStock.

*raises eyebrows*

I can see how the two are similar. I hope he keeps to the rules this time. Having a conservative like him keeps things interesting on NS. Debate can sputter when most have similar views. It is the few like him that keeps things moving. :)

I don't consider him "conservative" and I don't think the terms "liberal" and "conservative" as used in modern politics mean anything other than as euphemisms for Democrat or Republican.

*raises eyebrows*

Conservatives are like Hydra -- whenever you ban one of them, two more of them pop up in his place. Sorta like terrorists in Iraq.

Explain these votes:

Carper (D-DE), Yea
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea
Lieberman (D-CT), Yea (predictable)
Menendez (D-NJ), Yea
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Yea

I mean, if your definition of "out of your mind" is voting Yea on this one, why so many Democrats? One would think that the Democrats would be able to muster some solidarity, at least on an issue like this. What gives?

I mean, if your definition of "out of your mind" is voting Yea on this one, why so many Democrats? One would think that the Democrats would be able to muster some solidarity, at least on an issue like this. What gives?

We've killed the terrorist lover's boyfriends, and since they havn't called, they're all pissed and taking their rage out on everyone else. ;)

Explain these votes:

Carper (D-DE), Yea
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea
Lieberman (D-CT), Yea (predictable)
Menendez (D-NJ), Yea
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Yea

I mean, if your definition of "out of your mind" is voting Yea on this one, why so many Democrats? One would think that the Democrats would be able to muster some solidarity, at least on an issue like this. What gives?

Because the Democratic Party sucks? Oh wait, we have to love them or something because we dislike the Republican party. I have a few words if that's the case.

FUCK. THAT. SHIT.

Conservatives are like Hydra -- whenever you ban one of them, two more of them pop up in his place. Sorta like terrorists in Iraq.

Yup, and they provide a needed target for our debates. Keep on coming. :)

I'm sure those terrorists in Iraq would be less of a problem if we were not there pissing the population off and encouraging violence by our very presense. People don't like occupying armies after all.

Because the Democratic Party sucks? Oh wait, we have to love them or something because we dislike the Republican party. I have a few words if that's the case.

FUCK. THAT. SHIT.

As you may note, I am wondering why they can't show some solidarity on at least this issue. One would think it was pretty easy. Republicans, with fewer exceptions by percentage, seemed to be more unified on this than the Democrats.

And I never said you had to love them, and you're the one saying Democrats suck.

I'm asking for an answer to why they can't show solidarity? Some answer that doesn't involve "fuck that shit".

I mean, if your definition of "out of your mind" is voting Yea on this one, why so many Democrats? One would think that the Democrats would be able to muster some solidarity, at least on an issue like this. What gives?

Because there are some very stupid people in the Democratic party who haven't got the backbone to stand up to this sort of abuse. Many of them depend on the moderate vote in their region, which means they have to move right on issues to appear "balanced". They are bad people, and bad politicians, no matter which party they come from. They will be called to answer by their constituents, I hope.

And Joe Lieberman should have the D beside his name removed. He is now a member of the "Connecticut for Joe Lieberman" party, and we want no part in him whatsoever.

Explain these votes:

Carper (D-DE), Yea
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea
Lieberman (D-CT), Yea (predictable)
Menendez (D-NJ), Yea
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Yea

I mean, if your definition of "out of your mind" is voting Yea on this one, why so many Democrats? One would think that the Democrats would be able to muster some solidarity, at least on an issue like this. What gives?

They are afraid of looking as if they are weak on terror. So in fear of losing their office they sell their soul to Bush.

They are afraid of looking as if they are weak on terror. So in fear of losing their office they sell their soul to Bush.

Does "weak on terror" really play with constituencies? This would be well worth investigating - because if it really plays with a constituency, then you're not going to be elected being "weak on terror". But if it doesn't really play - if the constituency doesn't really care about terrorism - then you're stupid to vote for it out of fear.

One would presume that the Democratic Party, at high levels, has discussed this problem. Rather than try to be "tougher" than the other party, one might see if there's a better approach - one that might even involve The Nazz' idea that terror itself should be considered a more minor issue by the general public - that more important issues are at hand.

But I don't hear it being sold that way. I keep hearing both parties expressing the "we've got bigger balls than the other guys".

So in fear of losing their office they sell their soul to Bush.

Bush must have quite a collection of souls composed of congressmen that love America. Souls that he does not yet possess include crazies like Teddy Kennedy.

Sorry, I didn't quite understand that first sentence. Was his reason for not allowing terrorists to have lawyers because those lawyers may pass on messages from the detained terrorists to other external terrorists? If so, that is a very good reason. The only lawyers they should be afforded are the bottom-of-the-line military lawyers who show up drunk or high and don't know the meaning of mens rea. That'll teach the terrorists a lesson -- we're not going to help those who attempt to massacre us. Of course, many liberals insist on treating them like cute puppy dogs, so who knows?

The flaw here is that you automatically assume that everyone accused of being a terrorist is actually a terrorist.

That's what trials are for: to determine if people are actually guilty of the crimes they are accused of.

Lawyers are there as representatives and counsel to the accused to ensure that the defendant gets their fair say (as not everyone knows every law, it's the lawyers: who went to law school for a reason, to ensure that the accused is not being taken advantage of by a set of laws he is unaware of)

Anything less than that, and a jury of other citizens, and I guarantee that you will have innocent people found guilty of crimes, or just plain assumed guilty of crimes they did not commit.

you don't want innocents killed, do you? because that's what the terrorists want.

Where the fuck is this "Liberals want to treat them like puppies" bullshit coming from? I want them locked away until such a time as it can be determined if they are actually guilty of any crimes, and if they do turn out to be a threat, I want them dealt with. (Meaning, except in extreme war crime cases, being locked away for a very long time indeed.) I just don't think that torture is acceptable under any circumstances, for anyone, nor do I think we can assume guilt, especially because estimates go that a sizable chunk of them were just at the wrong place at the wrong time.

The further issue is that the president can now declare anyone an enemy combatant, making them eligable for the secret cia torture prisons. Technically, you have to engage in or support hostilities with the U.S., but since you get no trial, no lawyer, and no chance to appeal, that basically doesn't matter.

Well, I am not surprised. The US seems to be joining the UK in its rise to fascism. Except we have Boredom Brown to fuck up the country.

For all you yanks so concerned about your liberty etc. here is a nice little project: www.freestateproject.org. Maybe people will wake up now and deprive the government of its legitimacy, initiate a slow revolution so to speak, by withdrawing first from federal government, then disengaging completely and relying on local governments for a time. Then, each community can go its way and enact its own system (cooperation in war time is still feasible to deter threats).

What a funny way you have of placing responsibility. It's no longer a terrorist's fault if he blows up something... it's "liberals." I guess you're not really a conservative, or at least if you are you're one of those quasi-socialists who hates the concept of individual responsibility.

I don't consider him "conservative" and I don't think the terms "liberal" and "conservative" as used in modern politics mean anything other than as euphemisms for Democrat or Republican.
Well, he certainly isn't a paleoconservative (to me, the conservatives proper) of any discernable kind. Sounds like a wannabe fascist Neocon - they and many of the leftist commies that they so despise are not too far apart.

I can't vote yet. And I'm close to being a liberterian, though with a slight (VERY SLIGHT) conservitive lean.


I'm so fiscally conservitive it ain't funny. I'm practically an anarcho-capitalist (and would be if I could get the whole world to change at once). :p
Moi aussi; I'm essentially a paleolibertarian - in other words, I hold to traditional values and such, but I do not believe these should be imposed on others perforce. I'm also nearly anarchocapitalist. ^^

Bush must have quite a collection of souls composed of congressmen that love America. Souls that he does not yet possess include crazies like Teddy Kennedy.

Which is exactly the inflammatory statements that conservatives love to throw about. People who voted to torture people love America and those who are still sane, who still love our freedoms, who know that such treatment of suspected terrorists is wrong, actually hate America. I do not care for the "had to destroy the village to save it" arguement. Which is exactly what it will be if we start agreeing to lose rights for a feeling of safety. Losing civil rights because we are told it will help catch terrorists is not worth it. Conservatives can wail at the voters that terrorist attacks will appear everywhere if we don't torture people but I really hope people will wake up, seeing what is happening and realize they are being tricked by fear.

Conservatives can wail at the voters that terrorist attacks will appear everywhere if we don't torture people but I really hope people will wake up, seeing what is happening and realize they are being tricked by fear.

The fear is completely legitimate and it should be acted upon. We should have acted upon our fear when Nazi Germany declared war on Poland and started dedicating huge amounts of money to defense spending. We didn't, and look what happened. Look at what all those foreign terrorists are doing in their attempts to de-stabilize Iraq. If we hadn't been Iraq, they'd be coming after us at home. We need to protect ourselves, even if it involves maltreating terrorists. I'd rather an innocent man be put in jail than a terrorist allowed to run amok.

Anyone else notice how this whole Bush admin seems like its based off starwars(the prequels)

Seems like the Klingon Empire to me.

Where the fuck is this "Liberals want to treat them like puppies" bullshit coming from?

The troll pot.

The fear is completely legitimate and it should be acted upon. We should have acted upon our fear when Nazi Germany declared war on Poland and started dedicating huge amounts of money to defense spending. We didn't, and look what happened. Look at what all those foreign terrorists are doing in their attempts to de-stabilize Iraq. If we hadn't been Iraq, they'd be coming after us at home. We need to protect ourselves, even if it involves maltreating terrorists. I'd rather an innocent man be put in jail than a terrorist allowed to run amok.

And I think letting a terrorist "run amok" is better then putting an innocent man in jail. If we are to say we are a free and just nation then we can not allow innocents to be locked and then give them no rights to get themselves out. It is the sign of an oppressor when you do that. I would also say that it is us who destabilized Iraq. We can debate on just how evil Saddam was and what should have been done, but when he was in power there were not bombings and street gangs killing mass civilians. Our coming brought that about. Saddam killed his own fair share true, but things are hardly better now. Finally I can not possibly see how comparing the Nazis to the limited few terrorists out there can work. Terrorism is a threat but Nazis were a dagger to the throat of the world. Terrorists aren't killing millions, Nazis did. Terrorists have no chance to bring down a Western nation, Nazis could have and did. Terrorists by their very name are to cause terror which they certainly succeeded here, by our overreation that is seen in this disgusting torture bill. Trying to compare to nazis or use terms like "Islamo-facists" to try to draw links between the two just won't work.

According to Kos, and the US senate website, the torture bill passed the Senate 65-34-1 (The one was Snowe, the only remaining sane Republican). Luckily enough, the courts will probably strike it down, but this is just disgusting. Torture, suspension of Habbeus Corpus, and removal of judicial oversite all wrapped up into one. It's like a stir-fry of "Tyrants needed, speak to manager for application" signs.

I'm all for the War on Terror, when it isn't commiting attrocities, but this is a step too far. Not only do we unbalance the checks and balances system, but we also subject US troops to torture as well, by making it a morally acceptable choice.

Wow, shit, man.

I'm only a teenager, and my family is Asian (Indian). I'm scared shitless. My dad, ever the Republican, won't believe this, so I won't tell him.

And I think letting a terrorist "run amok" is better then putting an innocent man in jail.

I don't much care for grandiloquent speeches decrying the erosion of civil and human rights in this country. Yes, it may be excellent material for a sound byte, yet it is simply an impediment to progress. Once we have eliminated all terrorists, these measures will be rendered unnecessary. However, until such a juncture, bills such as these are indispensable tools for fighting terrorism. I don't care if 100 innocent civilians have to die to capture a single terrorist -- hell, we didn't have a problem with doing that in Iraq, that's for sure. It's worth it because we have to construct a terror-free world in the future, and America has to be the architect.

GOP groupthink:
"By being the same as the terrorists, we can defeat the terrorists!"

GOP groupthink:
"By being the same as the terrorists, we can defeat the terrorists!"

When did we start executing people based on religion? When did we start driving cars filled to the brim with explosives into crowded buildings? When did we make it a mission to kill all those with whom we do not agree? We didn't. Comparing America to terrorists is disgusting. Hopefully Uncle Sam will come knocking on your door soon after you posted that comment.

I don't much care for grandiloquent speeches decrying the erosion of civil and human rights in this country. Yes, it may be excellent material for a sound byte, yet it is simply an impediment to progress. Once we have eliminated all terrorists, these measures will be rendered unnecessary. However, until such a juncture, bills such as these are indispensable tools for fighting terrorism. I don't care if 100 innocent civilians have to die to capture a single terrorist -- hell, we didn't have a problem with doing that in Iraq, that's for sure. It's worth it because we have to construct a terror-free world in the future, and America has to be the architect.

It is opinions like this that brings such hatred towards America. We are willing to kill as many civilians as possible to get at a criminal that we want. This arrogance only breeds more extremists. I can certainly understand how "laws" can get in the way of prosecuting criminals. But they are there for all of our protection. Further I find the idea that once terrorism is elliminated (never going to happen) that these laws violating our rights will be repealed. Once government has this power they will not want to let it go. But then again the world will always have terrorism so saying we will repeal the laws when terrorism ends is a great way to keep such oppression.

When did we start executing people based on religion? When did we start driving cars filled to the brim with explosives into crowded buildings? When did we make it a mission to kill all those with whom we do not agree? We didn't. Comparing America to terrorists is disgusting. Hopefully Uncle Sam will come knocking on your door soon after you posted that comment.
I like you.
You're silly.
(you're not DCD by any chance?)

When did we start executing people based on religion? When did we start driving cars filled to the brim with explosives into crowded buildings? When did we make it a mission to kill all those with whom we do not agree? We didn't. Comparing America to terrorists is disgusting. Hopefully Uncle Sam will come knocking on your door soon after you posted that comment.

Wow. I see you are a big advocate of feedom of speech. You do realize that your last statement completely contradicts the rest of your post?

Besides all those who do not believe as we do are seen as our enemies whether they have done something or not. Our "us against them" philosophy.

Wow. I see you are a big advocate of feedom of speech. You do realize that your last statement completely contradicts the rest of your post?

I am a huge proponent of freedom of speech. I don't think that it would right for Uncle Sam to come knocking on his door, as that would certainly infringe on his freedom of speech. Nonetheless, I want it to happen.

I am a huge proponent of freedom of speech. I don't think that it would right for Uncle Sam to come knocking on his door, as that would certainly infringe on his freedom of speech. Nonetheless, I want it to happen.

That doesn't make any sense.

If you want it to happen, then you're saying that there's free speech for "us" and no free speech for "them". Not free speech for "everyone".

I don't care if 100 innocent civilians have to die to capture a single terrorist -- hell, we didn't have a problem with doing that in Iraq, that's for sure. It's worth it because we have to construct a terror-free world in the future, and America has to be the architect.
Great concept. Just one minor flaw:
For every 100 innocents the US kills to get that one terrorist, it creates 1000 terrorists who now have nothing but hatred for the US, cause they're seen their loved ones - your 100 innocents - slaughtered.

Tell me: If you saw your entire innocent family killed by an invading army, would you:
a. be enthusiastic in your support for said army; or
b. want nothing more than seeing (and helping) said army - and the country it originated from - wiped off the face of the earth?

I am a huge proponent of freedom of speech. I don't think that it would right for Uncle Sam to come knocking on his door, as that would certainly infringe on his freedom of speech. Nonetheless, I want it to happen.

You don't think it would be right for Uncle Sam to violate his rights but you want it to happen anyway? So you advocate what is wrong just to make yourself feel better? Nice that I am getting a better understanding of your morality. Someone annoys you? Poof! Get rid of the problem, eh?

If you want it to happen, then you're saying that there's free speech for "us" and no free speech for "them". Not free speech for "everyone".

I think hitting someone in the head with a baseball bat should be a crime. Nonetheless, I want Hillary Clinton to be hit in the head with a baseball bat. There's a difference there.

I am a huge proponent of freedom of speech. I don't think that it would right for Uncle Sam to come knocking on his door, as that would certainly infringe on his freedom of speech. Nonetheless, I want it to happen.

So you're hoping the government actually INFRINGES the laws you claim to be so proud to have in your country?

Okay, you folks don't need me here, MeansToAnEnd is the easiest opponent ever in an argument. You just have to let him speak, because he seems to have TWO PERSONALITIES!

Great concept. Just one minor flaw:
For every 100 innocents the US kills to get that one terrorist, it creates 1000 terrorists who now have nothing but hatred for the US, cause they're seen their loved ones - your 100 innocents - slaughtered.

Tell me: If you saw your entire innocent family killed by an invading army, would you:
a. be enthusiastic in your support for said army; or
b. want nothing more than seeing (and helping) said army - and the country it originated from - wiped off the face of the earth?

While I do agree that fighting back against terrorists creates more terrorists (it even creates more if you only kill actual terrorists - they have a martyrdom thing that they also use for recruiting), we seem to get terrorists even if we do nothing.

I think it's questionable which gives you more terror in the long run. It's ideas that spawn terrorism - and if you can control the spread of ideas, you can control terrorism.

That might sound ridiculous, but a good first step would be to close all the madrassas - that's where these people get their first ideas of hatred.

If the KKK were running schools for hate in the US, I'm sure people would be clamoring for them to be shut down. Same thing.

That doesn't make any sense.

If you want it to happen, then you're saying that there's free speech for "us" and no free speech for "them". Not free speech for "everyone".
Jeesus, DK, are you actually arguing for me here?
First it was me agreeing with RockThe Casbah in one thread and now DK comes into to bat for me.

Truly I must have slipped into an alternate universe.




Hopefully in this one my lovelife won't be as suckful.

For every 100 innocents the US kills to get that one terrorist, it creates 1000 terrorists who now have nothing but hatred for the US, cause they're seen their loved ones - your 100 innocents - slaughtered.

The more the merrier. It is not hard for the US to kill terrorists so long as we do not show any restraint or mercy. We just have to firebomb the bastards. Sure, lots of innocent civilians will die, but it's like a phoenix. Out of the ashes of the Middle East, an American empire will be born -- free from terror.

Jeesus, DK, are you actually arguing for me here?
First it was me agreeing with RockThe Casbah in one thread and now DK comes into to bat for me.

Truly I must have slipped into an alternate universe.
Hopefully in this one my lovelife won't be as suckful.

It's ok for him to be against free speech if that's what he wants, or to be selective in its implementation. But he has to admit it - he can't say, "I'm for free speech" and then not be.

Someone annoys you? Poof! Get rid of the problem, eh?

No, but if someone spouts traitorous filth, he/she might be better suited to countries such as France or Canada.

But he has to admit it - he can't say, "I'm for free speech" and then not be.

I am for free speech as a principle. However I would sometimes like to see it revoked in selected cases, even though I realize this is impossible. For example, let's say a child rapist got out of jail on a technicality and someone murdered him. Of course I'm opposed to murder, but not in that instance.

The more the merrier. It is not hard for the US to kill terrorists so long as we do not show any restraint or mercy. We just have to firebomb the bastards. Sure, lots of innocent civilians will die, but it's like a phoenix. Out of the ashes of the Middle East, an American empire will be born -- free from terror.

Wow. You really think that if you kill more and more people that terrorism will stop? You are really delusional. The only thing we will do is anger the entire Muslim world and start a real jihad. Lets see how well we do when millions of people try to destroy us.

That might sound ridiculous, but a good first step would be to close all the madrassas - that's where these people get their first ideas of hatred.

If the KKK were running schools for hate in the US, I'm sure people would be clamoring for them to be shut down. Same thing.
I think the first thing would be to educate the populace better.
An uneducated populace can only rely on what they are told by ppl in authority. So if you have violent bigots as 'leaders', that's what you breed into the ppl at the bottom.
As a general rule they don't question that authority, because they have neither the means or the opportunities to do so.


Only problem with this is that it takes time - at least a generation. And no politician is willing to wait that long to solve a problem. Damn difficult to swing that sort of policy past the voters: "We'll spend billions over the next 20 years and then we'll see terrorism drop!"

No, but if someone spouts traitorous filth, he/she might be better suited to countries such as France or Canada.

For someone who calls criticizing the government and its policies treason and that they should move out of the U.S. you have no business saying you are for freedom of speech. You and Ann Coulter should go form your own nation without all of our pesky freedoms. You can torture and kick out of your country whoever you wish.

No, but if someone spouts traitorous filth, he/she might be better suited to countries such as France or Canada.

Considering for one moment that your ideas are, right now, in the MINORITY, you might want to revise that statement. I'll give you 5 minutes to rethink that before I point out the obvious course of action the US should take in relation to YOU, assuming YOUR OWN IDEAS implemented, given that fact.

The more the merrier. It is not hard for the US to kill terrorists so long as we do not show any restraint or mercy. We just have to firebomb the bastards. Sure, lots of innocent civilians will die, but it's like a phoenix. Out of the ashes of the Middle East, an American empire will be born -- free from terror.
No, not a USA phoenix rising from the ashes.
More likely a terrorist hydra rising from the bloodshed.

I think the first thing would be to educate the populace better.
An uneducated populace can only rely on what they are told by ppl in authority. So if you have violent bigots as 'leaders', that's what you breed into the ppl at the bottom.
As a general rule they don't question that authority, because they have neither the means or the opportunities to do so.


Only problem with this is that it takes time - at least a generation. And no politician is willing to wait that long to solve a problem. Damn difficult to swing that sort of policy past the voters: "We'll spend billions over the next 20 years and then we'll see terrorism drop!"

The problem is that religious leaders have far more authority and sway over people in some parts of the world than any politician.

You have to stamp out their education networks. If you notice, the people recently recruited for terror in Britain were educated by an underground network of similar schools.

Madrassas are something to be eliminated at once. Then you have a chance at education, and wait for things to improve.

According to Kos, and the US senate website, the torture bill passed the Senate 65-34-1 (The one was Snowe, the only remaining sane Republican). Luckily enough, the courts will probably strike it down, but this is just disgusting. Torture, suspension of Habbeus Corpus, and removal of judicial oversite all wrapped up into one. It's like a stir-fry of "Tyrants needed, speak to manager for application" signs.

I'm all for the War on Terror, when it isn't commiting attrocities, but this is a step too far. Not only do we unbalance the checks and balances system, but we also subject US troops to torture as well, by making it a morally acceptable choice.

Bush probally prposed this shit. He wants to make a monarchy and the courts will probaly let him.

No, but if someone spouts traitorous filth, he/she might be better suited to countries such as France or Canada.

Considering for one moment that your ideas are, right now, in the MINORITY, you might want to revise that statement. I'll give you 5 minutes to rethink that before I point out the obvious course of action the US should take in relation to YOU, assuming YOUR OWN IDEAS implemented, given that fact.

5 minutes later...

Very well. Let me see if I can make you understand this concept here...

By your own logic, since you are, right now, in the minority, you should leave the USA.

Boy, that was easy for anyone to understand.

Wow. You really think that if you kill more and more people that terrorism will stop? You are really delusional. The only thing we will do is anger the entire Muslim world and start a real jihad. Lets see how well we do when millions of people try to destroy us.

What are they going to do? Get in boats and invade the USA? We can wipe them off the face of the Earth -- and we will. If we kill all Muslims, terrorism will most likely stop. That's a somewhat extreme solution for the time being, but if they do not learn their lesson, we may have to resort to such action.

What are they going to do? Get in boats and invade the USA? We can wipe them off the face of the Earth -- and we will. If we kill all Muslims, terrorism will most likely stop. That's a somewhat extreme solution for the time being, but if they do not learn their lesson, we may have to resort to such action.

Well, this guy just justificated Godwin, because his thoughts ARE those of Adolf Hitler!

No, not a USA phoenix rising from the ashes.
More likely a terrorist hydra rising from the bloodshed.

Muslims aren't like that cop in Terminator. Once they're dead, they stay dead. It's a simple plan -- kill everybody in the region and then re-colonize it with Americans, giving tax benefits for anyone who wants to relocate, in a method analogous to the colonization of North America.

What makes me so sad is that so many Americans actually agree with MeanToAnEnd. They are no better than Nazis. Let me explain why.

The Nazis were, over time, commiting genocide in an attempt to "protect" themselves from the jews. They had full reason to believe that Jews were this HUGE threat to their lives because Hitler said so.

Not many people wanna come out and say it, but this is what they want in the middle east. When I was younger and more ignorant, I did too.

The only possible was to stop the terror problem via force is genocide. Every human on the planet of middle eastern desent would have to be killed. That's the only way to be sure you got them all. Problem there is, even then, others would start coming after you for the atrocity you just commited.

People need to wake up and realize that AMERICA started this shit with their vain, greedy, domineering behavior and only by holding up their hands, taking some shots, and apologizing profusly can we fix it. If you start a fight for not good reason, and each time to knock someone out another person jumps you, eventually you are gonna have to admit you were wrong. Your gonna have to beg forgivness and pray it's not so far gone that forgivness no longer has a home in the hearts of your enemy. This is a war of extremes so only an extreme event can end it. We can try to commit and atrocity (try being the word. We WILL be stopped) or be can give up completely and spend the century begging forgivness.

Well, this guy just justificated Godwin, because his thoughts ARE those of Adolf Hitler!

Well, on a lot of issues, he was on the right track. However, his failure was a terrible system of government at home that quashed dissent -- that should never happen.

Madrassas are something to be eliminated at once. Then you have a chance at education, and wait for things to improve.
You need to offer them an alternative as well. Closing those Madrass alone isn't going to solve anything.
Indeed by banning them, you're simply 'proving' to the Madrass leaders and fanatical followers - and also to ones who are on the edge of joining - that the West does 'hate' Islam and is intent on destroying it.

Education outside of Madrass gives them a chance to understand the West pov better. They're being equipped to question the teachings within the Madrass.
Just as importantly, the education gives them opportunities to improve their livelihoods. A person who is earning enough to support their family is far less likely to want to jihad the West: especially if they have the West to thank for their education that gave them that job.

Obviously we'd still have the diehard fanatics, but they'd die out and/or become marginalised over the long term.

What are they going to do? Get in boats and invade the USA? We can wipe them off the face of the Earth -- and we will. If we kill all Muslims, terrorism will most likely stop. That's a somewhat extreme solution for the time being, but if they do not learn their lesson, we may have to resort to such action.

Then you should go about killing all the Christians. Oh yes, there have been Christian terrorists too. In fact, why bother killing everyone one religion at a time. Just start nuking every other country that has nuclear weapons and sit back as mankind gets eliminated. No more terrorists, yay.

Well, on a lot of issues, he was on the right track. However, his failure was a terrible system of government at home that quashed dissent -- that should never happen.

You're not making any sense.

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b283/jtkwon/animated169.gif

Muslims aren't like that cop in Terminator. Once they're dead, they stay dead. It's a simple plan -- kill everybody in the region and then re-colonize it with Americans, giving tax benefits for anyone who wants to relocate, in a method analogous to the colonization of North America.

Because you don't think the REST OF THE WORLD will react with war on the US after seeing that the US had become just like Germany 1939-1945 in that scenario? And then what? Nuclear overkill by Russia, India, Pakistan and other countries due to the fact that the US would become a threat to everyone? Empires only work well in Star Wars, child.

Also, MeansToAnEnd, do you realize there are people CONVERTING to the extremist muslim groups because of what is happening? Your heavy handed ways aren't an answer.

They never were and they never will be.

What are they going to do? Get in boats and invade the USA? We can wipe them off the face of the Earth -- and we will. If we kill all Muslims, terrorism will most likely stop. That's a somewhat extreme solution for the time being, but if they do not learn their lesson, we may have to resort to such action.

Those millions will want to get into the U.S. and destroy us. When that many people hate you some will get through. Besides, Europe is seen as our allies and they would be much easier to target. That would hardly have Europe liking us very much. No matter what you might think, if the entire world hates us and wants us gone, we are done. And if people like you, who advocate genocide get in power I would say we would deserve it. We would become the new Nazi regime.

Well, on a lot of issues, he was on the right track. However, his failure was a terrible system of government at home that quashed dissent -- that should never happen.
You have to be a puppet.
You just have to be.

Now whose, I wonder?

My money's on DCD. He showed he was more than capable with Jesussaves.

Anyone else care to wager?

You're not making any sense.

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b283/jtkwon/animated169.gif

The guy reaches into the screen with his right hand, but a left hand comes out and slaps the other guy. (yes I realise the two guys are the same person, and it's the same sequence)

Because you don't think the REST OF THE WORLD will react with war on the US after seeing that the US had become just like Germany 1939-1945 in that scenario? And then what? Nuclear overkill by Russia, India, Pakistan and other countries due to the fact that the US would become a threat to everyone?

Have you ever heard of MAD? Attacking the US would not only be suicidal to their country, but it would completely destroy humanity. No world leader would even think of doing that -- we have a carte blanche to mold the world into whatever shape we wish. We need to take advantage of that fact to quash terrorism. Of course, we'll avoid attacking nuclear countries.

Muslims aren't like that cop in Terminator. Once they're dead, they stay dead. It's a simple plan -- kill everybody in the region and then re-colonize it with Americans, giving tax benefits for anyone who wants to relocate, in a method analogous to the colonization of North America.

And the rest of the world will just let us massacre people? You don't think people will intervene? If you think we can take on the entire world you really are insane.

No matter what you might think, if the entire world hates us and wants us gone, we are done.

Pfft. They do not have enough technology to attack us. We offer them a very simple proposition: stop attempting to kill innocent civilians, or die, and let your children and family and neighbors and countrymen die along with you. Hopefully, they have a minute trace of sanity in their twisted brains. If they don't want peace, we'll give them ultimate peace.

Well, on a lot of issues, he was on the right track. However, his failure was a terrible system of government at home that quashed dissent -- that should never happen.

Which is funny seeing as YOU ALSO WANT TO QUASH DISSENT! All the while, SAYING THAT HITLER WAS RIGHT!

How the hell will you doublethink yourself out of this one?

Have you ever heard of MAD? Attacking the US would not only be suicidal to their country, but it would completely destroy humanity. No world leader would even think of doing that -- we have a carte blanche to mold the world into whatever shape we wish. We need to take advantage of that fact to quash terrorism. Of course, we'll avoid attacking nuclear countries.

Now matter how confident you may be in America, no country could take on the entire world and win.

Have you ever heard of MAD? Attacking the US would not only be suicidal to their country, but it would completely destroy humanity. No world leader would even think of doing that -- we have a carte blanche to mold the world into whatever shape we wish. We need to take advantage of that fact to quash terrorism. Of course, we'll avoid attacking nuclear countries.

You won't. I, and the WORLD, won't let you. Get used to it.

By the way, Brazilian here.

And the rest of the world will just let us massacre people? You don't think people will intervene? If you think we can take on the entire world you really are insane.

We will only take on the people who want to kill us and the countries that harbour them. I am certain that once governments realize what America is willing to do to weed out terrorism, they will also fight against terrorism. They will not allow themselves to be blown up. The only question is how many countries it will take before people wake up and smell the coffee.

No one is launching anything that big at anyone else, but we will still be attacked. You can bet your bottom dollar on that. And you know what? after a nice, prolonged, painful war, we will lose, the world will punish the shit out of us, and our economy will suck for years to come. We will lose all the advantages we had for so long because we could be trusted.

God, life will suck in a big way. I hope that crap doesn't happen in my life time. American's who think like MeansToAnEnd need to be on the recieving end of an invasion. Maybe then they will start to realize how foolish their desire to run roughshod all over the rights of others really was.

Which is funny seeing as YOU ALSO WANT TO QUASH DISSENT! All the while, SAYING THAT HITLER WAS RIGHT!

I never said that Hitler was right. He was completely incorrect in his decision to attack Poland, France, etc. He was also wrong to quash dissent. However, if he had an extremely functional system of government and if France and Poland didn't, then he would have been justified in his war. And I do not want to quash dissent at all.

Now matter how confident you may be in America, no country could take on the entire world and win.

And I know for a FACT that the world would rather be destroyed than live under a dystopia created by America.

I never said that Hitler was right. He was completely incorrect in his decision to attack Poland, France, etc. He was also wrong to quash dissent. However, if he had an extremely functional system of government and if France and Poland didn't, then he would have been justified in his war. And I do not want to quash dissent at all.

You said Hitler had some good ideas, and you manifested a wish to see dissent quelled.

How many personalities do you have?

We will only take on the people who want to kill us and the countries that harbour them. I am certain that once governments realize what America is willing to do to weed out terrorism, they will also fight against terrorism. They will not allow themselves to be blown up. The only question is how many countries it will take before people wake up and smell the coffee.

Other governments are fighting against terrorism. And have been long before the 'War on Terror'.

You said Hitler had some good ideas, and you manifested a wish to see dissent quelled.

Some, yes. However, I never, never said that I wanted to see dissent quelled forcefully. I said that I would enjoy (not agree with the policy of) seeing those who compare the GOP to terrorists reprimanded, but nothing more.

We will only take on the people who want to kill us and the countries that harbour them. I am certain that once governments realize what America is willing to do to weed out terrorism, they will also fight against terrorism. They will not allow themselves to be blown up. The only question is how many countries it will take before people wake up and smell the coffee.

What other nations will do is stop us from committing genocide. As they should. They will be correct in seeing what we are doing is not a fight against terrorism but a war of conquest. And they will intervene. Unless you think we can conquer the entire world?

Or is that what you want to do anyway?

I never said that Hitler was right. He was completely incorrect in his decision to attack Poland, France, etc. He was also wrong to quash dissent. However, if he had an extremely functional system of government and if France and Poland didn't, then he would have been justified in his war. And I do not want to quash dissent at all.

You believe that any government has the right to invade any other country for no other reason than because the invadee doesn't have a 'functional system of government'?

Other governments are fighting against terrorism. And have been long before the 'War on Terror'.

And other governments are continuing to fund terrorism and shelter terrorists.

I never said that Hitler was right. He was completely incorrect in his decision to attack Poland, France, etc. He was also wrong to quash dissent. However, if he had an extremely functional system of government and if France and Poland didn't, then he would have been justified in his war. And I do not want to quash dissent at all.

You want to massacre Muslims. You also said earlier that dissenters are like traitors who should either leave the country or get a visit from government goons. Sounds like you like Hitlers ideas to me.

What other nations will do is stop us from committing genocide. As they should. They will be correct in seeing what we are doing is not a fight against terrorism but a war of conquest. And they will intervene. Unless you think we can conquer the entire world?

Or is that what you want to do anyway?

No, this is what we do. We tell Saudi Arabia, for example, "are you willing to do whatever it takes to weed out terrorism in your country?" If they do not do so, we obliterate them. Then we proceed to Palestine. Then to Lebanon. Eventually, the country is going to say "yes, please don't hurt me!" That's when terrorism will be defeated.

You believe that any government has the right to invade any other country for no other reason than because the invadee doesn't have a 'functional system of government'?

*Raises hand*

Ooo! I know the endgame of such an idea! I know! Pick me! Let me answer! :D

And other governments are continuing to fund terrorism and shelter terrorists.

I know. My point was that going on an anti-terrorist slaughter fest won't get other countries to join in with you. First because most sane people have a problem with wholesale slaughter of anyone, and secondly because they are already fighting terrorism without aformentioned slaughter.

You want to massacre Muslims. You also said earlier that dissenters are like traitors who should either leave the country or get a visit from government goons. Sounds like you like Hitlers ideas to me.

No, I said that of someone who compared the American government to terrorists. If you don't like it, fine. If you think it compares to terrorism, leave.

You believe that any government has the right to invade any other country for no other reason than because the invadee doesn't have a 'functional system of government'?

For example, I think the Europeans were right to colonize America and build a functional system of government on Native American land.

The fear is completely legitimate and it should be acted upon. We should have acted upon our fear when Nazi Germany declared war on Poland and started dedicating huge amounts of money to defense spending. We didn't, and look what happened. Look at what all those foreign terrorists are doing in their attempts to de-stabilize Iraq. If we hadn't been Iraq, they'd be coming after us at home. We need to protect ourselves, even if it involves maltreating terrorists. I'd rather an innocent man be put in jail than a terrorist allowed to run amok.
I cannot see why you would fear Nazis when it appears that you embrace a totalitarian approach to government.

As far as Iraq is concerned, your country sure has made one hell of a mess out of a country that was no threat to the US. There are now more terrorists plotting against Americans than ever before. If you think that the terrorism will stay localized in Iraq indicates that you do not have a good grasp on the circumstances. You can see the results in the UK, Spain, and other coalition countries. How long before another successful terrorist action in the continental US, spawned by the inappropriate actions of your government? It is only a matter of time?

And if you think that the US is safer now, why does your Homeland Security advisory remained peg at ELEVATED? Keeping the populace afraid works for the election of the pro war Republicans?

No, this is what we do. We tell Saudi Arabia, for example, "are you willing to do whatever it takes to weed out terrorism in your country?" If they do not do so, we obliterate them. Then we proceed to Palestine. Then to Lebanon. Eventually, the country is going to say "yes, please don't hurt me!" That's when terrorism will skyrocket and the world will turn against us and do everything in its very considerable power to stop our wanton genocide.

Fixed.

No, this is what we do. We tell Saudi Arabia, for example, "are you willing to do whatever it takes to weed out terrorism in your country?" If they do not do so, we obliterate them. Then we proceed to Palestine. Then to Lebanon. Eventually, the country is going to say "yes, please don't hurt me!" That's when terrorism will be defeated.

The second or third country destroyed would have the whole world rightfully attacking the US to weed out the threat it has become.

You will never succeed in turning the world into the dystopia you don't want to admit that you wish to create.

increasingly deranged comments.
http://imgo.darkthrone.com/avatars-beta/1/568-44636370b82e3.gif

The second or third country destroyed would have the whole world rightfully attacking the US to weed out the threat it has become.

How will they be able to attack us? Our defense spending is greater than the rest of the world's combined. Our airforce is quite superior -- they will not be physically able to attack the US.

*Raises hand*

Ooo! I know the endgame of such an idea! I know! Pick me! Let me answer! :D
Go for it.
For example, I think the Europeans were right to colonize America and build a functional system of government on Native American land.
The Native Americans had a perfectly functional system of government. Several systems, I imagine, varying from tribe to tribe. Just because the whole landmass didn't have one government(which it still doesn't, btw) doesn't mean it's not funstional.

No, I said that of someone who compared the American government to terrorists. If you don't like it, fine. If you think it compares to terrorism, leave.

Or, and that's the SANE approach, we can work to change it.

Also, if I were there, I'd DARE your sorry ass to try and MAKE me take ONE STEP unwillingly.

American's who would abide wholesale murder and genocide are terrorists. They are also traitors to their country because such things are decidedly anti-american, increase dissent, and wildly disrupt the economy. It's pretty simple ya know?

No, this is what we do. We tell Saudi Arabia, for example, "are you willing to do whatever it takes to weed out terrorism in your country?" If they do not do so, we obliterate them. Then we proceed to Palestine. Then to Lebanon. Eventually, the country is going to say "yes, please don't hurt me!" That's when terrorism will be defeated.
Do you really think that the US can dictate to the world? What happens when Pakistan (one example) doesn't want to play your game? Are you willing to risk MAD?

Go for it.

Wheee! :D

Okay, let me see... The current US government is dysfuctional, ergo it should be invaded and destroyed by that logic! Simple!

Did I get it right, teacher? :D

http://imgo.darkthrone.com/avatars-beta/1/568-44636370b82e3.gif
Oh no, the poor bunny.
How will they be able to attack us? Our defense spending is greater than the rest of the world's combined. Our airforce is quite superior -- they will not be physically able to attack the US.
You'd be vastly outnumbered for one. And greater spending doesn't mean a better defense. How much of that spending goes to r&d projects that aren't feasable yet? How much of it goes to paying administrators to manage how the rest of it is spent?

Wheee! :D

Okay, let me see... The current US government is dysfuctional, ergo it should be invaded and destroyed by that logic! Simple!

Did I get it right, teacher? :D

You gets a Gold Star (http://www.iowanationalguard.com/Museum/Images/goldstar.GIF)

Fixed.
Good fix and closer to the truth than the ill conceived fantasy of some genocidal NS poster.

No, I said that of someone who compared the American government to terrorists. If you don't like it, fine. If you think it compares to terrorism, leave.

It is people like you who make me want to agree we should all own guns. When your government agents come I should be ready. Hopefully your views won't get into our leadership.

How will they be able to attack us? Our defense spending is greater than the rest of the world's combined. Our airforce is quite superior -- they will not be physically able to attack the US.

You don't think Europe could take us? And then if countries like China and Japan get involved to our west that we could fend them all off? Of course not. We would have to start drafting people and I am sure many, many people would refuse to take part in such a war.

Oh no, the poor bunny.

You'd be vastly outnumbered for one. And greater spending doesn't mean a better defense. How much of that spending goes to r&d projects that aren't feasable yet? How much of it goes to paying administrators to manage how the rest of it is spent?

Indeed, Hitler's was the biggest army in the world before Germany was conquered.

We would have to start drafting people and I am sure many, many people would refuse to take part in such a war.

Agreed. You know, if we did get invaded, it would be a tidy way to get the nutjobs and crack pot sociopaths out of office without dealing with their equally insane supporters.

Oh no, the poor bunny.
He's been hitting his head a lot since 'Means' joined NS.
Poor thing.

Will no-one think of the bunny!

Or, and that's the SANE approach, we can work to change it.

Also, if I were there, I'd DARE your sorry ass to try and MAKE me take ONE STEP unwillingly.

*nods*

Sounds like the perfect way to bring about a civil war in this country. I doubt all the states would want to be part of government that would go to such measures. Certainly not all the American citizens.

American's who would abide wholesale murder and genocide are terrorists. They are also traitors to their country because such things are decidedly anti-american, increase dissent, and wildly disrupt the economy. It's pretty simple ya know?
I totally agree!!

You'd be vastly outnumbered for one. And greater spending doesn't mean a better defense. How much of that spending goes to r&d projects that aren't feasable yet? How much of it goes to paying administrators to manage how the rest of it is spent?

Our real power comes from our navy I would think. Most of our reach is already being used in Iraq so all that we have left really for protection against a major attack... are our nukes. Hardly something to think about.

Our real power comes from our navy I would think. Most of our reach is already being used in Iraq so all that we have left really for protection against a major attack... are our nukes. Hardly something to think about.
The World wouldn't even have to invade. Just stop buying US goods, relase all the US bonds onto the market, refuse to sell oil to the US and basically destroy the US economy.
Think the US voter would be dumb enough to continue voting for the idiot that destroyed their livelihoods?

The World wouldn't even have to invade. Just stop buying US goods, relase all the US bonds onto the market, refuse to sell oil to the US and basically destroy the US economy.
Think the US voter would be dumb enough to continue voting for the idiot that destroyed their livelihoods?

I'm sure Means believes the US would, then, simply be able to invade the world for goods. Resulting, of course, in the same scenario of either mutual destruction or simply US destruction.

The World wouldn't even have to invade. Just stop buying US goods, relase all the US bonds onto the market, refuse to sell oil to the US and basically destroy the US economy.
Think the US voter would be dumb enough to continue voting for the idiot that destroyed their livelihoods?

I'd love to say they wouldn't. But underestimating stupidity is usually a bad move to make.

The World wouldn't even have to invade. Just stop buying US goods, relase all the US bonds onto the market, refuse to sell oil to the US and basically destroy the US economy.
Think the US voter would be dumb enough to continue voting for the idiot that destroyed their livelihoods?

Very true. Much easier way to take care of a threat to world security. I'd have to wonder if in our current envirnment if Congress would actually impeach the idiot who allowed whose policies angered the entire world. Ridding of a president isn't very patriotic nor does it help spread freedom after all.

You have to be a puppet.
You just have to be.

Now whose, I wonder?

My money's on DCD. He showed he was more than capable with Jesussaves.

Anyone else care to wager?

Jesussaves was Drunk Commies? How did I miss that memo? Who outed him?

No, but if someone spouts traitorous filth, he/she might be better suited to countries such as France or Canada.

Muslims aren't like that cop in Terminator. Once they're dead, they stay dead. It's a simple plan -- kill everybody in the region and then re-colonize it with Americans, giving tax benefits for anyone who wants to relocate, in a method analogous to the colonization of North America.

What are they going to do? Get in boats and invade the USA? We can wipe them off the face of the Earth -- and we will. If we kill all Muslims, terrorism will most likely stop

Well, on a lot of issues, he was on the right track. However, his failure was a terrible system of government at home that quashed dissent -- that should never happen.

If someone spouts Nazi trash, maybe he'd be better suited to sucking a bullet.

Do you own a gun? Maybe you should consider giving it one of your famous blowjobs.

You'd be vastly outnumbered for one.

So what? People can't fly, you know. There's no way enemy combatants would arrive on US soil. Mexico and Canada are pushovers. We can also destroy the airforce of all European and Asian countries. Hopefully, Israel will side with us.

http://imgo.darkthrone.com/avatars-beta/1/568-44636370b82e3.gif

The music video that's from is great.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9v0VdQuNoo

The World wouldn't even have to invade. Just stop buying US goods, relase all the US bonds onto the market, refuse to sell oil to the US and basically destroy the US economy.

We are completely self-dependent economically except for oil. However, the untapped oil in the ANWR reserve can completely power the US for two years. By that time we will have successfully invaded Saudi Arabia and we would have oil worries no more. Alternatively, we can severely ration oil and only divert it to our military.

So what? People can't fly, you know. There's no way enemy combatants would arrive on US soil. Mexico and Canada are pushovers. We can also destroy the airforce of all European and Asian countries. Hopefully, Israel will side with us.

You are being quite overconfident. Especially since it is already established that armed force isn't needed to take care of the U.S.

The music video that's from is great.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9v0VdQuNoo

I love that video. Funniest rabbits ever.

We are completely self-dependent economically except for oil. However, the untapped oil in the ANWR reserve can completely power the US for two years. By that time we will have successfully invaded Saudi Arabia and we would have oil worries no more. Alternatively, we can severely ration oil and only divert it to our military.

You know that about all the parts that we use here are made in foreign countries. If nations cease trade with us it will be devestating to our economy.

You are being quite overconfident.

No, he's being a fuckin' idiot.

You know that about all the parts that we use here are made in foreign countries. If nations cease trade with us it will be devestating to our economy.

America is blessed with bountiful natural resources. We have sufficient materials to produce whichever military goods we should desire. Also, it would be easy to obtain such goods from other countries that we can easily invade.

According to Kos, and the US senate website, the torture bill passed the Senate 65-34-1 (The one was Snowe, the only remaining sane Republican).

Ausming the 1 is an abstaining vote I'd question even his sanity. The vote should have been 65-35.

Ausming the 1 is an abstaining vote I'd question even his sanity. The vote should have been 65-35.

If the majority of people were insane, would normalcy have to be redefined as insanity?

America is blessed with bountiful natural resources. We have sufficient materials to produce whichever military goods we should desire. Also, it would be easy to obtain such goods from other countries that we can easily invade.

Because it worked so well with Iraq, which ALSO has oil? Because you don't think the flurry of atomic bombs falling on your soil would eventually get at least 10 through in the major cities? I don't know if I call you a genocidal maniac or a moron, but, right now, I'm sticking with both.

If the majority of people were insane, would normalcy have to be redefined as insanity?

If the majority believes the Sun revolves around the Earth, it's still wrong. This is not 1984, no matter how much you want to make it so. Collective solipsism doesn't work.

America is blessed with bountiful natural resources. We have sufficient materials to produce whichever military goods we should desire. Also, it would be easy to obtain such goods from other countries that we can easily invade.

'If God blessed America then why did He put so much oil under the countries that hate us?'-Someone

If you have sufficient resources to produce all your military hardware domestically then why do you trade with other countries for military hardware? Could it be because you can't produce it all yourself?

No, he's being a fuckin' idiot.

You got that right.

If the majority of people were insane, would normalcy have to be redefined as insanity?

Em, no. That's just silly.

When did we start executing people based on religion? When did we start driving cars filled to the brim with explosives into crowded buildings? When did we make it a mission to kill all those with whom we do not agree? We didn't. Comparing America to terrorists is disgusting. Hopefully Uncle Sam will come knocking on your door soon after you posted that comment.

Don't you understand that this is exactly what this bill makes us afraid of?

When did we start torturing people?

Because you don't think the flurry of atomic bombs falling on your soil would eventually get at least 10 through in the major cities?

Obviously you've never heard of MAD. If that happened, we could say "ta" to humanity as a whole. No nuclear country is going to be moronic or genocidal enough to nuke the USA.

Don't you understand that this is exactly what this bill makes us afraid of?


He does, and he's jerking off to the fact that other people are afraid.

He's too dumb to be afraid himself.

The music video that's from is great.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9v0VdQuNoo
Cheers for that. I'd forgotten that song.
TISM - awesome band. Saw them live years ago.

btw, this is a better site for the 'sex' vid:
Everyone else has had more sex than me (http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/bunny.php)

Could it be because you can't produce it all yourself?

It could also be because it's cheaper. Also, if we cut back on non-defense production, we would easily have enough resources to power our military.

I'll be happy once we wake up and realize that we're at war, and we can't pretend that there isn't an enemy out there who will stop at nothing to kill us. This is the least we can do to combat the threat -- in fact, we should be much more offensive and strike at the root of terrorism instead of passively defending ourselves with these flimsly bills. We need to take serious action.

I wondered where all the sheep went . . .

Obviously you've never heard of MAD. If that happened, we could say "ta" to humanity as a whole. No nuclear country is going to be moronic or genocidal enough to nuke the USA.

That's where you get it wrong. The world would rather die than be under the fist of the USA.

That's where you get it wrong. The world would rather die than be under the fist of the USA.

And let's make this clear to any johnny-come-latelys to the thread: This is in response to a United States gone apeshit with power and the military machine on a global scale- not an Anti-American post.

And let's make this clear to any johnny-come-latelys to the thread: This is in response to a United States gone apeshit with power and the military machine on a global scale- not an Anti-American post.

True. Minding that, even as is, many people would rather die, but, in such a dystopic US as Means wants, EVERYONE would.

That's where you get it wrong. The world would rather die than be under the fist of the USA.

We would not invade the entire world -- only those countries that harbour terrorists. Europe, India, China, etc., have nothing to fear (but fear itself).

We would not invade the entire world -- only those countries that harbour terrorists. Europe, India, China, etc., have nothing to fear (but fear itself).

You seem to believe that everyone in the world would just sit idly by and watch genocide happen when you yourself said you'd not give a damn about innocents (much like the terrorists you CLAIM TO BE against).

We would not invade the entire world -- only those countries that harbour terrorists. Europe, India, China, etc., have nothing to fear (but fear itself).

You seem to think that the rest of the world will sit back and allow you slaughter millions of innocent people, and just be happy they aren't next on the list. Sorry bub, not gonna happen.



Oh, and it amuses me how you list Europe(a continent) in with China and India(countries).

You won't. I, and the WORLD, won't let you. Get used to it.

By the way, Brazilian here.

Just try not to kill the rebel forces.

Oh, and it amuses me how you list Europe(a continent) in with China and India(countries).

Especially since there are no terrorists in either Europe or India.... right?

You seem to believe that everyone in the world would just sit idly by and watch genocide happen when you yourself said you'd not give a damn about innocents (much like the terrorists you CLAIM TO BE against).

There's a difference between targeting innocents and collateral damage.

I never said that Hitler was right. He was completely incorrect in his decision to attack Poland, France, etc. He was also wrong to quash dissent. However, if he had an extremely functional system of government and if France and Poland didn't, then he would have been justified in his war. And I do not want to quash dissent at all.

I REALY hope this son of a bitch is a troll . . .

Oh, and it amuses me how you list Europe(a continent) in with China and India(countries).

Would you rather I list every single European country to satisfy you? I did not want to needlessly type every single country out.

There's a difference between targeting innocents and collateral damage.

No. No, there isn't.

Especially since there are no terrorists in either Europe or India.... right?

No, there are terrorists there, and the government is actively working to control them.

Ausming the 1 is an abstaining vote I'd question even his sanity. The vote should have been 65-35.

Actualy now that I think of it the vote should have been 00-100

There's a difference between targeting innocents and collateral damage.

Tell that to the dead people you call collateral damage, or their families, see how long you last.

Tell that to the dead people you call collateral damage, or their families, see how long you last.

Since a member of their family died, I'm sure that would take away from their objectivity. Do you think that the German civilians whom we killed in WWI were collateral damage or not?

Hopefully, Israel will side with us.

If you genuinely think there's any chance of that then you're even more chronically stupid than I gave you credit for. The Jews know better than anyone what the consequences are when a nationalistic-fascist state starts down the path to genocide. I'm willing to to bet that there are hundreds of Holocaust survivors in Israel alone who would cheerfully take a baseball bat to your face for the filth you've been spreading in this forum; Holocaust memorials are inscribed "Never again" for a reason.

Since a member of their family died, I'm sure that would take away from their objectivity. Do you think that the German civilians whom we killed in WWI were collateral damage or not?

So, if the US turned into the maniacally genocidal state that you so wish and the world started a rightful war against it, killing your mother in the process, the lady would be collateral damage? Good to know, mr. Collateral Damage.

Since a member of their family died, I'm sure that would take away from their objectivity. Do you think that the German civilians whom we killed in WWI were collateral damage or not?

Not.

Would you rather I list every single European country to satisfy you? I did not want to needlessly type every single country out.
I never said I was unsatisfied, simply amused.

Actualy now that I think of it the vote should have been 00-100

It shouldn't have got to a vote at all. The muppet who wrote it should be erased from existence.

And to all the American defenders of the Second Ammendment out there:

In every NS thread on gun-control or the US constitution you have told us that you need your weaponary to ensure that the law is upheld.

You have told us that your guns safeguard your liberty.

You have told us that your firearms are a bastion against tyranny.

How much more fucking tyranical are you going to let it get? The government can now drag you out of your house in the dead of night, torture you, detain you indefinitely, and all without any opportunity for appeal.

Was your talk of freedom and revolution only ever talk?

Damn, I've been as pro-gun control as you can be for my entire my life but now I want a weapon of some kind before the UK government tries any of this shit. They're already trying to pass an Enabling Act which would grant government ministers near unlimitted autocratic power.

Holocaust memorials are inscribed "Never again" for a reason.

And that's why all those countries intervened in Rwanda? Please. If they didn't stop a puny country like Rwanda, what makes you think they'd take on the USA?

So, if the US turned into the maniacally genocidal state that you so wish and the world started a rightful war against it, killing your mother in the process, the lady would be collateral damage? Good to know, mr. Collateral Damage.

Well it is always ok until it happens to you. The United States is too good, strong and righteous to accept civilian casualites of its own in a war. Everyone else? They have to deal with it. Seems many think this is the case.

Damn, I've been as pro-gun control as you can be for my entire my life but now I want a weapon of some kind before the UK government tries any of this shit. They're already trying to pass an Enabling Act which would grant government ministers near unlimitted autocratic power.

I love the Enabling Act, it's a perfect example of how politically unaware the people of the UK are. An act that allows the current government to wield near dictatorship powers has passed pretty much under the radar and not even the papers have made much of a fuss about it.

And that's why all those countries intervened in Rwanda? Please. If they didn't stop a puny country like Rwanda, what makes you think they'd take on the USA?

The USA would become a GLOBAL THREAT in this scenario, much like 1939 Germany was.

Well it is always ok until it happens to you. The United States is too good, strong and righteous to accept civilian casualites of its own in a war. Everyone else? They have to deal with it. Seems many morons that should die think this is the case.

Fixed. ;)

The USA would become a GLOBAL THREAT in this scenario, much like 1939 Germany was.

No, only a threat to countries that harbour terrorists. Europe and most of Asia would remain unaffected unless they started shipping arms and money to Al-Qaeda. Then it's "au revoir, France!"

Fixed. ;)

How's that for liberal elitism? Those who do not conform to your views are morons who should die. How very enlightening.

No, only a threat to countries that harbour terrorists. Europe and most of Asia would remain unaffected unless they started shipping arms and money to Al-Qaeda. Then it's "au revoir, France!"

Again, much like the world didn't sit idly by while Germany commited genocide against innocents, it would not sit idly by while America did so, no matter in how high and effeminate a pitch you cried out "colateral damage".

How's that for liberal elitism? Those who do not conform to your views are morons who should die. How very enlightening.

No, those that think civilian death is ok as long as it's not their ass should die. Preferably a slow and painful death.

Preferably a slow and painful death.

You have much hate inside you. You wish to inflict pain against others for the sole purpose of causing them discomfort without gaining anything in return. No matter how much I hated someone, I would opt for a quick and painless death for them. People like you disgust me.

You have much hate inside you. You wish to inflict pain against others for the sole purpose of causing them discomfort without gaining anything in return. No matter how much I hated someone, I would opt for a quick and painless death for them. People like you disgust me.

All together now:

SAYS THE GUY WHO IS A STRONG PROPONENT OF GENOCIDE!

Come on, now, surely there are funnier ways to spend your saturday than exposing yourself to ridicule?

The USA would become a GLOBAL THREAT in this scenario, much like 1939 Germany was.

Yup. The idea that the world would just let us start slaughtering the Muslim people is simply ridiculous.

I don't much care for grandiloquent speeches decrying the erosion of civil and human rights in this country. Yes, it may be excellent material for a sound byte, yet it is simply an impediment to progress. Once we have eliminated all terrorists, these measures will be rendered unnecessary. However, until such a juncture, bills such as these are indispensable tools for fighting terrorism. I don't care if 100 innocent civilians have to die to capture a single terrorist -- hell, we didn't have a problem with doing that in Iraq, that's for sure. It's worth it because we have to construct a terror-free world in the future, and America has to be the architect.

You don't deserve to draw breath, let alone own a keyboard or post your worthless opinion here - your sense of "worth" is laughable at best. And I will never wear your nation's leash, not for any price. Nor will anyone else - and if you make the attempt, your people and your culture and your history will be wiped from the slate of history as the mindless grafitti it always has been.

Go fuck yourself.

Yup. The idea that the world would just let us start slaughtering the Muslim people is simply ridiculous.

We would only slaughter the Muslim people in the countries that have implicitly declared war against by refusing to combat terrorism in their own countries. We will leave countries that can do us no harm well enough alone.

Go fuck yourself.

Easy, sport. I will gladly debate any factual considerations with you as long as you do not resort to puerile, profane, ad hominem arguments.

We would only slaughter the Muslim people in the countries that have implicitly declared war against by refusing to combat terrorism in their own countries. We will leave countries that can do us no harm well enough alone.

Oh boy.

Let me see if you can understand this by using caps, the world would NOT ACCEPT THAT KIND OF BEHAVIOR!

Now shush.

Easy, sport. I will gladly debate any factual considerations with you as long as you do not resort to puerile, profane, ad hominem arguments.

No, you won't. You've been claiming, against all history, evidence and common sense, that the world would let the US commit genocide, and ignoring any claims to the contrary, even considering that these claims are all coming from your betters in this forum.