Hey Democrates

What a lot of people need to realize is that on the politician stage, their is no longer such thing as republican/democrat, merely, rich politicians, investors, lobbyists and CEOs who only have their personal interest in mind. They have found loopholes in the system to benefit them and only them and use the two party system as a media facade to dupe those gullible enough to fall for it. At the same token on the civilian stage, regionally speaking, the divergence of republicans and democrats have become so scattered, that you could almost break each party into two if not three new parties that have nothing to do with one another. Its not like every democrat is going, "yah, HR 347, keep people from protesting, if you don't like what our politicians are doing GTFO", I am pretty sure most declared and educated democrat is heavily against anything that violates the rights of any citizen. Its not like every republican is saying "fuck socialism, completely get rid of every government program, kill all taxes and replace all those government services with nothing". See, at the end of the day there is more than one way to look at conservative, are we talking about conservative on government control, or the traditional religious conservative, two very different things, same goes for the term liberal, are we talking about a socialist platform or are we talking about libertarian, two very polarizing sides no less.

In the end the current roster of government officials need to have their jobs revoked from them, and instead of us the people fighting over left/right, socialist/libertarian, liberal/conservative etc, how about we work together to find common ground that makes everyon happy and that ensures that our politicians follow the rules of the constitution, plain and simple.
 
Which was significantly better than authorizing the assassination of US citizens without trial, but who's counting.
well the right cant have it both ways. We have a self professed American terrorist in Pakistan who we put on the most wanted list "dead or alive" and the christian right has a problem with this, but have no problem that an unarmed teen carrying a bag of skittles and an iced tea gets murdered without trial because he "looked like he didn't belong in a predominantly white neighborhood" in America. The way I see it, You don't have a problem with killing a terrorist on spot if he has brown skin and looks like he's from the middle east.....lets find out who his is and where he's from later, but if this terrorist looks like say...Ted Nugent, we must capture him alive and grill him to death and try to find out what went wrong in his life. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=taliban%20fighter%20john%20walker%20lindh%2C%2031%2C%20&source=web&cd=6&ved=0CGoQFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Fabcnews.go.com%2FUS%2FwireStory%2Famerican-talibans-prayer-lawsuit-set-august-16202470&ei=MTOlT89xw9DbBcyfuKYC&usg=AFQjCNHFfNIOUD2svHEb3YlRDMD5AZHzCw
 
I don't remember bringing up Trayvon Martin...are you implying in some way that I'm okay with what happened in that situation? Also, that situation is very different from a group of government officials sitting around a room deciding who to kill without any oversight.

So...you're saying we should have killed John Lindh without a trial? Imagine the uproar from the Obama supporters if Bush had done that. I'm just pointing out that its strange that a D or an R next to a presidents name can really change peoples opinions on their policy. Most people on the right (with the exception of libertarians) don't have a problem with Obama's policy of killing American terror "suspects" with no trial or release of evidence. The left have also been suspiciously silent on Obama's policies of bombing Pakistan on a VERY regular basis using drones.
 
Why don't you care that your stupid fucking president signed Bill HR 347? :Spin:

Loving that change. :Smokedev:

Ok I guess you can blame Tom Rooney from FL as well. :lol:

"The new law, which passed the House with a vote of 399-3"
I guess we should be mad at everyone.

I haven't read the bill (I will try to make time) but it seems like it applies to moving politicians and diplomats under the protection of the secret service. I've worked and attended a few presidential events over the years and they always close roads and tightly control crowds and access to spaces the president will be even before and after he's there.

edit: Ok I read it. I can see why people are upset, but I also see why it was passed. From my interpretation it doesn't say you can't protest but rather that you can't illegally enter or block access to government buildings with the intent of preventing the government from functioning. It also says you can't use violence.
 
Ok I read it. I can see why people are upset, but I also see why it was passed. From my interpretation it doesn't say you can't protest but rather that you can't illegally enter or block access to government buildings with the intent of preventing the government from functioning. It also says you can't use violence.

Still that is contradictory to the constitution and articles of confederation, which grant the right for citizens to assemble, protest, form mulishas and abolish the governmental system or specific officials if desired.
 
You guys have to know I'm being a little (ok a lot) facetious in this thread.

And yes I do agree that extending the Bush era Patriot act was shitty.

Also, wasn't there some piece of shitty legislation that Bammer signed that made it possible for the government to just take and use whatever American resources for whatever reason they deemed fit at any time they thought necessary?
 
The history books are going to say 4 things about president Obama. 1 - he gave everyone health care, 2 - he let gay people in the military, 3 - he saved the american auto industry, 4 - he ended the war in Iraq. That's it.

So he dropped the ball on this thing you're bringing up...look, even Joe Montana threw interceptions. It takes compromise to get shit done here and that's what the president is doing. No one is going to remember this.
 
Still that is contradictory to the constitution and articles of confederation, which grant the right for citizens to assemble, protest, form mulishas and abolish the governmental system or specific officials if desired.

The articles of confederation are completely irrelevant since they were replaced in 1789 but you are right it may well violate the Bill of Rights. Undoubtedly any arrest based on this will ultimately get appealed to the supreme court where the constitutionality will be legally interpreted.
Too often people and politicians think that their reading of the bill of rights is what matters but article III puts the legal interpretation solely in the hands of the supreme court.
I can't think of a right which is interpreted absolutely. I can't yell 'fire' in a crowded theater, I can't own a bazooka, I can't share military secrets with the enemy, I can't sacrifice humans to my god....etc.
 
The history books are going to say 4 things about president Obama. 1 - he gave everyone health care, 2 - he let gay people in the military, 3 - he saved the american auto industry, 4 - he ended the war in Iraq. That's it.

So he dropped the ball on this thing you're bringing up...look, even Joe Montana threw interceptions. It takes compromise to get shit done here and that's what the president is doing. No one is going to remember this.

I can't disagree with this at all because a good 90+% of educators are as left as you can get and would never put any sort of slant on how amazing our current president is.

I'm being serious.
 
I don't remember bringing up Trayvon Martin...are you implying in some way that I'm okay with what happened in that situation? Also, that situation is very different from a group of government officials sitting around a room deciding who to kill without any oversight.
I know you didn't bring up Trayvon, but you said this
Which was significantly better than authorizing the assassination of US citizens without trial, but who's counting.
and I was pointing out how Republicans for the most, or at least what i have seen on political forums don't have a problem killing an unarmed kid, or even muslims who aren't terrorist without cause or even giving them a trial just because of who they are.

So...you're saying we should have killed John Lindh without a trial? Imagine the uproar from the Obama supporters if Bush had done that. I'm just pointing out that its strange that a D or an R next to a presidents name can really change peoples opinions on their policy.
Oh and I agree with you, but the original poster of this thread said this
Hey Democrates
Why don't you care that your stupid fucking president signed Bill HR 347?
but totally ignores the fact that Republicans control the house so in this fake outrage of what President Obama did and totally ignoring this
"The new law, which passed the House with a vote of 399-3"
I guess we should be mad at everyone.

Most people on the right (with the exception of libertarians) don't have a problem with Obama's policy of killing American terror "suspects" with no trial or release of evidence. The left have also been suspiciously silent on Obama's policies of bombing Pakistan on a VERY regular basis using drones.
ok maybe you're onto something there.
I have asked this question time and time again, and still to this day I have not gotten an answer from any Libetarian or a conservative.....since Obama became president what are you not free to do today that you were free to do 4 years ago?
 
I can't disagree with this at all because a good 90+% of educators are as left as you can get and would never put any sort of slant on how amazing our current president is.

I'm being serious.

You're nuts if you actually believe this. How long has it been since you've been in school? Universities aren't the "Liberal Bootcamps" that they're made out to be. The only things extraordinary liberal about them is that 1. higher degree levels correlate with left-leaning political views (PhD required for university profs) and 2. they put tens of thousands of horny 18-22 year olds in the same place. This doesn't result in 90%+ of educators being liberal, though - at least 1/3 of mine have been staunchly conservative.