^Thing is, this isn't an example of govt. tyranny...simply govt. stupidity. Then again, perhaps the two are closer than some would care to admit.
President Bush overturns Habeas Corpus?
- Thread starter Horus
- Start date
Wow, I just read the article. I am shaking my head and I am saying WTF? This is about an idiot screener, not a baby being accused of being a terrorist. Although, at this point, I won't be suprised the first time I read about a baby being used in a terror plot.
fah-q said:
I dont think there are yet any examples of the Act being abused. And hopefully it won't happen. My worry is that in *might* be in the not-too-distant future. Yes, it's only a possibility that I worry about.
There's an odd sentiment in America that ugliness "can never happen here". I disagree. We're human. As was every tyrant in history. At the end of the day, nothing makes us better, or worse, than others who lived before us. It's not too difficult to envision a president being granted more power than his office has previously enjoyed, having a great relationship with the heads of military, convincing the majority of the populace that some sort of "permanant martial law" is for their own good, etc., etc., and assuming role of quasi-dictator.
Dr.TEETH
Member
- Sep 11, 2005
- 224
- 0
- 16
Imagine coming home from a long day at work or play, and you find a strange man standing in front of your mailbox. He's going through your letters, opening them and reading them.Or, you come home to find a strange man in your bedroom, putting electronic bugs underneath your bed.You would be as mad as hell, ready to rip the guys head off, right? I know that I would. And if I found out that he was only doing his job as an agent of the law(spying on terrorists), I would be even more pissed off. I would have the head of whoever gave him the orders. Whether it was the Police Chief, the Governer, or even the President.
I think that many people share this view. That is why Bush policies like the Patriot Act, the wireless phone taps, and the new MCA2006 are so controversial. People do not want to have their privacy invaded. These new laws are essentially no different than digging through somebody's mailbox and reading their personal letters.
I think that many people share this view. That is why Bush policies like the Patriot Act, the wireless phone taps, and the new MCA2006 are so controversial. People do not want to have their privacy invaded. These new laws are essentially no different than digging through somebody's mailbox and reading their personal letters.
The great thing about democracy, is one, we can get rid of these corrupt tyrants, and two, we can demand our goverment to change these laws.
The horrible thing about democracy, is that now polticians from both parties, are only swayed by money or overwhelming public opinion. Our public has been kept scared and in the dark, and they aren't demanding rights granted in the Magna fucking Carta back, and instead seem pre-occupied with Gays, Mexicans, morals, likeability, etc.
The horrible thing about democracy, is that now polticians from both parties, are only swayed by money or overwhelming public opinion. Our public has been kept scared and in the dark, and they aren't demanding rights granted in the Magna fucking Carta back, and instead seem pre-occupied with Gays, Mexicans, morals, likeability, etc.
speed said:
F*cking 100% accurate.
How the hell can people actually be so preoccupied with who someone else sleeps with?? and stifling that person's right to do it so is just horrendous. It's insane.
Priorities may be upset, but this surely doesn't mean, nor should it imply, that the above issues are not important topics requiring our attention.
Illegal immigration by mexicans is a security issue and thus, is actually an important issue for the country.
Illegal immigration by mexicans is a security issue and thus, is actually an important issue for the country.
judas69 said:
Yes, but any lost security by their entrance into the country is trounced by their importance to the economy. That's where the GOP gets tangled. The voting base doesn't want immigrants in. But the donating businesses (the true powers) would never allow for a truly closed border (if such a thing is even possible).
The Devil's Steed
Member
SoundMaster said:
Refusing to allow marriage between a certain group of people in no way stifles their right to have sex with each other.
SoundMaster said:
If "the economy" of America(or any nation for that matter) is so hopelessly reliant upon a tidal-wave of unskilled, uneducated, openly exploited Illegal invaders that it will collapse without said invasion, then let this country go straight down the toilet with me in it and good riddance to it!
The Devil's Steed said:
You are correct.
Let me rephrase, then:
Refusing to allow marriage between two people is horrendous, grossly selfish arrogant, etc.
The Devil's Steed
Member
I do not disagree with your theory. However, that is all that it is. None of us here know of or have any personaly experiences where these new laws have adversely affected us or invaded our privacy. At this point it is just speculation.Dr.TEETH said:
The only thing that same sex couples are lacking is the title. When you break it down, what "right" are they being denied? Why are laws always tailored to suit the minority? Whether it be in sexuality, race or religion? Interesting personal experience...Before my wife and I were married, I tried to get the company I work for to put her on my health insurance. They wouldn't do it. Now, if I were in a same-sex relationship, they would have been happy to put my partner on my insurance. All we would have to do is go down to the county courthouse and get a civil union document. The only difference between that and being married is a word.SoundMaster said:
We have a special group of "hate-crime" laws for crimes against homosexuals but, a special law for civil-unions is not acceptable? Why is there such a double standard?
Silver Incubus
Dead Hands Justin
fah-q said:
There is evidence that shows FBI keeping records on people protesting. Such things are illegal, most importantly because you should be allowed to protest what you don't like about you government without becoming a terrorist. So when you protest the illegal war in Iraq, you become a terrorist in the eyes of the government. Political dissent is needed, and riot police shoting innocent people with rubber bullets that can do some serious damage and then laughing about should have people worried about the mentality of the law enforcement, and why they refer citizens to civillians. Just look at what happened to Elizabeth Ritter in Miami. And why are there cops that wear black uniforms and no badges? Do people lack the enthusiasm to ensure that police and governments are being lawful? I will admit there are some cases of accountability, but all to often it will get buried beneth trivial reports.
fah-q said:
But herein lies the problem/issue. As you say, the only thing differentiating same sex couples from hetero couples, is the legal document. But why is this document 'withheld' from same sex couples? It's simple.
It's For the same reason that these people have been bashed (figuritively and literally, sadly) for aeons. There are millions who, for reasons I still can't comprehend, either hate of fear gays and, if given their druthers, probably would outlaw homosexuality altogether.
If the only difference is the legality, why withhold it at all?
The Devil's Steed
Member
Ptah Khnemu said:
I mean that he should define what he means by "two people". Two people could mean "two consenting adults" and it could also mean "An old man and a twelve year old girl". It can mean virtually anything so I'd hope he has a more specific response than just "people".
