quote:

ORIGINAL: LaTigresse

Now, I just read it through and while I am no legal eagle, I didn't see anything in there that upsets me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

Hmmm. . . since we now have Chicago-thug-politics in the White House, YES!

I just read an interseting Op/Ed peice from PRAVDA which seems to share your opinion in this, and so I thought I might share a small portion of it here since it seems so relevant (bold emphasis mine):

quote:

American capitalism gone with a whimper

It must be said, that like the breaking of a great dam, the American decent into Marxism is happening with breath taking speed, against the back drop of a passive, hapless sheeple, excuse me dear reader, I meant people...

...The final collapse has come with the election of Barack Obama. His speed in the past three months has been truly impressive. His spending and money printing has been a record setting, not just in America's short history but in the world. If this keeps up for more then another year, and there is no sign that it will not, America at best will resemble the Wiemar Republic and at worst Zimbabwe.

These past two weeks have been the most breath taking of all. First came the announcement of a planned redesign of the American Byzantine tax system, by the very thieves who used it to bankroll their thefts, loses and swindles of hundreds of billions of dollars. These make our Russian oligarchs look little more then ordinary street thugs, in comparison. Yes, the Americans have beat our own thieves in the shear volumes. Should we congratulate them?
(Full article here).

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: slavefortpeasap

We are becoming more and more like China everyday...except less capitalistic.

You would be correct in that China is the new modern role model of capitalist fascism using communism in name only to maintain the latter. However in our race to that bottom (or top if you are an investor big enough) we are becoming more capitalist.

Give this some time as it just takes time to turn such a huge middle class into slaves.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slavefortpeasap

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: slavefortpeasap

We are becoming more and more like China everyday...except less capitalistic.

You would be correct in that China is the new modern role model of capitalist fascism using communism in name only to maintain the latter. However in our race to that bottom (or top if you are an investor big enough) we are becoming more capitalist.

Give this some time as it just takes time to turn such a huge middle class into slaves.

Who is trying to turn the middle class into slaves? Our current POTUS drastically out fundraised his competition in the last election cycle (and he's supposed to be the friend of the little guy). The car dealers that supported the loser have learned how little power they have right now. The unions lined up to support the winner and in the auto industry they are getting killed. But as long as we all have hope and change everything will be ok.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity
Try reading what I posted - I explained why I quoted PRAVDA.

And it's funny that you're calling PRAVDA communist, because they're saying that Obama is far too far left to suit them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

     That's funny...  I'd swear Bill Maher was one of the reasons we decided to keep the HBO after the three month free trial...  So did these "thought police" clone him or something?  They certainly didn't create a politically correct version.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

    That's funny...  I'd swear Bill Maher was one of the reasons we decided to keep the HBO after the three month free trial...  So did these "thought police" clone him or something?  They certainly didn't create a politically correct version.

Are you forgetting the reason he is on HBO is because his original show on ABC was dropped after he made comments deemed politically incorrect after 9/11?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


No, I am not an Obama supporter.




You don't get it at all...

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

Oh okay, I get it now.

You were just trying to say that you support the communist viewpoint.

No biggie, just I never would have taken you for a communist sympathizer, but hell, this isn't the 1950's anymore so you probably won't get blacklisted.

So I say da to you comrade Sanity.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

   That's funny...  I'd swear Bill Maher was one of the reasons we decided to keep the HBO after the three month free trial...  So did these "thought police" clone him or something?  They certainly didn't create a politically correct version.

Are you forgetting the reason he is on HBO is because his original show on ABC was dropped after he made comments deemed politically incorrect after 9/11?

         Not at all, RML.  That wasn't a "thought police" thing, though.  That was a "say something that outrages your audience, and reflects badly upon the entire company" thing.  ABC had every right to cancel his ass, and the First Amendment has nothing to do with that.

        

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
Yelling about the entire process, from letters to CNN to posts on political blogs, as well as other points.

The point I was attempting to make is that it is in violation of the constitution, and anyone that doesnt know it has been going on for 8 years is either blind or ignorant.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
Nice try but hardly the real meaning of what's go'n on the financial 'industry.' [sic]

Marxists wouldn't throw anything like a $trillion or two at wall street...they'd hang the bankers.

Marxists wouldn't be throwing anything like $100-200 billion at AIG. They'd tell Goldman and the rest policy their holders to go to hell.

Marxists wouldn't coddle the corporate bondsmen...protecting their 300% return on GM bonds. They too could just go to hell.

Marxists my ass. If we have degenerated into marxism it was the Bush admin. whose regulators were totally asleep at the switch and then invoking obscure old financial laws to co-op state enforcement of their national' bank regulations to stop the selling of bogus mortgages.

Another opion piece meant to shock you into paying attention or otherwise nobody would.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity
And you already know that GM has become Obama Motors.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
Now, article 9, suggests that the US take lessons from other countries..... 

quote:

For the record, some groups that have been placed on the watch list for 'ideologies' which are considered seditionist by the Department of Homeland Defense includes, but are not limited to, Religious affiliated groups protesting the war, Native American groups promoting Native American rights AND compensation for treaty violations.

Consider some of your thoughts, beliefs both religious and moral, and ask the question, "Can I be arrested for this?" 

"individuals should not be targeted based solely on race, ethnicity, or religion."
 
"[measures taken] should not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, or civil liberties of United States citizens or lawful permanent residents."

(2) VIOLENT RADICALIZATION- The term `violent radicalization' means the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change.
(3) HOMEGROWN TERRORISM- The term `homegrown terrorism' means the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States or any possession of the United States to intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.
(4) IDEOLOGICALLY BASED VIOLENCE- The term `ideologically based violence' means the use, planned use, or threatened use of force or violence by a group or individual to promote the group or individual's political, religious, or social beliefs.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MmeGigs


I think that you're misreading the bill.  This legislation seems to be trying to address the excesses of the previous administration that resulted in the watch-listing of the groups you mention.  From the bits you quoted -  

"individuals should not be targeted based solely on race, ethnicity, or religion."
 
"[measures taken] should not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, or civil liberties of United States citizens or lawful permanent residents."

The law seems to be specifically targeted at groups that commit, plan to commit or threaten to commit violence.  From the "definitions" section -

(2) VIOLENT RADICALIZATION- The term `violent radicalization' means the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change.
(3) HOMEGROWN TERRORISM- The term `homegrown terrorism' means the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States or any possession of the United States to intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.
(4) IDEOLOGICALLY BASED VIOLENCE- The term `ideologically based violence' means the use, planned use, or threatened use of force or violence by a group or individual to promote the group or individual's political, religious, or social beliefs.

The commission it establishes is bi-partisan, I assume to avoid the kind of political/ideological targetting that you referred to.  This legislation seems to me to be intended to provide the kind of oversight of domestic surveillance that was lacking with the previous administration.  I'm sure it's not a perfect solution, but it seems to be a step in the right direction.

quote:

ORIGINAL: colouredin

You smell because you are wearing red

HA you smell because you are wearing blue

Well actually because I said it first my point is more valid

Well no because saying it second doesnt devalue the sentiments

Oh but if you look at the 1954 act stating that blue is far better than red then you will see I am right

No because the 1956 act clearly pointed out that red is far better than blue

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
Actually, the bill was introduced during the Bush Administration and has not been tabled.

quote:

This bill seems aimed at avoiding targetting people for their personal philosophies and focusing the attention on those who intend to commit violent acts.