What is Digg?Related by Keyword 
How are these related stories? Tell us!
- LoneRanger85, on 01/17/2008, -113/+32Thanks, liberals. We warned you that hate crimes would eventually devolve into thought crimes. But did you listen? Nooooooo.
- Albionshores, on 01/17/2008, -5/+76It has nothing to do with left or right wing politcs. That is old hat and old news. There are authoritarians on both sides of the spectrum...just as there are those who promote empowering the individual and stepping back from authoritarian rule on both sides too.
It damn-certain doesn't have anything to do with 'Liberals' that can be pinned on Liberal candidates alone.- flogistan, on 01/18/2008, -1/+9Who's naive. He's right it comes from both sides. What do Jane Harmon and William Kristol have in common? Not just that they are neo authoritarians that resemble neither an old school democrat or republican. Much more. I'll give you a hint, find out what leo strauss's greatest fear was that motivated all his political and philosophical writings and think about what's about to happen economically. These folks are going to make sure anyone who complains while they're starving is a terrorist so they can remain in power. That's what's going on. You got screwed, but don't get mad because the neos will put you in prison for it.
- Delphium226, on 01/17/2008, -2/+50I think you'll find a lot of conservatives voted for it too numbskull.
- geddon, on 01/17/2008, -1/+30I think you'll find that everyone -- apart from six lone dissenters -- voted for it.
- GreyICE, on 01/17/2008, -3/+7And the people who missed the vote...
- fotbr, on 01/17/2008, -3/+5@GreyICE
You mean the people that couldn't be bothered to show up? Their absence is as good as a vote for it.
- geddon, on 01/17/2008, -1/+30I think you'll find that everyone -- apart from six lone dissenters -- voted for it.
- geddon, on 01/17/2008, -1/+37And here I blamed Conservative intolerance towards anyone speaking out against the U.S.A. Goes to show how well they've got us pitted against each other!
- khail250, on 01/17/2008, -2/+15all of your comments Mr. Bush, always get buried, will you get off digg already?
- Chassit, on 01/17/2008, -0/+18Are you really that stupid?
- rhabd0mancer, on 01/17/2008, -1/+20Jane Harman is no Liberal. She's a wretched neocon, just like Joe Lieberman. It's her mission to bring Israeli-style surveillance to the US.
- dexter411, on 01/18/2008, -7/+1Note the lack of a single jet hijacking in El Al history. Big brother appears to save lives, no?
- StaticThunder, on 01/18/2008, -0/+7I have a rock that keeps tigers away. You don't see any tigers do you? It must be working.
- dexter411, on 01/18/2008, -3/+2Except that you don't live in a tiger den. Israel avoiding hijackings of their airliners is amazing considering the kind of terrorism it experiences on a frequent basis.
- StaticThunder, on 01/18/2008, -0/+4Wait, it experiences terrorism on a daily basis? I thought you said Big Brother was working!
- StaticThunder, on 01/18/2008, -0/+7I have a rock that keeps tigers away. You don't see any tigers do you? It must be working.
- dexter411, on 01/18/2008, -7/+1Note the lack of a single jet hijacking in El Al history. Big brother appears to save lives, no?
- CrankyHippo, on 01/17/2008, -0/+9/sarcasm
right? - EXreaction, on 01/17/2008, -4/+17Another brainwashed fool who thinks he knows what a liberal is from watching Fox news.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal
Read it sheep! - NewGTGuy, on 01/17/2008, -0/+15In today's politics Democrat = Republican.
- Battousai778, on 01/17/2008, -3/+11Todays Democrat = Republican
Todays Republican = Nazi
- Battousai778, on 01/17/2008, -3/+11Todays Democrat = Republican
- topgigmedia, on 01/17/2008, -1/+8Thank you NeoCons - we warned you that voting blindly for other NeoCons would completely evaporate our freedoms and destry this country.
- fotbr, on 01/17/2008, -1/+6Which is why almost every democrat voted for it as well. This isn't a republican vs democrat thing.
- buckrogers1965, on 01/18/2008, -2/+5Many of the current democrats are neocons too.
- fotbr, on 01/17/2008, -1/+6Which is why almost every democrat voted for it as well. This isn't a republican vs democrat thing.
- razor150, on 01/18/2008, -1/+2I Bet if a Republican authored the bill you'd be all for it. Considering even the Republicans loved voting for it I am surprised you're against the bill.
- Bushlied, on 01/18/2008, -0/+1Still spewing your silly ignorant ***** huh?
- nattybohman, on 01/18/2008, -0/+3I've got news for you. Hate crimes are thought crimes.
They punish criminals for the intention (or thought) behind a deed and not just for the deed itself. - chrisatwork, on 01/18/2008, -0/+1I pity people like you that see the world in black and white.
- Albionshores, on 01/17/2008, -5/+76It has nothing to do with left or right wing politcs. That is old hat and old news. There are authoritarians on both sides of the spectrum...just as there are those who promote empowering the individual and stepping back from authoritarian rule on both sides too.
- yellowcakewalk, on 01/17/2008, -8/+250This isn't a liberal vs conservative thing. This is a fascism vs freedom thing.
- EXreaction, on 01/17/2008, -24/+18Liberal = freedom
- lordmetroid, on 01/17/2008, -13/+4It used to be the meaning of the political guild of liberals to mean people for freedom. Now they all are socialist anti-freedom people.
- StaticThunder, on 01/18/2008, -1/+7Uh huh. Just like conservative = anti-liberty fear monger
- incabulos, on 01/18/2008, -0/+9Not quite. I prefer the classic definition. Though if you take offense to a liberal helping of forward moving thinking, as opposed to conservatively maintaining the status quo, then why don't we call us what we are? Progressive. We advocate change. Now let's move the discussion to what is best, not bickering over vocabulary.
- EditorResponse, on 01/18/2008, -8/+1Last sentence in the first paragraph of the article: "Democrats who concocted it." If a committee was formed and they were all democrats then the democrats wrote the bill and it was not blocked by the Republicans. Looks like your Liberal friends just F*Ked you in the ass!
- lordmetroid, on 01/17/2008, -13/+4It used to be the meaning of the political guild of liberals to mean people for freedom. Now they all are socialist anti-freedom people.
- pkonink, on 01/17/2008, -1/+16Or in other words, it's a libertarian vs. statist thing. Neither liberals nor conservatives want to protect your freedom if they are liberal statists or conservative statists - they only care about preserving and expanding the government at all costs.
Now there are also liberal libertarians and conservative libertarians who believe in necessary government and nothing more - and this does not fall into the category of necessary government. This could easily be a tool for oppression, which goes completely against their (and mine and hopefully your) values. - designer, on 01/17/2008, -12/+3Fascism, Socialism, Nazism and Liberalism are all of the same tree.
- StaticThunder, on 01/18/2008, -0/+5And Conservatism.
- IADTatami, on 01/18/2008, -1/+11Congratulations, authoritarian right wing *****. You have by dint of repetition and dishonesty perverted the word "liberal" so successfully that it seems almost everyone thinks it means "authoritarian leftist".
- EditorResponse, on 01/18/2008, -9/+2Last sentence in the first paragraph of the article: "Democrats who concocted it." If a committee was formed and they were all democrats then the democrats wrote the bill and it was not blocked by the Republicans.
- IADTatami, on 01/18/2008, -0/+5The word "Democrat" doesn't appear anywhere in any dictionary's definition of the word "liberal", save perhaps that of a dictionary published by a Rupert Murdoch property.
There are plenty of illiberal, authoritarian Democrats. See: Jane Harmon-D, who sponsored this creepy ass bill. - razor150, on 01/18/2008, -0/+3Yeah, it wasn't blocked by Republicans, hell they even voted for it. Republicans are just as much to blame dumb ass.
Oh, and please quit copying and pasting this stupid response. Thanks.
- IADTatami, on 01/18/2008, -0/+5The word "Democrat" doesn't appear anywhere in any dictionary's definition of the word "liberal", save perhaps that of a dictionary published by a Rupert Murdoch property.
- EditorResponse, on 01/18/2008, -9/+2Last sentence in the first paragraph of the article: "Democrats who concocted it." If a committee was formed and they were all democrats then the democrats wrote the bill and it was not blocked by the Republicans.
- mraustin1337, on 01/18/2008, -2/+4Maybe you should read H.R. 1959 before digging this FUD. I agree that it has dangerous implications but it doesn't take any action against it. It is just a bill to generate a report essentially, not something to control our lives. While the committee that give the report could say that they feel immediate action must be taken that would require another bill in order to do anything about it. So just calm down, read the bill and tell your government you don't want them to pass the bill following this one up.
The bill:
http://tinyurl.com/ypl7ch
The preview for those suspicious that I'm going to goatse you:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/ypl7ch- IADTatami, on 01/18/2008, -1/+6It lays a foundation upon which action might be taken against those who articulate the idea that maybe something should be done about the undemocratic corporatism that has seized this country.
It's better that such a foundation never be built.
- IADTatami, on 01/18/2008, -1/+6It lays a foundation upon which action might be taken against those who articulate the idea that maybe something should be done about the undemocratic corporatism that has seized this country.
- bingobongony, on 01/18/2008, -6/+1No, it is a ***** from alternet thing.
- jondo85, on 01/18/2008, -1/+2"This isn't a liberal vs conservative thing. This is a fascism vs freedom thing."
What are you kidding? fascism is just rampant conservatism, all fascism means is blind obedience to authority, it's what happens when an authoritarian rules unchecked. At the other end of the scale, liberalism can lead to freedom, there is a delta of options, such as anarchism in the freedom camp, and communist dictatorship in the non-freedom camp.- snowball69, on 01/18/2008, -0/+1How can "conservtism" be rampant?? That's a non-sequitur
Fascism is, in only one aspect, radical and unbridled idealism however that is inadequate.
In a more strict definition it is "collectivism" - strength through unity/unity through strenth" the very symbol of the fascii
Liberalism is socialism by another name. All socialism leads to communism and all communism is merely fascism with a pseudo-intellectual "brand-image".
Nationalism is not the root of ideological fascism, merely a blunt instrument which is always used to keep the dumb and stupid "on message"
- snowball69, on 01/18/2008, -0/+1How can "conservtism" be rampant?? That's a non-sequitur
- joe1000, on 02/14/2008, -0/+0It is more like a World War III thing! Listen to www.theedgeam.com Robert Duncan Anthony Hilder
- EXreaction, on 01/17/2008, -24/+18Liberal = freedom
- vilyn, on 01/17/2008, -19/+1that's weird... I thought this article had 114 diggs and when I clicked digg it, it went to 14? Maybe my eyes are playing tricks on me.
- GrammarNazi3000, on 01/17/2008, -9/+0That's* diggs, but* "digg it"*
- ordig, on 01/17/2008, -2/+6nOt u aGaIn
- GrammarNazi3000, on 01/17/2008, -9/+0That's* diggs, but* "digg it"*
- nancyterrell, on 01/17/2008, -4/+119I agree with yellowcakewalk. This is bi-partisan fascism - this literally means, when you read the bill, that anyone, anywhere in the United States, or any American anywhere in the world, could be brought before a "committe" that would decide if your e-mails or your speech were in any way against what the "committee", (which is politically appointed), considered proper. Good bye free speech - this is the icing on the cake to a fascist state. Which party proposed it is inconsequential - it is the absolute end of freedom as we know it. Like the fall of Rome - America is going down. If this bill passes I can come before a "committee" over these statements and if they decide these statements are harmful, I can be thrown in jail. Hello???
- Veritate, on 01/18/2008, -11/+3That's not what it means. The committee has no authority to subpoena, hold trials, or imprison anyone. The only way you could be brought before them is if you wanted to be there.
- fyngyrz, on 01/18/2008, -2/+16You are so naive. Literally a fool.
They can't do anything without a warrant, right? Ask Jose Padilla about that. They can't force you to go anywhere without a subpoena, right? Why do protesters get cleared out of the room when Bush is around? Anything you say they "can't do", they CAN do, but there is a chance - ONLY a chance - that at the end of long, extremely expensive (read, more than you can afford) court proceedings, a judge or panel of judges may agree that the government "can't do that" and you can (finally) get out of jail, or get your house back from the bail bondsman.
Don't support the government seizing any more statutory power than it has. If you do, you're a fool.
We don't need more law, we need less. We don't need more surveillance, we need less. We don't need more repression, we need less.- Veritate, on 01/18/2008, -4/+3You mean, granting them the power to impanel a committee. Guess what, they have that already. I didn't say "can't force you to go anywhere", I said, "can't be brought before the committee".
And yes, you're right -- they "could" do whatever they like without authorization. But they don't need this bill to do things without authorization. If that's what you're worried about, why aren't you concerned that the Committee on Education is going to call you in and force you to spend another six years in school?- fyngyrz, on 01/18/2008, -2/+2The "Committee on Education" isn't proposing to snoop into my life or otherwise get involved in collecting information on me. The "Commitee on Education" isn't concerned with my future actions or intent. The "Committee on Education" doesn't have a history of abusing information, the lawmaking process, the liberties of the citizens, our money and our property. So perhaps you'll pardon me if I'm a little more concerned about legislation that does propose to build a committee designed to invade my life and opinions and very much evidences precisely such a history.
- buckrogers1965, on 01/18/2008, -1/+4You are naive. Uncle Joe once ran an un-Americans committee that was empowered to search out thought crime too. Just like this allows.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_Un-American_Act ...
This is the same horse ***** repackaged. Maybe you just never learned about it in school.
- fyngyrz, on 01/18/2008, -2/+2The "Committee on Education" isn't proposing to snoop into my life or otherwise get involved in collecting information on me. The "Commitee on Education" isn't concerned with my future actions or intent. The "Committee on Education" doesn't have a history of abusing information, the lawmaking process, the liberties of the citizens, our money and our property. So perhaps you'll pardon me if I'm a little more concerned about legislation that does propose to build a committee designed to invade my life and opinions and very much evidences precisely such a history.
- Veritate, on 01/18/2008, -4/+3You mean, granting them the power to impanel a committee. Guess what, they have that already. I didn't say "can't force you to go anywhere", I said, "can't be brought before the committee".
- fyngyrz, on 01/18/2008, -2/+16You are so naive. Literally a fool.
- shaherazad, on 01/18/2008, -5/+2Relax man, it's just for terrorists.
- snowball69, on 01/18/2008, -0/+1Hahahahaha - poor, deluded fool!
- Tetraca, on 01/18/2008, -0/+6Didn't we do something like this during the red scare already? I believe it was called the "House Unamerican Committee", or something along those lines. I guess history is a broken record.
- kmiller2087, on 01/18/2008, -1/+8i hope you realize, good sirs and madams of digg, that due to the Military Commissions Act passed in 2006 the president can LITERALLY point to a person, define them as an "enemy combatant" (including US citizens), and throw them in jails for as long as deemed necessary by the president and the president alone. We're ALREADY *****.
- Veritate, on 01/18/2008, -11/+3That's not what it means. The committee has no authority to subpoena, hold trials, or imprison anyone. The only way you could be brought before them is if you wanted to be there.
- lydecker, on 01/17/2008, -1/+42The difference between hate crimes and thought crimes is that in order to be convicted of a hate crime, you typically need to commit an ACTUAL crime as well. If hate is the motive that leads you to commit a crime, that hate is responsible. Personally, I don't think acknowledging hate crime is necessary, and definitely thought crimes aren't either.
- popfrogs, on 01/17/2008, -5/+3I'm not so sure this is a thoughtcrime law. Conspiracy is a thoughtcrime law if you think about it, and people have been brought up and convicted on conspiracy charges for decades now.
- StaticThunder, on 01/18/2008, -0/+8No, conspiracy means you agreed to help another commit a crime, its not simply "I thought of doing something wrong," but more along the lines of "I entered into a contract to break the law."
- MixMastaKooz, on 01/18/2008, -1/+3Well, think about it like this...in certain parts of the country, it was believed to be a social *good* or service to the community to harm/murder certain racial groups and people with certain sexual orientations. Yes, people did commit plain murder/assault in the eyes of the law, but in the eyes of their peers (i.e. the local cops and the jury) what they did was excusable. That's why hate crime legislation exists: to take the jurisdiction of such crimes away from these bastions of local intolerance that would set a lyncher free.
- lydecker, on 01/18/2008, -1/+1That doesn't really make much sense to me. They've committed the same murder, but they'd still be going on trial in front of the same local people, and I think if you label it hate-crime it's not going to change the opinion of people who believe it's for the greater good.
Crimes are often deemed less or more offensive because of the motive, but I generally think making hate crime an additional charge to a murder charge is wrong, because it is usually inseparable (i.e., the crime wouldn't have happened if it weren't for the hate).
- lydecker, on 01/18/2008, -1/+1That doesn't really make much sense to me. They've committed the same murder, but they'd still be going on trial in front of the same local people, and I think if you label it hate-crime it's not going to change the opinion of people who believe it's for the greater good.
- snowball69, on 01/18/2008, -0/+1Wow, that's playing with semantics
So... if thought crime is made illegal then.... err....
Am I also committing an "actual" crime? - knucklebusted, on 01/19/2008, -0/+2Crime is crime. Criminals commit crimes. Punish criminals regardless of motivation. A killer will kill someone and they are still dead regardless of the motive and the "class" of victim they've claimed affinity towards. This is what has lead to even greater victimization.
- popfrogs, on 01/17/2008, -5/+3I'm not so sure this is a thoughtcrime law. Conspiracy is a thoughtcrime law if you think about it, and people have been brought up and convicted on conspiracy charges for decades now.
- phnx0221, on 01/17/2008, -3/+129This has nothing to do with liberals or conservatives. This bill passed in the house with a 404 - 6 vote. This is a bipartisan effort to continue with the subversions of our civil rights under the guise of protection from terrorism. These people in power are once again playing on our fear of the boogeyman, and using it to secure their power.
If there are murmurs of dissent and organization throughout the population, you can bet that they want to know what's going on. And with this bill, instead of having to do the time consuming costly task of direct infiltration, all they'll have to do is tap our phone, tap our internet connections, and go through our mail. And the majority of the people, unless we continue talking about this, will buy into it with the old adage of "well, if I'm not doing anything wrong, I have nothing to hide, so I guess it's okay".
I wonder how much we'll be willing to put up with with the illusion of "I'm not doing anything wrong so..". When our rights to organize are limited to "protest zones" much like the "free speech zones", will we all finally be concerned enough to do something about it? When our rights to talk ill of our government are stemmed, and we are monitored because they might be concerned about terrorism, will we then be angry enough to do something about it?
The last thing we need to be doing right now, is focusing on liberal/conservative thing. When we do that, we are divided amongst ourselves, and we forget who we are truly angry with. We are angry with the people who proposed this bill, passed this bill, and are asking for it to be put into effect. This is not the fault of the people, and we should not be willingly distracting ourselves by bickering about petty trivialities. We should be focusing our attention on getting this knowledge, and this wariness out to everyone, so that we will be less likely to fall under the trap of "we're doing this to protect you" "we must protect our homeland, and if we need to sacrifice a bit so be it".
When we buy into this fear, and when we sacrifice ourselves to something that we have no control over, we are giving ourselves up to them. And we're doing it willingly. We could just as easily die in a car crash, or by walking down the street and getting hit by a drunk driver, or a plane crash, as we could with a terrorist attack. Are you willing to give up your freedom so that we can *hopefully* prevent an attack on our lives in the future?
I sure as hell am not.- SuperCUBE, on 01/17/2008, -17/+5You didn't read the bill, did you?
- phnx0221, on 01/18/2008, -2/+12Yes. Yes I did. I've read it several times since it was passed on October 23rd. If you'd like to read it as well, you can find it here.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill= ... - Veritate, on 01/18/2008, -10/+3You mean, "You didn't *understand* the bill, did you?"
- phnx0221, on 01/18/2008, -2/+12Yes. Yes I did. I've read it several times since it was passed on October 23rd. If you'd like to read it as well, you can find it here.
- SuperCUBE, on 01/17/2008, -17/+5You didn't read the bill, did you?
- geddon, on 01/17/2008, -0/+21Check out the money changing hands to block this bill from becoming a law:
http://www.maplight.org/map/us/bill/61187/default- deadmoo, on 01/17/2008, -5/+19WTF? Paul didn't even vote. At least Kucinich was there, and those other 5 guys earned my respect.
- Sraza, on 01/17/2008, -4/+15It was addressed in the article briefly. Ron Paul was out campaigning. From his voting record I've seen I'm sure if he was there it would have been 7 that voted against.
- norman619, on 01/17/2008, -10/+5Actions speak louder than words. Too bad the Ron Paul faithful will be deaf to the message.
- fotbr, on 01/17/2008, -3/+7Then he should have gotten on a goddamned plane, flown back, and ***** voted.
If I quit doing my job for 11 months to campaign for a promotion, I would not have that job, OR my promotion. Politicians need to do their jobs, even if it means curtailing their campaigns. - norman619, on 01/17/2008, -5/+4@fotbr:
Glad I'm not the only one who sees through the BS here. But this will get you dugg down to china by the Ron Paul faithful. :-(
- GreyICE, on 01/17/2008, -6/+16Paul did more good on the campaign trail, bringing the issue to the people, than sitting in the House voting against a bill that everyone except the American People wanted. 404-6 or 404-7 makes no difference. His campaigning might.
- norman619, on 01/17/2008, -12/+4That kool aid must be damn good.
- thejwac, on 01/17/2008, -1/+18He specifically mentions that he was upset he missed this vote but he had an appointment he absolutely could not miss. He clearly has stated he would have been a "Nay" vote.
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2007/cr12 ...- norman619, on 01/17/2008, -12/+5What could have been more important than protecting our civil liberties? Unless it was a matter of life and death there is no excuse. You are sounding like an apologist.
- thejwac, on 01/17/2008, -2/+13I'm not apologizing for anything. I am being helpful by providing a link that answers the previous comment poster's question. You are sounding like an *****.
- norman619, on 01/17/2008, -8/+5So tell me was someone near death?
- d03boy, on 01/17/2008, -3/+5Why don't you run for president and be a member of the house at the same time. See which takes priority. When you know 404 people in the house are stupid you might as well put your chances into winning the presidency to save the nation.
- IADTatami, on 01/18/2008, -5/+1Tell me, how many votes do you need to override a veto?
Tell me, how many yeas were there for this bill? How many nays?
I don't know what to think, here. It seems that in the face of such overwhelming odds, the best a person might do is to make a statement before going down.
Whether this is better done through a veto one might one day have the ability to make or a nay vote one could have made had one only bothered to show up, I honestly can't say, given the relative strength of a single nay vote and a veto. - buckrogers1965, on 01/18/2008, -1/+2@ IADTatami
"make a statement before going down"
He did make a statement against the law. Literally.
I'm sure if his vote would have made a difference he would have been there to cast it.
Are you being intentionally stupid, or is this a natural stupidity?
- norman619, on 01/17/2008, -12/+5What could have been more important than protecting our civil liberties? Unless it was a matter of life and death there is no excuse. You are sounding like an apologist.
- Sraza, on 01/17/2008, -4/+15It was addressed in the article briefly. Ron Paul was out campaigning. From his voting record I've seen I'm sure if he was there it would have been 7 that voted against.
- deadmoo, on 01/17/2008, -5/+19WTF? Paul didn't even vote. At least Kucinich was there, and those other 5 guys earned my respect.
- blackmage439, on 01/17/2008, -3/+38Not to be a nerd, but this exact scenario was on an episode of Star Trek Voyager. A race of beings was highly telepathic, and had abolished all hateful thinking in order to purify their society. Idiot humans come to town, supposedly pollute people's minds with hateful images, and one member of the crew almost gets put to death. It was later discovered the hateful thoughts were actually being planted by a member of the indigenous population, who considered violent images a form of euphoria.
Moral of the story: turn us into a bunch of panzy zombies, and eventually we'll snap. It happened in Star Trek. It happened in Demolition Man (crappy movie). It happened in Serenity.- Ramble, on 01/17/2008, -0/+11That's a free digg just for the voyager-orwellian nightmare comparison.
- ulmedas, on 01/17/2008, -0/+6Hmm...similar to "The Demolished Man" by Alfred Bestler, except the mind reading was good, and the criminal had to finagle his way around it to commit his dastardly crime, but the police were infallible. If it works in a Sci-Fi book from the 50's, then I am all for it.
- rocket777, on 01/18/2008, -6/+1I understand your concern, but using a fictional plot to prove a point? One could equally have a movie that showed how useful this (horrible) legislation is. And that is my concern here. We don't want a population of movie viewers saying, Oh yeah, we need to scan peoples thoughts because of all the terrorism related thinking that has been proven (in the plot) to cause violence.
- Jareth86, on 01/17/2008, -6/+58You all cry out in anger, but then just keep on browsing, slithering along the internet, your right hand on the mouse and your left in a bag of Doritos. Get off you asses and do something, or we will lose our democracy! I go to protests all the time, and nobody else my age is out there. Hell, nobody under 40 is out there. It's ***** disgraceful.
- neognostic, on 01/17/2008, -1/+8Right on brother! I'm over 40..................sigh
- TrevaLVF, on 01/19/2008, -0/+2Me too. So many people keep patting me on the back and saying things that clearly indicate they want me to fight their battles for them. Able bodied, can make time for it, but they don't feel like it. It's not their "thing."
They'll be the ones running behind us one day, screaming, "Hey! Wait up! Help us! Tell us what to do! We didn't know. We didn't think... We thought you were just being paranoid and radical."
- TrevaLVF, on 01/19/2008, -0/+2Me too. So many people keep patting me on the back and saying things that clearly indicate they want me to fight their battles for them. Able bodied, can make time for it, but they don't feel like it. It's not their "thing."
- JonTheGoose, on 01/17/2008, -3/+14but what if someone friends me on facebook while i'm out fighting facism?
- TrevaLVF, on 01/19/2008, -0/+2Face book is a wonderful source for CIA researchers doing the Darpa public database boogie.
Big Brother can see you there!
- TrevaLVF, on 01/19/2008, -0/+2Face book is a wonderful source for CIA researchers doing the Darpa public database boogie.
- fotbr, on 01/17/2008, -0/+7Whats the point in protesting if you can only do it in "free speech zones" so far removed from the people that need to see the protest, that there's no way they could see or hear you?
- RomanticStorm, on 01/18/2008, -0/+6People are either desperate to live from day to day, incredibly comfortable, or fearful of being labeled a non-conformist. In any case human beings are adaptable and can delight in their own misery if it is palatable. People are concerned with personal issues not realizing that these issues will personally affect them and their descendants. The answer? 1789. Sounds impossible? If you disturb enough people's comfort, maybe we'll get a rise. Maybe.
- StaticThunder, on 01/18/2008, -0/+4No country is more than three meals away from revolution.
- Icyfenix, on 01/18/2008, -2/+4few protests over this crap happen in texas.
Not enough people to start one. - StaticThunder, on 01/18/2008, -2/+5Not my job to fight for your "freedoms". A little quid pro quo goes a long way, anonymous internet guy.
P.S. Protesting is not fighting. Its complaining to the establishment. Its like the sheep asking the wolf not to eat it.- TrevaLVF, on 01/19/2008, -1/+1"P.S. Protesting is not fighting. Its complaining to the establishment. Its like the sheep asking the wolf not to eat it."
My friends and I have been trying to tell this to people here. You'd think, they would ask themselves, "Why don't our protests ever work," and "Why is it, we just keep getting attacked by cops, even though the KKK and their Nazi friends get police protection, instead."
People get cross-eyed when they hear the word "strategy."
- TrevaLVF, on 01/19/2008, -1/+1"P.S. Protesting is not fighting. Its complaining to the establishment. Its like the sheep asking the wolf not to eat it."
- IADTatami, on 01/18/2008, -0/+3It's a hell of a thing. It's possible that this problem might not be solved unless we give up our jobs, homes and toys, but it seems just as possible that this problem might be solved by voting properly this year.
- StaticThunder, on 01/18/2008, -1/+2I'll man the barricades when you will, but I'm not going to stick my neck out just because somebody who still has his internet connection bitches I'm not doing enough, especially over a bill that creates no new laws, and empowers a committee to do exactly nothing.
Yeah, it could be read broadly. It could be read so broadly that any politician running for office is considered a terrorist. So exactly why should I worry enough to get on a no-fly list ... is it going to help? - TrevaLVF, on 01/19/2008, -0/+2Yeah, those rigged ballots will surely help us solve it all when we go vote.
- StaticThunder, on 01/18/2008, -1/+2I'll man the barricades when you will, but I'm not going to stick my neck out just because somebody who still has his internet connection bitches I'm not doing enough, especially over a bill that creates no new laws, and empowers a committee to do exactly nothing.
- buckrogers1965, on 01/18/2008, -0/+2Things won't change until people have nothing else to lose except their freedom.
It is only after you have lost everything that you are free to do anything.
As long as Rome keeps the common man in bread and circuses they will be contented and do nothing.
This bill is designed to make sure nobody can tell the contented masses the truth. - tgc1, on 01/18/2008, -0/+1Okay, tell me what I can do... from Canada. I have absolutely no say about anything that goes on down there. Sorry folks, you have to sort this ***** out on your own. Good luck. Don't forget, our asses are on the line too. If you guys go down, well, we're all going to end up taking a beating as well.
WE'RE COUNTING ON YOU AMERICA. GET YOUR ACT TOGETHER.
Preferably before people start getting loaded onto box cars.- TrevaLVF, on 01/19/2008, -0/+1Geez! At least consider offering medicinal marijuana for the battle fatigued and the wounded if you aren't going to run anything else through the woods along that imaginary line and during pouring rain storms, over the rivers and through the woods.
- cornfedbiff, on 01/18/2008, -0/+1Who sees your protesting Jareth86? I didn't. The media and government block the majority of protesting from ever being seen. I wouldn't waste my time. People have protested George Bush and his decisions since he took over office, and what good has that done?
- TrevaLVF, on 01/19/2008, -0/+1I don't think the actual protests are effective anymore. The corporate and other questionable media people show up. They depict the whole scene in a negative light, drawing the illusion that the protesters are the bad guys. The cops show up (possibly soon after a local laws was rushed through to negate a constitutional right, such as our 1st Amendment rights). They bring their crowd control weapons and attack, counting on the corporate media to fabricate reports that the crowd was unruly, violent, engaging in acts of terrorism, while aiming camera lenses at any body that looks crazy, non-conformist in a freaky way, violent...
No, I've been saying over and over in the most subtle (please get a friggin' clue) way that we need to be smarter, more strategic. We need to outsmart our enemies, who would naturally expect us to do the simply, old fashioned things, or anything they can use to backfire against us, or simply be rendered ineffective. Take it through the tunnel, people. And make sure AT&T isn't helping Big Brother to listen.
Know your friends and keep them close,
Know your enemies and make them their own worst enemies. - joe1000, on 02/14/2008, -0/+0Yes Jareth it is true that the pathetic apathy has them all blinded to reality. Where are these protests that are not on the main media? Please listen to www.theedgeam.com Robert Duncan Anthony Hilder Gina Romano...welcome to WWIII.
- neognostic, on 01/17/2008, -1/+8Right on brother! I'm over 40..................sigh
- orxor, on 01/17/2008, -2/+43H.R. 1955 defines "homegrown terrorism" and "violent radicalization" nebulously; the former is merely "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..."
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Thomas Jefferson
“Every generation needs a new revolution.” - Thomas Jefferson
So when are they going to start teaching in our schools that Thomas Jefferson was a terrorist?- ZxEfR, on 01/17/2008, -0/+4I assumed they already were. Are you sure they're not already?
- Infowarmachine, on 01/17/2008, -1/+6force can be defined as using ideas or information to effect change
so this bill literally outlaws using ideas and information....
first amendment right down the *****- rocket777, on 01/18/2008, -0/+2I think I saw that video that pulls up a definition of force, as in, he was a force for good.
However, I could not find the definition of force in the bill itself. As bad as this bill is, I don't think it's going to be able to define force in that way - let's hope. - StaticThunder, on 01/18/2008, -0/+1No, it doesn't. It empowers a committee to think about it.
You try defining terrorism sometime. You'll find that everybody knows what it is, but nobody can agree on a definition. Basically its been reduced as a definition to anyone doing anything we don't like to promote an agenda. Its meaningless.- IADTatami, on 01/18/2008, -0/+3Meh.
Terrorism is the practice of deliberately making civilians the express target of deadly force on the part of an organization in order to affect the policies of another organization.
...a definition most governments would reject outright, given that it would expose them to charges of terrorism or of supporting terrorism. - MrFlesh, on 01/18/2008, -0/+1but as a supposed democracy run by it's people for it's people are we not the "deciders" through action or inaction of those policies? If it is a government for the people by the people like the TV says, doesn't that make us a viable military target? Falling under the "Cut off the head to kill the whole serpent." strategy.
- IADTatami, on 01/18/2008, -0/+3Meh.
- rocket777, on 01/18/2008, -0/+2I think I saw that video that pulls up a definition of force, as in, he was a force for good.
- lastoftheidiots, on 01/17/2008, -1/+52"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." Ben Franklin
- cl2yp71c, on 01/17/2008, -1/+12That phrase has been ignored only too much after 9/11.
- thejwac, on 01/17/2008, -5/+4I agree, but this quote is mistakenly attributed to Ben Franklin. If you do about 5 minutes of research you can quickly find quotes by Frankin stating he never said this. I believe in the message of this quote, but mistaking the source almost nullifies the wisdom within the words.
- fyngyrz, on 01/18/2008, -0/+5No. The words stand up quite well no matter who said them. To the point that it doesn't matter who the quote is attributed to. Truth does not vary according to the speaker; if the impact varies according to the speaker, the listener is crippled.
- mmmmmbiscuits, on 01/17/2008, -5/+9"Any idiot who can't think of anything interesting to say is bound to share some stupid quote with you and think they're being deep and/or insightful." Me
- Endemoniada, on 01/18/2008, -0/+3If you can't say it best, say what someone else has already said better.
- thejwac, on 01/17/2008, -2/+1Here is a source to my ramblings about the quotation as not definitely being said by Franklin:
http://www.monticello.org/library/reference/spurio ... - IADTatami, on 01/18/2008, -0/+3We give up the liberty. They get the security.
Luckily for us, they are outnumbered by a factor of about one hundred thousand to one. Luckily for us, if push comes to shove... they are made of meat.- fyngyrz, on 01/18/2008, -0/+3Mmmm. Well, meat... and tanks, and riot gear, and tear gas, and both laser and sonic crowd suppression devices, and automatic weapons, and "camps" to store our un-cooperative selves, and direct control over our drug supplies and our healthcare and the roads and shipping, and... I suppose you may have gotten the point by now.
- IADTatami, on 01/18/2008, -1/+2Vietnam.
Iraq.
Algiers.
I suppose you may have gotten the point by now.
Just because you might not know how to conduct a successful guerrilla campaign against a technologically superior foe does not mean that no one else does.
The nightmare scenario, that of the evil government simply wiping out rebellious cities with bombs, is not likely to happen. In fact, I'd characterize the possibility as being vanishingly small.
We can scarcely keep Baghdad placid. Imagine the resources placating New York City alone would require!
The good news is, the fascists are *****. They're doomed. The only question is one of how much damage they'll do before their inevitable defeat.- fyngyrz, on 01/18/2008, -0/+2Vietnam: The country was destroyed down to RUBBLE. If we had wanted to finish it, we could have - it was a matter of political will. We knew all along that the more power we poured into the country, the more arms and equipment would come in from the soviets. Which is exactly what happened. Do you think that the US ending up like Vietnam was when we left would be a WIN?
Iraq: we're not even trying -- this isn't a war, it is an oil-preserving action. You say, "we can barely keep Baghdad placid"; well, do think that can be done while being all "nice"? Do you think our government would be "nice" to "rebels"?
I don't.
Algiers? Good grief, man, you're talking about the flipping French now, not US military capabilities. Completely irrelevant.
- fyngyrz, on 01/18/2008, -0/+2Vietnam: The country was destroyed down to RUBBLE. If we had wanted to finish it, we could have - it was a matter of political will. We knew all along that the more power we poured into the country, the more arms and equipment would come in from the soviets. Which is exactly what happened. Do you think that the US ending up like Vietnam was when we left would be a WIN?
- IADTatami, on 01/18/2008, -1/+2Vietnam.
- tgc1, on 01/18/2008, -1/+1What always amazes me is that sort of rational. As if to say that "The Government" is somehow run by a bunch of other type of people. They ARE PEOPLE. Which means they have hearts, minds, souls... and thoughts. I think when it all comes down to it, there comes a time when you need to look your fellow man in the eye and ask yourself just what the ***** you think you're doing (in the case where you're on the other side of the fence, in riot gear). Just because the government employs people, doesn't mean they can't think for themselves.
- fyngyrz, on 01/19/2008, -0/+1The evidence shows that they can think, but that they don't have the interests of the citizens in mind when they do it.
That's the problem. That's always been the problem.
- fyngyrz, on 01/19/2008, -0/+1The evidence shows that they can think, but that they don't have the interests of the citizens in mind when they do it.
- fyngyrz, on 01/18/2008, -0/+3Mmmm. Well, meat... and tanks, and riot gear, and tear gas, and both laser and sonic crowd suppression devices, and automatic weapons, and "camps" to store our un-cooperative selves, and direct control over our drug supplies and our healthcare and the roads and shipping, and... I suppose you may have gotten the point by now.
- ordig, on 01/17/2008, -2/+32This bill is going to create a lot of terrorists. Good thing too, cause we cant have a "War on Terror" if we run out of terrorists.
/sarcam- ZxEfR, on 01/17/2008, -0/+3Nice
- idc5, on 01/17/2008, -0/+8hello big brother
- cl2yp71c, on 01/17/2008, -3/+25USA is going to hell in a hand-basket.
I truly hope the 08' elections change this madness.- azurite, on 01/17/2008, -0/+19Dont count on it. The Democrats are every bit as corrupt and controlling as the Republicans.
- fyngyrz, on 01/18/2008, -1/+5The Democraps have been in charge of congress for quite some time now; no changes. Just the same as the republicraps. The message is, the population doesn't care enough to actually disrupt the corrupt political engine, and that's why next year will be just like this year, only worse, even if Ron Paul gets in there and stomps his angry little feet. Except he'll get us out of Iraq. If the establishment doesn't assassinate him first, that is.
Arg, meant that to be a reply to cl2yp71c, not azurite. Sorry. - TrevaLVF, on 01/19/2008, -0/+3Make Dennis Kucinich an exception. There is a reason why the corporate media (accomplices to the tyrants in government) has been doing its utmost to silence Dennis and give voters the impression that he presumably dropped out of the race, or never existed.
- fyngyrz, on 01/18/2008, -1/+5The Democraps have been in charge of congress for quite some time now; no changes. Just the same as the republicraps. The message is, the population doesn't care enough to actually disrupt the corrupt political engine, and that's why next year will be just like this year, only worse, even if Ron Paul gets in there and stomps his angry little feet. Except he'll get us out of Iraq. If the establishment doesn't assassinate him first, that is.
- ordig, on 01/17/2008, -0/+16bill was introduced by a democrat BTW
- ZxEfR, on 01/17/2008, -0/+6While we're hoping.....I hope I'm a zillionaire by tomorrow.
- DefendThyself, on 01/17/2008, -0/+4And who do you hope changes things?
- TrevaLVF, on 01/19/2008, -0/+2We had better be the change.
- IADTatami, on 01/18/2008, -0/+6If the front runners are Clinton and McCain, Huckabee or Giuliani, I'm afraid that they won't.
- rocket777, on 01/18/2008, -1/+7Ron paul would have changed things, but he's now been labeled a racist. Since there's no worse label than that today (even traitor ain't as bad) we won't be seeing Ron do anything about this bill. Dennis K. is also being kept down, and so there's really nobody left that would defend us.
- TrevaLVF, on 01/19/2008, -0/+2DK ain't completely out of the game, Rocket777.
This means, we take down the media. Wisely. We popularize the following message, "The corporate media is for entertainment and commercial purposes only. Not a reliable source for information. Only an idiot would expect to be well informed by getting their news from the people that bring us Mickey Mouse and Goofy, Two Men and a Boy, toasters, and American Idol.
- TrevaLVF, on 01/19/2008, -0/+2DK ain't completely out of the game, Rocket777.
- MinorLemming, on 01/18/2008, -0/+0Loads of democrats voted for this. How would them winning in 2008 change the mess you people have made of your country ?
- TrevaLVF, on 01/19/2008, -0/+1Unlikely. The plutocrats seized power over the government offices and the media long, long ago. They've been teaming up and sticking it to us while dumbing down most Americans.
- azurite, on 01/17/2008, -0/+19Dont count on it. The Democrats are every bit as corrupt and controlling as the Republicans.
- phenry50BMG, on 01/17/2008, -1/+12So, if I were to say I think the US government is completely criminal and needs to be overthrown and started from scratch, I would be a terrorist? Whew, good thing I'd never say anything like that.
It's obvious that this bill would make every FF a terrorist and something such as this would have prevented the formation of this country. We are living in the twilight zone.- DefendThyself, on 01/17/2008, -2/+5Security, Arrest this man...
- phenry50BMG, on 01/17/2008, -0/+3(better be a BUNCH of them)
- fyngyrz, on 01/18/2008, -0/+2It will be. Armed, armored, and with no particular care for your health and well being, nor that of your family, property, or pets.
- rocket777, on 01/18/2008, -0/+4Or as McCain would say, "You're drafted".
- phenry50BMG, on 01/17/2008, -0/+3(better be a BUNCH of them)
- StaticThunder, on 01/18/2008, -1/+1Actually, there are already laws against sedition (the Smith Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_Act ), they don't need a new one.
- DefendThyself, on 01/17/2008, -2/+5Security, Arrest this man...
- Telexen, on 01/17/2008, -8/+1Oh noes.
This kind of thing makes me want to email Hillary Clinton and BEG her to promise that if she is elected President she would squash acts like these ... because I think she's the only Democratic candidate that hasn't made it 100% clear they would.- rocket777, on 01/18/2008, -0/+7hahahha Hillary. That's hilarious. Clinton is synonymous with lie - by either spouse.
Besides, your message appears to be included in "use, planned use, or threatened use" since you are are herein threatening to write an email that would try to use ideological means to get a presidential candidate to use force and violence to squash a law (that's what presidents do - use force).
Congrats, you now qualify as a terrorist.
- rocket777, on 01/18/2008, -0/+7hahahha Hillary. That's hilarious. Clinton is synonymous with lie - by either spouse.
- SemiSarcastic, on 01/17/2008, -2/+13Ironic that the only politicians who care save us from this abomination of a bill are the ones the American people (the majority anyway) have the most apathy and hatred towards and the media subverts their influence. Its seems that Americans just want a bunch of "winners" running this country and disregarding the rules this country was founded on, even if the loser is sometimes right.
- mmmmmbiscuits, on 01/17/2008, -9/+2Hmmm....I wonder who whiny mcwhiner has in mind? Any guesses, folks?? LOL
- SemiSarcastic, on 01/17/2008, -0/+4If you can guess I'll give you $5, but I think politicians ought to go against conventional wisdom or the status quo every once in awhile. Following the constitution would be a concept don't you think? At least I'm old enough to vote and will. I also have a right to speak my mind or remain a private citizen. I like my privacy, and it holds far greater value to me than I think you'd understand. It just pains me that every once in awhile people are more willing to vote for a pretty face who will promise sweet little nothings for everyone who voted for them and those are the same people who are helping this bill pass.
- helster83, on 01/17/2008, -4/+4His name is Ron f----ng Paul, biatches =)
I changed my party to republican so that I can do my small part to vote for Paul at the NYS primary. When i told my parents that I changed my party to republican, they yelled at me. Then I laughed an evil laugh.- jmpkay, on 01/18/2008, -0/+0To bad there arnt more like this guy.
- TrevaLVF, on 01/19/2008, -0/+1Not "winners." Celebrity politicians that are on the corporate media's A List for serving the plutocratic interests at the People's expense.
- mmmmmbiscuits, on 01/17/2008, -9/+2Hmmm....I wonder who whiny mcwhiner has in mind? Any guesses, folks?? LOL
- Picaroon, on 01/17/2008, -20/+1Big brother! 1984! This is almost as bad as that stupid law against "conspiracy to commit _______." If we allow this to pass, terrorist conspirators, like their murderous brethren, will be put to trial!
You guys are tools. Buried.- SemiSarcastic, on 01/17/2008, -1/+3I assure you that from a different perspective you be considered an even bigger tool (me being one of them).
- norman619, on 01/17/2008, -0/+7Naivete like yours is cute in a child not so much in an adult. In an adult it's down right scary.
- tdrizzle, on 01/17/2008, -5/+10Hate crime legislation is already punishing thought crime, but since it is so politically correct no one questions that.
- ulmedas, on 01/17/2008, -0/+6There is actually quite a healthy debate about hate crimes going on, and there are plenty of folks questioning it..such as yourself, I suppose.
- Veritate, on 01/18/2008, -1/+2The bill does not criminalize anything.
- rocket777, on 01/18/2008, -2/+1I hate hate crime legislation. Handcuff me.
- norman619, on 01/17/2008, -14/+8""Legislation such as this demands heavy-handed governmental action against American citizens where no crime has been committed," Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul complained to the House in December, after missing the vote while campaigning."
I love this. It obviously wasn't THAT big of a deal to him since he didn't feel it was worth his time to vote against it. Ron Paul is just another politician. No more proof is needed. Pathetic.- DefendThyself, on 01/17/2008, -3/+3Like his vote making it 7 No's would done anything to change things? Don't be so pathetic
- norman619, on 01/17/2008, -3/+5You don't get it. That is sad. So I guess you only vote against something you are strongly opposed to only if you know you will win? Don't be such a moron.
- mOdQuArK, on 01/18/2008, -3/+3*YOU* don't get it. WTF good is it going to do to make a useless gesture when so many other legislators were going to vote for the damn bill? Paul's time is much better spent campaigning at the moment & using this type of crap as part of his political speeches. If this were a close vote, then it might have been an issue, but this wasn't even close.
- norman619, on 01/18/2008, -2/+3You STILL don't get it...
- mOdQuArK, on 01/18/2008, -3/+3*YOU* don't get it. WTF good is it going to do to make a useless gesture when so many other legislators were going to vote for the damn bill? Paul's time is much better spent campaigning at the moment & using this type of crap as part of his political speeches. If this were a close vote, then it might have been an issue, but this wasn't even close.
- norman619, on 01/17/2008, -3/+5You don't get it. That is sad. So I guess you only vote against something you are strongly opposed to only if you know you will win? Don't be such a moron.
- thejwac, on 01/17/2008, -3/+9Norman619, your insightful comments have intrigued me enough to look at your history of comments. It seems you've never had a positive or remotely helpful thing to say or add to a conversation. I appreciate someone playing devil's advocate but your comments are always insulting or childish.
You need to aim some of that energy used venting your anger and frustration back at yourself to improve your life. Only then will you have a chance of getting laid.- phenry50BMG, on 01/17/2008, -5/+3What would you expect from someone named Norman? Probably a pencil necked twit who has been teased incessantly for his limited life. I'll trust you on your research re: his posts. I don't think he's worth my time to do so.
- norman619, on 01/18/2008, -1/+2I believe the proper term for what you are doing is Projecting.
- fyngyrz, on 01/18/2008, -1/+3Yes, because when parents name their children, they know exactly what kind of "neck" they'll have.
Moron.
- IADTatami, on 01/18/2008, -3/+3Freedom of expression could be at stake, and you're carrying on about some semi-anonymous digger's ability to get laid.
Pathetic. - norman619, on 01/18/2008, -3/+2You can dismiss me all you like. It does not change the truth in what I have said. Man up and accept that Ron Paul is not what he claims to be.
- buckrogers1965, on 01/18/2008, -2/+1Wow.
- phenry50BMG, on 01/17/2008, -5/+3What would you expect from someone named Norman? Probably a pencil necked twit who has been teased incessantly for his limited life. I'll trust you on your research re: his posts. I don't think he's worth my time to do so.
- Nudz, on 01/17/2008, -3/+4He wasn't there. No politician can be present 100% of the time, ESPECIALLY when a lot of them right now are out campaigning.
- norman619, on 01/17/2008, -2/+3So he had no clue what was coming up for a vote? Not sure what's worse.
- StaticThunder, on 01/18/2008, -2/+4This is really important, but I'm too busy. I'll fix it when I don't get elected.
- norman619, on 01/18/2008, -2/+3Exactly!
- DefendThyself, on 01/17/2008, -3/+3Like his vote making it 7 No's would done anything to change things? Don't be so pathetic
- swingindualism, on 01/17/2008, -1/+9The irony in this bill is absurd - has not the Bush Administration and the Project for a New American Century embraced a radical ideology (neo-Straussian) using deceptive measures to legitimize acting with violent means, killing hundreds of thousands of innocent human beings along the way and cementing a terrible fate for the survival of our planet's wondrous eco-system and intelligent life? Perhaps with this bill, the higher powers have exposed their Achilles Heel.
- SuckMyDigg, on 01/18/2008, -0/+1That is precisely what I'm going to reply to my Representative in Congress about. I want to know from someone who has voted for this bill, just why he thinks such measures might be necessary and what kind of action he sees coming out of these 'committees'. As I read my rep's canned letter I couldn't help but chuckle at the logic of "since 9/11 everything has changed" and "we've seen homegrown terrorism in other countries and we are scared it might happen here". If that was really the case, wouldn't you just assess why the hell people are so bent out of shape? It really shouldn't even take a committee to see that. It's plain as day to you and me I would imagine.
- cambob76, on 01/17/2008, -1/+10Don't forget that freedom isn't free. It costs a buck 'o five.
- fotbr, on 01/17/2008, -1/+4That was years ago. Inflation and a falling dollar has raised the price to $3.87, and speculation is it'll go even higher.
- frankenfag, on 01/18/2008, -0/+4$9.11.
- swimanubis, on 01/18/2008, -0/+3maybe we should just reprice it in euros, gold, or gbp
- fotbr, on 01/17/2008, -1/+4That was years ago. Inflation and a falling dollar has raised the price to $3.87, and speculation is it'll go even higher.
- Infowarmachine, on 01/17/2008, -0/+3"we're in a lot of trouble!"
- dupswapdrop, on 01/17/2008, -2/+5But what about all the gay Republicans out there thinking dirty thoughts?
- buckrogers1965, on 01/18/2008, -0/+2Why do you think so many of these Republicans with skeletons in there closet get the nomination and support from their party? The powers that be like to have something to blackmail their lackeys with to keep them in line.
- kidjay, on 01/17/2008, -0/+9well. i have nothing to hide, but that doesn't mean that my actions wouldn't be construed through some kind of sick fascist looking glass as "wrong."
if thoughtcrime is the only crime that matters...I aim to misbehave. - testcase, on 01/17/2008, -0/+17Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin and all their pals would all be "disappeared" under this legislation, as quick as warrants could be drawn up.
Velcom to Amerika- fyngyrz, on 01/18/2008, -0/+6...no warrants required. Citizens can be declared enemy combatants. Haven't you been following the news?
- testcase, on 01/18/2008, -0/+4Sorry, old habits die hard.
- buckrogers1965, on 01/18/2008, -0/+3Varrants? Ve don't need no stinkin varrants.
- fyngyrz, on 01/18/2008, -0/+6...no warrants required. Citizens can be declared enemy combatants. Haven't you been following the news?
- pimpofpixels, on 01/17/2008, -0/+7losing hope.....
- TrevaLVF, on 01/26/2008, -0/+1Keep the faith, but don't rely on the confused masses for a unified effort to defend our rights. Look in the mirror. That is your savior, your hero as long as you are determined not to be your worse enemy, next to those fascist pigs. You are not alone. Network...quietly, cautiously, wisely, effectively.
- Christianptriot, on 01/17/2008, -3/+10Add to this a few things: the White House has implied that private ownership f firearms is a threat; that the US is somehow moving closer to becoming involved in the EU; the REAL ID act will require national ID cards of all Americans....
How much farther do things have to go before the mainstream of Americans get their heads out of their HDTVs, X-Box's, Internet porn or their stock portfolios long enough to see that this country is being taken over from parties within and outside the US?!?!?!- phenry50BMG, on 01/18/2008, -0/+4Don't worry, they will realize what has happened eventually. As a matter of fact, it is somewhat prophetic in that it was foretold by one of the men who would be targeted by fascist legislation such as this.
Two quotes of Jefferson come to mind. One regarding government and one regarding the true power behind our government - the unFederal Reserve.
"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."
"The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it always to be kept alive."
As our beloved Republic slips through our fingers (those of us who realize that this is a Republic NOT a demoNcracy, we will wake up enslaved by the very grip of tyranny that our FF and all of our brave servicemen gave their lives to protect.
Our FF would be so ashamed of us they wouldn't even acknowledge us as their countrymen. - ascii63, on 01/18/2008, -0/+1What will it take? Petrol @ $6/gallon.
- TrevaLVF, on 01/19/2008, -0/+1"Add to this a few things: the White House has implied that private ownership f firearms is a threat"
I was expecting this to eventually happen since public disarmament really is not that popular among most registered Democratic Party members. I mean, a fascist maniac cannot fully take down and oppress a nation without seeking ways to encourage a climate where he (or she) can say, "We must take the weapons away from those insurgents."
- phenry50BMG, on 01/18/2008, -0/+4Don't worry, they will realize what has happened eventually. As a matter of fact, it is somewhat prophetic in that it was foretold by one of the men who would be targeted by fascist legislation such as this.
- dgh1973, on 01/17/2008, -1/+21That essentially means by digging this you would be breaking the law, and no habeas corpus means no trial for you. Check it out - it's being supported by a Democrat to. You know what that means?
It means Democrat or Republican makes no difference, they all want to turn us into a fascist state. The Internet in the US will probably change as we know it one day soon also, so that people lose their ability to protest on that media and to encourage complete media control... and it will probably be Democrats that try to do that to. Having them do it "softens the blow". Digg me down all you want but pay attention and trust no one.
I'm getting really ***** sick of this *****.- Veritate, on 01/18/2008, -3/+3Okay genius, what law would you be breaking?
- YourDoom123, on 01/18/2008, -2/+4hr 1955...
- StaticThunder, on 01/18/2008, -1/+3You mean the one establishing a committee, that creates no new laws?
- Veritate, on 01/18/2008, -1/+3digging this does nothing to disestablish the committee, so no -- you wouldn't be breaking the law. In fact, you have no way to violate this law.
- YourDoom123, on 01/18/2008, -2/+4hr 1955...
- Veritate, on 01/18/2008, -2/+2That's not what this means.
- Veritate, on 01/18/2008, -3/+3Okay genius, what law would you be breaking?
- antiorblkflag9, on 01/17/2008, -0/+4Dear God.....
- offspring06, on 01/17/2008, -0/+3Welcome to Amerikhastan.
- mercurywaxing, on 01/17/2008, -0/+3Know what I think? I think it's a goddamn great idea. ***Note: message redacted****
- Zlorp, on 01/17/2008, -4/+2WE MUST FIGHT!!!!!!!
EVERYONE start calling international numbers and talking about blowing stuff up. its the only way! they cant detain and torture us all!- hplasm, on 01/18/2008, -0/+2...said Mr Cohen, the finest bespoke tailor in Berlin throughout the 1930's...
- SuckMyDigg, on 01/18/2008, -0/+2Dude, when this bill passes, you're *****.
- TrevaLVF, on 01/19/2008, -0/+2That is exactly what they want us to do! They're trying to push us into doing something reckless and destructive. Go blow stuff up and you're likely to harm and kill innocent people. It happens all the time:
9/11 School kids touring the twin towers, and other tourists just cruising through, not a clue that they were about to die,
Cheney/Bush/Rove/Rumsfeld get their war on, complete with the Shock and Awe show where they have our troops blowing stuff up, which hurts a lot of people, including ones that wanted somebody to save them from Saddam, and others that just wished they could live in peace.
No thanks! I'd rather we do our utmost to outsmart the fascist pigs first.
The Sons of Liberty had King George, his officials and his advisers spinning in circles and going nuts long before muskets and cannons and later rifles were fired. Years before it. At least, they did what they knew to do before the king declared official bloody war.
Ghandi..
Ever heard of his non-violent revolution?
Sun Tzu touched on some good non-violent measures.
Only idiots think to resort first to violence. Prisons and graveyards are full of the ones that carried out those thoughts.
Fight smart and wise.
- tradwolley, on 01/17/2008, -0/+2"barely enough nays -- six, to be exact -- to count on one hand."
Who is writing this, doesn't the sixth finger get in the way?- swimanubis, on 01/18/2008, -0/+1count in binary
- DanOnTheMoon, on 01/17/2008, -4/+10This is exactly what all of the Ron Paul "Spam" is about. Has it taken the partisans this long to figure out that both parties are in kahootz, and that it takes an outside force (like a Libertarian) to derail the corruption? :smh:
http://www.vote-smart.org/index.htm
This above site will tell you who your officials are, if they voted for it, call them, tell them that you're a dues paying member of whatever party they're in and that you're never voting for them again.
Oh, and @Jareth86, Up yours, pal, I've been going to marches, local city unit committee meetings, public functions, private gatherings, and damn near everywhere I go IRL telling people about this, urging them to contact their officials, both elected and unelected, in order to fight this. I've been in the trenches, bub. How about you?- StaticThunder, on 01/18/2008, -6/+5This is my problem with Ron Paul. Automatically, because the current system is broken, ANYONE who comes in with a different idea is instantly considered to be better by the knee-jerk reactionary crowd.
Ron Paul's libertarianism would set up another system just as flawed as the current one, simply replacing one type of lack of liberty with another -- instead of the government being allowed to trample our rights, corporations would be allowed to trample our rights. I'm tired of serving ANY master, I don't want to replace one with another, just because he says his ideas are better. If his ideas were better, we and other countries would already be adopting them.
How many libertarian countries do you know of?- pkonink, on 01/18/2008, -1/+6The main libertarian country I am aware of is the United States of America. Too bad it hasn't been that way for a long time, so many people don't even know what that means. Agree with them or not, our roots, our very existence as a nation is based on the ideals espoused by libertarianism.
- StaticThunder, on 01/18/2008, -4/+1Its hard to get enough libertarians together to agree on one thing in order to have a truly libertarian country. The US was never "libertarian", it was a republic. That implies that no, the individual DOESN'T get a say in government, he gets representation by people smarter than him. Where you get libertarian from a constitutional republic that empowers the government to make treaties, collect taxes, and create laws is beyond me.
Denmark and Iceland have lower infant mortality and higher levels of subjective well-being, and yet they are more socially progressive and less libertarian than we are. That should be telling you something.- pkonink, on 01/18/2008, -1/+4You fail to understand I was talking about the guiding principles of the USA. Being libertarian does not mean simply "small government/no tax" it means you exalt the importance of universal personal liberty and individuality and deny the government the ability to restrict either. That my friend is what the ideals of the USA are all about, despite their perversion over the past several decades.
- StaticThunder, on 01/18/2008, -1/+2You fail to address the pragmatic stance that while your ideas look great on paper, countries that are more socialist are happier, and live longer than we do. I am too afraid that loosing the restrictions on liberties results in corporations running roughshod over the environment, and my personal liberties going out the window because I'm not personally rich enough to protect them. I depend on government to help with that.
I don't want some wonderful ideal just because Adams said it was great. I want a government that works to secure all our well beings for the long term. Minarchism isn't it.
- StaticThunder, on 01/18/2008, -4/+1Its hard to get enough libertarians together to agree on one thing in order to have a truly libertarian country. The US was never "libertarian", it was a republic. That implies that no, the individual DOESN'T get a say in government, he gets representation by people smarter than him. Where you get libertarian from a constitutional republic that empowers the government to make treaties, collect taxes, and create laws is beyond me.
- wojtyk, on 01/18/2008, -1/+0>> instead of the government being allowed to trample our rights, corporations would be allowed to trample our rights.
Corporations can only trample rights if governments allow them to. Unlike with governments, you have the _option_ to not buy a product from a corporation or to start your own business or buy from someone else. Corporations don't have standing armies and policemen ready to bring the pain when you don't do what they want you do. Also, very few monopolies form that aren't born of government regulation/interference (see Comcast).- StaticThunder, on 01/19/2008, -0/+1*****. I can't stop a corporation from dumping toxic waste into a river by not buying from them. Only if everyone does it. But everyone doesn't live by the river, so everyone doesn't give a *****. How often do we have to go through what only caring about the next quarters profits does to society before you corporate-statists get it?
And if a corporation wanted a standing army, it would simply buy it. After all, the government can't restrict your freedom to be hired to bear arms, now can it.
- StaticThunder, on 01/19/2008, -0/+1*****. I can't stop a corporation from dumping toxic waste into a river by not buying from them. Only if everyone does it. But everyone doesn't live by the river, so everyone doesn't give a *****. How often do we have to go through what only caring about the next quarters profits does to society before you corporate-statists get it?
- pkonink, on 01/18/2008, -1/+6The main libertarian country I am aware of is the United States of America. Too bad it hasn't been that way for a long time, so many people don't even know what that means. Agree with them or not, our roots, our very existence as a nation is based on the ideals espoused by libertarianism.
- StaticThunder, on 01/18/2008, -4/+5Here are some of Ron Paul's wonderful ideas:
Don't allow human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
Don't expand research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)
Ban gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)
A Constitutional Amendment for school prayer. (May 1997)
Schools to "Present scientific facts that support creationism"
Equal funds for teaching abstinence as contraceptive based education
And this is the change you want? The government in your bedroom? The government deciding what roads publicaly funded scientists can follow based on religion? Hell, just eliminate public funding for science. The corporations will take care of basic research, right before they patent it. Religion in schools? Abstinence education instead of functional birth control education?
I have choice words for Ron Paul. Get the ***** out of my government.- wojtyk, on 01/18/2008, -1/+0Ah yes, the good ol strong argument of "vague bullet point list".
You're deluded, and a fool. If you did _any_ research at all on the bills these bullet points refer to and _any_ research on the candidate, you'd see why he voted like he did.
Ron Paul is called "Dr. No" for a reason...he's a strict constitutionalist, believing the federal government only has the powers _explicitly_ granted to it via our Constitution.
This is how our country was _meant_ to be run. Otherwise, the Constitution is little more than toilet paper. To address your laundry list of concerns there (concentrate on the words "federal money/funding/financing"):
>> Don't allow human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/05/24/stem.cells/
"The House then overwhelmingly passed a Republican-backed proposal that would use federal money to study stem cells taken from adults and umbilical cord blood, instead of using human embryos."
>> Don't expand research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/08/washington/08ste ...
"legislation aimed at easing restrictions on federal financing of embryonic stem cell research"
>> Ban gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999) > A Constitutional Amendment for school prayer. (May 1997)
Constitutional Amendments are the _proper_ way to petition for change within the federal government. And they're hard as _hell_ to pass too, with good reason.
This particular May 1997 occurrence was a _resolution_ that never even made it to a Congressional vote.
>> Schools to "Present scientific facts that support creationism" / Equal funds for teaching abstinence as contraceptive based education
Show me ANY vote that illustrates Ron Paul attempting to push these beliefs onto the nation (ie I don't give a damn what he personally believes...just how he VOTES)
>> I have choice words for Ron Paul. Get the ***** out of my government.
He stays the ***** out of your life, leaving you to live the way you damn well please. He has no interest in your bedroom, scientific funding, religion in schools, or abstinence education, short of saying "NO" to all of them when put before a Congressional vote. Get off your ignorant high horse and do some REAL research instead of the 10 seconds you spent on ontheissues.org- wojtyk, on 01/18/2008, -1/+0Meh, the damn comment got cut off...here's my reply to the "Ban gay adoption" bullet, which was HORRIBLY misnamed:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_19 ...
"would have stopped the District of Columbia from using federal dollars to promote adoptions by couples not related by blood or marriage." - StaticThunder, on 01/19/2008, -1/+1Vague? Look up the votes.
Doesn't believe in evolution, wants to get rid of government -- equal time for abstinence. Yeah, I don't want him. I happen to like my government.I've done plenty of research. He's a libertarian republican. I don't LIKE THEM.
- wojtyk, on 01/18/2008, -1/+0Meh, the damn comment got cut off...here's my reply to the "Ban gay adoption" bullet, which was HORRIBLY misnamed:
- StaticThunder, on 01/19/2008, -1/+1My ignorant high horse. No, your ignorant bias. Cord blood sucks as a stem cell source for research, votes like that have crippled American science, regardless of how lauded whatever "look we made stem cells from my own spleen" research came out. He's a conservative libertarian, through and through. I don't want him running government. Sure, return abortion to the states where Roe v. Wade doesn't play out. Great. States rights when it suits our conservative agenda.
- wojtyk, on 01/18/2008, -1/+0Ah yes, the good ol strong argument of "vague bullet point list".
- StaticThunder, on 01/18/2008, -6/+5This is my problem with Ron Paul. Automatically, because the current system is broken, ANYONE who comes in with a different idea is instantly considered to be better by the knee-jerk reactionary crowd.
- waspbr, on 01/17/2008, -0/+10Dunno about you guys, but I am really sick of the word terrorist and terrorism being thrown around all the time.
- buckrogers1965, on 01/18/2008, -0/+1Can't you think of the children? /sarcasm
- havokzero, on 01/17/2008, -0/+6DIGGERS, TAKE ACTION!
It couldn't be simpler... just write your states' senators NOW and tell them why you are opposed to it. Google each of the senators and you will find an email address.
Stand up for your rights!- insanebrain, on 01/18/2008, -0/+4Do you really think that 'Diggers' can take action ?? As long as the biggest part of the AS of U assumes that the government is in control. . nothing will change.
ps : The government was given power by the people. . but people forgot that they can take it back if they want. - Izult, on 01/18/2008, -0/+8I HAVE written my congressman. You know what he said?
"The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 was introduced by Congresswoman Jane Harman (CA) to prevent homegrown terrorism. Specifically, H.R. 1955 would direct the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to establish a university-based Center of Excellence for the Study of Violent Radicalization and Homeland Terrorism in the United States. The bill establishes a commission to investigate the causes of terrorist acts committed by persons raised or living in the United States. It also requires DHS to prepare reports on certain issues relating to domestic terrorism.
Ideologically-based violence and homegrown terrorism is a serious threat in the United States. In particular, the Internet has facilitated ideologically-based violence and homegrown terrorism by providing access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to individuals who wish to harm Americans. Unfortunately, this sometimes includes those who have been born and raised in our country.
I understand and appreciate your concerns with this legislation; however, I respectfully disagree that this bill, if implemented, will violate civil liberties. I voted for H.R. 1955 when it was passed by the House of Representatives on October 23, 2007, by a vote of 404 to 6 because I believe it will provide necessary and valuable tools to prevent radicalization within the United States and enhance security against the threat posed by violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism. H.R. 1955 has been referred to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Reform where it awaits further consideration.
Although we disagree on this particular issue, I respect your opinion and have been an outspoken advocate for protecting civil liberties. As Congress continues to debate the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act, I will keep your concerns in mind."
That's our illustrious David Wu for you. I felt like was just patted on the head and told to go ask grandma for a cookie.- pkonink, on 01/18/2008, -0/+7And you were patted on the head by a automated mail server script written by an aide.
- SuckMyDigg, on 01/18/2008, -0/+1I posted my reply down below as well. Very similar. Funny since we're from completely different districts, let alone states.
- TrevaLVF, on 01/26/2008, -0/+1Just write them? Who? I live in Texas now. You know, right-wing fascists that believe in incest as the best way to prevent cross-breeding (inter-racial mating and reproduction). Appeal to them and expect the desired response?
No way!
But maybe we can use the fact that a Dem. did it this time to rally all those partisan Republicans to demand that this never happen. It could be one way for us to bring to their awareness that it's been coming from both sides of the partisan dividers for a very long time.
I'd write my Senator, or US State Rep. if he was Dennis Kucinich.
- insanebrain, on 01/18/2008, -0/+4Do you really think that 'Diggers' can take action ?? As long as the biggest part of the AS of U assumes that the government is in control. . nothing will change.
- Wren5, on 01/17/2008, -8/+3God damnit people. We went through this like a month ago. Go read the actual text. Yes it uses some definitions that are a little bit vague, but they aren't intended to be used for making anything illegal; the definitions are just a general pointer to what a committee/center should study. And that, in fact, is the only thing that this bill does -- establish a committee and a center to study the idea. I, for one, don't mind the idea of the government having some kind of clue on these issues.
Summary for the short-attention-spanned: THE BILL DOES NOTHING BUT ESTABLISH A COMMITTEE/CENTER, NOTHING NEW IS ILLEGAL.- insanebrain, on 01/18/2008, -2/+3Please. . stop posting and keep on sleeping.
- StaticThunder, on 01/18/2008, -3/+4Please, keep drinking the cool-aid.
- chrisatwork, on 01/18/2008, -0/+1Its cool to drink the cool-aid.
- StaticThunder, on 01/18/2008, -3/+4Please, keep drinking the cool-aid.
- insanebrain, on 01/18/2008, -2/+3Please. . stop posting and keep on sleeping.
- tufftugg, on 01/17/2008, -1/+8So happy I am not an American citizen/terrorist.
- oMeSSiaHo, on 01/17/2008, -7/+5This is what I dont get. Ron Paul supporters keep telling me he is the only answer to protect my liberties. Yet when it comes time to do his job (protect my liberties) he's busy looking for a promotion.
Dont give me this "his vote wouldnt matter" ***** because actions speak louder then words, and so far words are all I see from that guy.- insanebrain, on 01/18/2008, -3/+3Since when do you believe politicians ??
- BDOUG, on 01/18/2008, -2/+3So he screwed up once, big deal. He has a stellar voting record in the House, and his attendance is far better than many.
- SuckMyDigg, on 01/18/2008, -0/+1Actually his voting record is piss poor. I signed up to Washington Watch's rss feed about 6 months ago specifically to see how he was voting as he campaigns around the country. I can't even recall 5 bills he actually voted on. I love the guy but he's really not doing squat in Congress now.
- buckrogers1965, on 01/18/2008, -0/+1Yeah, because his one no vote was going to make a difference. Or not.
- Goodanswer, on 01/18/2008, -0/+1You haven't researched all the bills and legislature he has introduced or even put on the floor have you?
hmmm libertarian candidate trying to save our liberties.. sounds more promising than a warmongering McCain or a bible thumping constitution changing huckabee or a I have no idea what to do let me ask my lawyers Romney. - beakre, on 01/18/2008, -0/+0Ron Paul was one of the few who opposed this. Look it up.
He will also oppose other crap like it they have in the works for the country, such as taking our guns, tracking chipped ID cards, North American Union etc. If you want freedom, you will vote for him. Otherwise you WILL be living in "1984" world.
- gonzo1773, on 01/17/2008, -1/+5This is just stupid. The last thing this country needs is yet another dubious law designed to restrict our liberties and frighten us into believing bad people are hiding around the corner. My senators are going to hear from me on this one.
- havokzero, on 01/18/2008, -3/+18This is what Ron Paul said regarding HR 1955 on the floor of the house:
“The legislation specifically singles out the Internet for facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process in the United States. Such language may well be the first step toward US government regulation of what we are allowed to access on the Internet. Are we, for our own good, to be subjected to the kind of governmental control of the Internet that we see in unfree societies? This bill certainly sets us on that course.”- Veritate, on 01/18/2008, -5/+1Please provide a reference for that.
- fyngyrz, on 01/18/2008, -0/+6http://www.dailypaul.com/node/11769
- TrevaLVF, on 01/19/2008, -0/+1If he said this, I see another area where he and Kucinich are in agreement, and also friends.
- Veritate, on 01/18/2008, -5/+1Please provide a reference for that.
- Scheissen, on 01/18/2008, -10/+1***** libtards.
- StaticThunder, on 01/18/2008, -0/+7***** trolls.
- skews13, on 01/18/2008, -0/+13so if a majority of americans decide they want to overthrow the government. who are the terrorists?
- hplasm, on 01/18/2008, -0/+6That may well be THE deciding question. The Rubicon crosser, if you will.
- TrevaLVF, on 01/19/2008, -0/+1That reminds me of Michael Ruppert's book, "Crossing the Rubicon."
- TrevaLVF, on 01/19/2008, -0/+1So if the patriots decide to overthrow the fascists that are abusing their positions inside the PEOPLE's government, and have seized power while chipping away at the laws intended to protect and empower the People, then the fascists would predictably call the patriots the terrorists. In this, I see very little difference between how the fascist plutocrats here today view the freedom - loving American patriots of our generation, to how King George III, his loyal officials, and the Tories viewed the Sons and Daughters of Liberty and the American Revolutionaries that fought to defend the new and first 13 United States of America (formerly known as the 13 American Colonies.)
We're certainly doing our utmost to start as the Sons of Liberty had. We petition and send letters; the Sons of Liberty did the same. We demonstrate, circulate information and rally the people to ACT, as did the Sons of Liberty. We encourage boycotts and other ways to get around the economic and trade war-strategies used to control us and, if they see fit, to break us, as did the Sons and Daughters of Liberty that tried non-violent means to protest against unpopular and unfair policies of that foreign king, before they started talking about independence from a royal, distant and foreign throne.
- hplasm, on 01/18/2008, -0/+6That may well be THE deciding question. The Rubicon crosser, if you will.
- insanebrain, on 01/18/2008, -0/+8I think it's time to give the statue of liberty back to France.
- TrevaLVF, on 01/19/2008, -0/+1I think, it's time to keep the statue and send the fascists on a one-way trip to a prison camp with no special treatment and provisions.
- RomanticStorm, on 01/18/2008, -0/+4This is not the end of this issue; if it doesn't 'pass' then it will re-emerge in another bill as part of a 'package', perhaps a newly homegrown radicalized 'crime bill'. The answer? 1789
- greevar, on 01/18/2008, -0/+13I'd rather die on my feet by a terrorist then live on my knees as a slave.
- tgc1, on 01/18/2008, -0/+1I admire those words, when spoken. But I fear we've already lost the game my friend. From our birth to our deaths. We are slaves. We earn money that is created by banks, we are at their mercy. If you haven't seen down the rabbit hole yet, better take a look. We are slaves. And there ain't a God Damned thing we can do about it. Not that I can figure anyway. Sorry.
- Samurai77, on 01/18/2008, -0/+1Right on Brother!
- TrevaLVF, on 01/19/2008, -0/+1The words of a true freedom-loving American patriot!
- rabidmonkey1, on 01/18/2008, -0/+3For more info on this bill, check out this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wJsovPRTEM
- birddog981, on 01/18/2008, -2/+1this sounds bad...
but who has actually read it? - bingobongony, on 01/18/2008, -7/+1So says alternet. So I have nothing to worry about. Their track record for accuracy is not good. Around 0%.
-
Show 51 - 80 of 80 discussions
